[Torie]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn. As the article says, the neocon point of view is currently dominant in the Republican party, at least at the level of those that wield real power. Thus Pat was right to exit from the party, and should remain exited. To consider paleos and neos are folks that can possibly be in the same party, and break bread together, is ludicrous.

[rightofrush]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn.

Your honesty is appreciated, and reinforces this paleo-con's view that neo-cons and the international globalists (redundancy?) are our enemies within.

[wheezer]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn.

As a conservative, although I may agree with neocons on some issues, I know from watching them operate that they are not to be trusted.

Watching their boy (John McCain), in action only convinces me that I am correct in my distrust.

[Ohioan]

You identify yourself as a "neocon," a term which appears a bit of an oxymoron, unless you mean only that you are newly converted the the Conservative position. The alternative idea, that there is a new form of Conservatism makes much less sense. Conservatism is about preserving tradition; traditional values, traditional forms; traditional associations, manners, culture, etc.. My point was that we should not let a lack of complete agreement on all of those, prevent our working together with other conservatives, wherever possible. You respond that you are in total disagreement with certain other Conservatives.

It seems to me that you have then merely claimed "Conservatism" as a key to respectability, with no real commitment to the preservation of traditional America. If I do you an injustice, perhaps you will point out where. I believe that Conservatism is a rather "broad tent," and do not want to exclude anybody who is basically on our side, so if you have Conservative principles, I will be happy to work with you to effectuate those principles, even as I will disdain your non-Conservative stands on other issues. I am not trying to expel you from anything.

Your comments on the Republican Party also make me wonder, however, at your Conservatism. The Republican Party since its Conservative rally in 1994 has tended to drift back to the pre-Goldwater "Modern Republicanism," which basically went along with the New Deal concepts, with a "me-to" but a little slower approach. That was not really conservatism, and to the extent that it was more Conservative than Roosevelt or Kennedy and Johnson, it is certainly not "neo" or new in any sense.

Republican Conservatism was represented in the 1940s and early 1950s by Senators Taft and Bricker of Ohio; in the late 1950s and early 1960s by Senator Goldwater; in the 1970s and 1980s by Ronald Reagan. That was not "neo-Conservatism," either, but a revival of traditional American values--the real thing.

Pat Buchanan was part of that Conservative revival. If he has strayed a bit on some issues, he has still served those genuine Conservative values more consistently than have the heirs to those "Modern Republicans," who were really much closer to New Deal "liberals," than the Conservative wings of either party.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Pelham]

I am sorry, but like most neocons I don't agree with Buchanan on anything. I consider him an invariable political opponent, to be resisted at every turn.

Of course you do. Liberals have always hated conservatives like Buchanan. Neocons are nothing more than Cold War Liberals, who having lost the Democrat Party to a harder left, now wield power in the GOP and masquerade as "neoconservatives".