Posted on 07/27/2010 3:25:02 PM PDT by techno
But how exactly do you figure "Honorable Gov. Palin" who quit after half her term?
Swore an oath, did she not? Failed to meet that oath, did she not?
His description is that they were social liberals, fiscal conservatives, i.e. Democrats with stock holdings.
They morphed into the anti-American globalist redistributionist RINOs who have wrecked the Republican Party's middle class coalition that Ronald Reagan brought together to win in 1980 and 1984.
It was so annoying. Even Megan did a little eye roll at one point as he broke in while she was in the middle of making her point.
He's just unwatchable!
She swore to not quit?
What the hell are you talking about?
Sarah Palin is pulling together a similar coalition, and quite possibility to include a few more factions that Reagan never won.
I watched that argument being used in the late 1970s, I was young enough then that I was troubled a little by the fact that the left desperately wanted Reagan to be the Republican nominee.
Tpaw?
The era of small government is over?
Global warming is real?
We need universal healthcare?
I don’t think he’s your guy.
*The poster that holds that record claims the post was not anti-Palin, but we are awarding a temporary first until someone goes off at #4.
LLS
Please add me to your list.
Uh, I'd say the record is at post #1 where a few months ago it was written, "FUSP".
I'd say that was pretty anti-Palin!
Neo-Conservatives are big government conservatives. They want to better manage the welfare state, not dissasseble it. I think they are probably pretty close to the term Rockefeller Republican that was used in the 1960s.
Few of them would look with kindness on the Barry Goldwater candidacy of 1964. They now have adopted Reagan.
The term neo-conservative was coined by Irving Kristol who was Williams father. The founders were famously described as “Liberals who had been mugged by reality”. While not opposed to a lot of the basic liberal social policy of the times (late 1960s) they were very opposed to the lack-luster support for the Cold War and tacit support for communism that the Democrats were just starting to embrace with national politicians like McCarthy, McGovern, and others of that ilk.
They therefore left the Liberal establishment and became neo-conservatives. Many made more-or-less common cause with William Buckley at that time. Buckley had created the post-war conservatism by rejecting from the movement those older conservatives who supported isolationism, as well as those he considered too rabid (like John Birch Society) and all those considered anti-semitic.
Given that many of the founders of Neo-conservatism were Jewish, they were already welcome in this newer group. The three pillars of Buckley’s conservatism were: strong anti-communist policy, including strong active defense, free market economics and support for traditional social mores. For instance in 1964 Buckley opposed the Civil Rights act, for reasons similar to those Rand Paul recently tried to explain.
The neos always were even more focused on the anti-communism and military part, supportives in a general way of the free markets part, and downplayed the social conservative part.
The focus on Anti-Communism was transferred by the neo-cons, led by Kristol, to a focus on anti-Islamic terrorism before and after 9/11. George Bush’ top advisors included notable neo-cons Condi Rice, Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, and Elliot Abrams.
Because so many of the prominent neo-cons are Jews it has been used, at times, as a polite code-word for “Jewish Influence”. I don’t use it in this way, because there are many non-Jewish neo-cons, and the majority of Jews are not neo-cons.
Neo-con, to me is a pretty clear and accurate description of one variation of conservatism that is active today. The others would be “paleo-conservatism” (throwback to the pre-WW2 era, which would include people like Pat Buchanan, Taki, and even Ron Paul. Social conservatism and libertarianism (which overlaps with the Paleos a bit) are the other two.
Pat Buchanan has spent much of his political career arguing with and belittling the neo-cons. He opposed the Iraq war as unnecessary (but supported Bush once it had begun.) Kristol, Perle et al. were the main architects of the war.
Buchanans autobiography is titled “Right from the Begining”, itself a dig at the neos.
In general I consider most of FR to be neocon oriented. There was overwhelmig support for Iraq here. There is a view that Islam is the biggest threat to the world.
JimRob, our host, is not a fan of the Paleo’s much and doesn’t allow many leading Paleo publications to be posted from here. The main reason I see for this is: many paleos consider themselves “race realists” and will talk fankly about problems with the black minority in America in ways that make liberals and neo-cons uncomfortable.
Many Paleos also agree that the neos are overfocused on Israel at the expense of America. They view Iraq, at least in part being a scam by mostly Jewish intellectuals to convince American (through Bush) to fight Israel’s wars for her.
Many neos (non Jewish ones) are strong supporters of Israel and find this whole line of discussion rude and anti-semitic. Many neos belong to so-called Christian-Zionist denominations that strongly support Israel and America supporting Israel (Rev. Haggee being the most famous), based on their interpretation of scripture, particularly prophecy.
Hope this helps.
Of course...Irving was an interesting intellectual back in the day..I was talking about the modern use of the term.
As far as SP goes..imo, she is not running. She stepped down to test the waters, and she may still be undecided. But joining Fox instead of traveling overseas showed me that she has decided to wait.
BUT, maybe some are trying to talk her into running now because the atmosphere is so bad for Hussein.
Who knows!
Here is a site you might want to visit
Go there. Stay there. Stop darkening this forum with your presence. You are a Palin hater and you are the enemy.
So Tim Pawlenty is the choice of the “paleo” crowd?
Yeah, pobably not. The "era of small government is over" quote maybe out of context. The thing is, it's true! Where is small government? If he has bought into the full AGW Cap and trade that's a show stopper for me.
I'm not sure how we fix healthcare. I am one of those people who think it's broken. Obama made a bad system worse. Perhaps it was designed to do that to force us to true British style sooner?
I have not seen any really compelling answers for a true free-market healthcare reform.
As Medicare and Medicaid are two of the programs bankrupting the USA something needs to be done. Pawlenty saying he's for universal healthcare might not be that bad.
What does Palin say? She's good at throwing twitter-darts, but I've not seen any proposal from her.
I think she did a great job on the Alask Oil Commission. But I don't know what she thinks about anything.
For all I know she may agree with Pawlenty in practice (like Bush did) but just being more coy about it.
But yes, I am still looking.
I saw after I posted, on another thread, that the quote was taking out of context by the star tribune. The original article is not available (aug 16, 2006) but I can believe that.
Here is Sarah’s take on healthcare (so far):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574400581157986024.html
She will need to flesh out her positions as she runs (if she runs).
It will be up to us to decide if she means what she says, as you said.
There is a link to the tpaw thread earlier in this thread.
“I would quit posting that Greta interview. It was silly and made her sound confused. That’s what happens when a person is straddling the fence.”
How so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.