[Dr. Frank fan]

I think the term is something less than what I would call terminology. It is first, of all, a coined word--

no argument there. It still, by coinage and original usage, has a definition that's more precise than "Bad People We Hate"

which has several different meanings to contemporary Americans

This may be so but that's partially due to the term being hijacked, used incorrectly, used as all-purpose label for Bad People, etc., which is what the author (and I) seeks to correct

There is first of all, the obvious one of a someone newly conservative. That is a somewhat useful one.

In fact that's what it actually means. I know a lotta people want another word which means "Bad People We Hate", but neo-conservative already has a definition, you can't just alter it at will.

As for the implied notion that "neo-cons" are some sort of misunderstood minority within the American political spectrum, that seems pretty paranoid to me.

You misunderstood. That's not what I said.

There are "neo-cons", but lots of people being called "neo-cons" aren't even "neo-cons" in the first place. (the article mentions Jay Nordlinger..) The point is not that the group "neo-cons" is being misunderstood, the point is that people are taking the group "Those With Whom I Disagree About Iraq War" and slapping the term "neo-con" onto them, whether or not this is appropriate.

And the article in question, does not add any sanity to any issue.

To each his own.

I think it is a much-needed article because it's quite obvious to me that tons of people are using the word "neo-con" towards others and don't actually know JACK SQUAT about what it means. In their mind it means no more/less than "Bad People I Disagree With"

honestly: don't think think that's a BAD development, BAD usage of a term?

[Austin Willard Wright]

The term is used loosely but unfortunately so are a lot of other terms such as anti-war. Most conservatives have developed amenesia, for example, about their strong antiwar stance on Kosovo and have highly placed allies in the state department, chiefly Wolfowitz.

The key problem I have with article is that Fields implies that those who use the term imply a Jewish conspiracy. This is a smear, a la Al Sharpton. Most who use the term do not and instead refer to people associated with the Weekly Standard crowd, most of whom have supported a Wilsonian approach since the end of the Cold War. There are plenty of Jews on both sides of this divide.

In contrast to most conservatives who opposed the Kosovo war, for example, neo-cons supported it. Kristol even threatened to bolt the GOP because of its "isolationism"