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?
Your comments have value and are indeed worthy of serious consideration.
No they won't. Buchanan already ran in 2000 and the republicans still won.
They need to add that in the Paelocon definition.