Why Neo-Conservatives Are not Real Conservatives

self

[redrock]

"1. Real conservatives (whether Old Rightists or New Rightists) are motivated by high moral principles and deep conviction, that the role of government in people's lives should be minimized, and people should be allowed to run their own lives. But Neo- conservatives are actually liberals and Marxists who pretend to be conservatives, and are motivated by nothing more than opportunism and hypocrisy, and have no moral principles worthy of mention."

In that one paragraph is the entire difference between the old Republican Party...and that new piece of trash they now call the Republican Party.

No wonder I have a difficult time even trying to vote for them.

redrock

[Mr. Mojo]

Point taken on the size of the old parks. Some were immense, some were small, and some were both at the same time (like the Polo Grounds).

I'd estimate that steroid use in baseball is somewhere between the obviously exaggerated numbers than Canseco threw out a couple of months ago (70%+) and the 2%-4% figure that Selig's minions like tell us. Anyway, it's a problem. Bonds' round face and 35 lb weight gain just happened to coincide with his renaissance? No coincidence. The guy's balls are probably the size of peas by now.

Imo, a far greater factor in the ungodly power #'s put up these days than the new training techniques you mentioned is the diluted pitching (due to super-expansion). I see guys out there today pitching with $3 million+/yr contracts that wouldn't have made triple-A a couple of decades ago.

[malakhi]

Alan Greenspan? Randian? In what universe?

This one. Do a google search on Alan Greenspan Ayn Rand and see what you come up with.

[malakhi]

1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?

No. It turned our nation from one of limited government to one of essentially unlimited government.

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

Ron Paul.

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

I think this is a great idea.

[malakhi]

There are plenty of liberal programs, statutes and policies which are perfectly appropriate under the documents set forth by the founding fathers

I'll agree with you if they are enacted on the state level. But can you give me an example of one on a national level that fits this description? I can't think of any.

[malakhi]

--A Republican is for tax cuts first and never criticizes Bush. Lott is a Republican.
--A RINO is for abortion first and never criticizes Kerry. McCain is a RINO.
--A Neo-Con is for Israel first and never criticizes Sharon. Kristol is a Neo-con.
--A Conservative is for America first and criticizes both Bush and Sharon. Buchanan is a Conservative.

And I'm a Jewish paleo-con. Go figure.

[BluesDuke]

Imo, a far greater factor in the ungodly power #'s put up these days than the new training techniques you mentioned is the diluted pitching (due to super-expansion). I see guys out there today pitching with $3 million+/yr contracts that wouldn't have made triple-A a couple of decades ago.

People tend to forget - and mind you, I wasn't in favour of the 1990s expansions at all - that a) to the extent that pitching is or isn't "diluted," any such dilution tends to balance out and recuperate in a very short time. At this writing, for example, there is a chance that the season will end with (you can look it up) eight 20-game winning pitchers, and the league ERAs are down considerably enough from the last few seasons. The National League ERA as of today: 3.78. The American League's: 4.03. Both down enough from last season. (The split is just about right, considering the American League's DH rule.)

What no one cares much to address is one of the actual factors that did cut into pitching for a long enough time: the insane takeaway of the inside part of the plate, which I notice enough umpires this year are trying to do again after a period of enough pitchers taking the inside part of the plate back. That began well enough before the 1990s, I'm afraid. There are umps who will run a pitcher if all he does is paint the inside black, never mind go so far in as to almost nick a batter. Take away the inside strikes and you might as well give the hitters nine-inning batting practise. But that is what has been done long enough, even with no few pitchers this year doing what they could to take the inside part of the plate back.

[malakhi]

The kind of man who demands that government enforce his ideas is always the kind whose ideas are idiotic.

Love it!

[nopardons]

You're sooooooooooooooooo out in left field, with this garbage, that it's a wonder you can even imagine that you're a Conservative.

Okay, smarty, Ronald Reagan is a neo-con. Now, tell me how he fits your ridiculous mold.

Maybe it's long past time, for some FREEPERS, who delusionally imagine that they are Conservatives ( as welll as the only arbotors wof WHO is and WHO is not a Conservative or a Republican ) to realize that they aren't Conservative at all and that they neither know, nor understand politics .

[logician2u]

. . membership of approx. a million.

In Texas, maybe.

Never more than 50,000 nationally. (But who can say, since Robert Welch is dead and he's supposedly the only one who had the list.)

I think you've been reading too many pamphlets from the SPLC and the ADL, Tex.

In the real world of politics, which I was a part of for many years, the JBS had about squat influence over the Republican Party, even though two or three JBS-ers have held elective office in the past. John Rousselot was one I remember, and by today's standards he'd be an extremist I'm sure. He actually thought we should abolish the IRS, get out of the UN and stop all foreign aid. What heresy to the party of Lincoln!

Oh, and don't forget Larry McDonald.

Since you don't live in Georgia maybe McDonald is not on your radar screen.

He most definitely was on the Soviets'. He was a passenger on KAL flight 007 shot down over Sakhalin in 1983. I'm sure the Urinal-Constipation will publish some kind of a tribute next year on the 20th anniversary. After all, he was their kind of Congressman -- a Democrat.

[malakhi]

even with no few pitchers this year doing what they could to take the inside part of the plate back.

Heheh... I watched the Yankees-Devil Rays game the other night, when Clemons was pitching. I don't recall who was up to bat, be he tried to bunt on Clemons. Clemons got this pissed-off expression on his face, and the next pitch was a fastball inside, forcing the batter to jump back. There are still a few old-school pitchers around! ;o)

[nopardons]

You should be described as a CINO , who doesn't know enough, to even begin to attempt to write such a vanity; ridculous and full of holes, as it is.

Ronald Reagan IS a neo-con. He was singing the praises of FDR, when he was still making public speeches. Yet, YOU saw fit to put him in the Conservative patheon, at the same time, that you claimed that fruads and liberals ONLY praised FRD and the " New Deal " .

Alan Keyes, on several ( many ) occassions, has used the " racists " label / pulled the race card, claimed " victimhood " and yet, you say that only PC brainwashed garbage uses such terms. REALLY ?

The crazy Libertarians named. are NOT Conservatives and are so far from your descriptions, not all of which are credible, for TRUE Conservatism, that one has to wonder at the level of your ego / hubris, that you should ever imagine that you have the intellect to write such a vanity at all. You don't know enough facts, about the people nor the topic, that you have delusionally decided that you are " expert " in. You aren't even a bantum weight, yet you are pontificating . THat's really too, too funny for words. LOL

Before YOU start vcalling anyone a " pseudo-conservative ", you'd best learn factual history and stop relying on your " feelings ", dear.

Oh, and before you even begin to assume that I am a neo-con, pack that in. I was a CONSERVATIVE, before you ever got out of diapers, I bet. I also know history, facts, and polictics better than you do.

[Mr. Mojo]

I totally agree with your observation concerning the inside of the plate. Hitters are all too aware of this of course, and are crowding the plate like never before because of it. I've seen actual strikes thrown - ball travels over plate - where the hitters have a cow about being thrown at and the ump issues a warning. This development (of taking away the inside strike) may very well have begun before the 90's, but the hitters' crowding of the plate didn't seem to become a common occurence until the mid-90's (when, coincidentally, the power #'s skyrocketed).

[Mr. Mojo]

A lot of your definitions of the difference between the varieties of American conservatives seem to revolve around Israel and Ariel Sharon. A little obsessed, are you?

[BluesDuke]

There are still a few old-school pitchers around! ;o)

For which this baseball fan is grateful eternally, even if he also acknowledges there are those who periodically cross the line between old school and eternal dementia. Roger Clemens, occasionally, is such a line-crosser, but then I thought Bobby Valentine was a wimp for utter failure to have his Mets give the Yankees what for the inning after Clemens tried to shish-kebab Mike Piazza with that jagged-ended broken bat barrel. I would have had my pitchers instructed before the game that any rough stuff from Clemens and I want the hottest hitter in the Yankee lineup and the DH (since it happened in Yankee Stadium) going on their ass immediately, and if the ump is fool enough to run you we will pick you up a hundred percent.

I still thought how delicious it was earlier this year, in an interleague game, when Shawn Estes - under enough pressure for a fortnight to be ready to put Clemens on his ass hitting in Shea Stadium - split the difference and threw it behind Clemens. It drew the usual warning...but it took the weapon right out of Clemens's hand, and the Mets went on to drub the Yankees in that game, 8-1. (Hell, Estes himself practically started the bombardment, going yard off The Rocket himself shortly after pitching one behind him.) Unfortunately, Valentine is baseball's ADD manager: He never remembers what works from day to day. If he'd had his Mets playing that kind of sound, hard, balanced, take-no-prisoners ball all the time and not just when Roger Clemens was in the yard, the Mets might have been the NL East winners.

I went to Dodger Stadium in May to watch the Cubs play the Dodgers. Kevin Brown pitched for the Dodgers and dropped Sammy Sosa twice in the same at bat, for whatever reason. First one was just bending Sosa back, but the second one dropped him faster than an elevator on the hundredth floor snapping its cables. I'm guessing it was ancient payback, since Brown hadn't pitched much over the previous year. And, since he was fool enough to rush back from last year's elbow surgery and injured his back playing with his kids at home, Brown didn't pitch much this year, either.

[malakhi]

Hell, Estes himself practically started the bombardment, going yard off The Rocket himself shortly after pitching one behind him.

Which was probably a more effective retaliation than the behind-the-back pitch was.

And, since he was fool enough to rush back from last year's elbow surgery and injured his back playing with his kids at home, Brown didn't pitch much this year, either.

Which is one of the reasons the Dodgers are sitting in third. Hard to win down the stretch with three starters out. The NL seems to be completely up for grabs this year, but the Giants have been the hot team the past few weeks. We may see another Bay series this year.

[BluesDuke]

I totally agree with your observation concerning the inside of the plate. Hitters are all too aware of this of course, and are crowding the plate like never before because of it. I've seen actual strikes thrown - ball travels over plate - where the hitters have a cow about being thrown at and the ump issues a warning. This development (of taking away the inside strike) may very well have begun before the 90's, but the hitters' crowding of the plate didn't seem to become a common occurence until the mid-90's (when, coincidentally, the power #'s skyrocketed).

It's easy enough to forget, but the hitters were actually beginning to crowd the plate back to the early 1980s. As a matter of fact, no less than Greg Maddux to this day talks about how amazed he was when he first pitched in the National League, in 1987, to see how many hitters were all over the plate and able to drive the outside ball, with the umpires all but ready to fan the pitcher's behind if he even thought about coming inside.

Rickey Henderson, for one, was choking off the inside part of the plate from the word go. At least, he did until he got a little message at the beginning of the first exhibition game of spring training in 1989: the Yankees visited the Mets for an exhibition game, when Henderson was still in the Pinstripes. He led off against Dwight Gooden and took his usual plate-crowding, almost-a-catcher's-crouch batting stance...and Gooden zipped one right under his chin, snapping Henderson practically to attention. On the first pitch, yet. Even the Yankees were impressed at that kind of nerve. Said Don Mattingly: "You want to talk about wake-up time!"

Gooden, by the way, threw the single most surreal knockdown pitch I have ever seen, against his old buddy Floyd Youmans, when Youmans was pitching for the Expos. Youmans had been brushing a few too many Mets back, so he got a little message from his high-school pal his first time up at the plate. The Doctor fired one that dropped Youmans so fast his loose-fitting batting helmet was still aloft when the ball flew over the falling Youmans's head.

[jstone78]

Nice quotes from H. L. Mencken. But Mencken could never have survived in the politically-correct climate of the last 30 years. Mencken is after all, regarded by some of today's intellectuals as an "anti-semite": http://www.c-spanstore.com/10797.html

I wonder how today's neo-con pundits would have treated Mencken. Would he have been hammered "Pat Buchanan style"?

[nopardons]

Gee, newbie, who joined FR 9/25/02 , here to bash Conservatives, are you ? Wrong forum ! Got lost, on your way to DU; did you ?