[steadfastconservative]

I think that the categories of "paleo-con" and "neo-con" are too broad and, therefore, that they are not accurate. Moreover, Wickipedia is not an accurate website. Anyone can come in and edit its content.

I happen to agree with most of the beliefs that Wickipedia attributes to the "paleo-cons," such as traditional values and limited government. But I support the War in Iraq and I oppose protectionism. So what am I?

I think that "neo-con" is just a convenient little label that the Buchananites are using to slap on any Republican who doesn't agree with their isolationist foreign policy.

Finally, if the Buchananites want to form a third party, they will guarantee the election of a Democrat president in 2008. Does anyone at FR honestly think that electing Hillary, Kerry, or any other Democrat in 2008 would be good for our country? Or does punishing "neo-cons" take precedence over doing what is best for America?

[FerdieMurphy]

Your comments have value and are indeed worthy of serious consideration.

[staytrue]

if the Buchananites want to form a third party, they will guarantee the election of a Democrat president in 2008.

No they won't. Buchanan already ran in 2000 and the republicans still won.

[processing please hold]

But I support the War in Iraq.

They need to add that in the Paelocon definition.