Con v. Neo-Con

8-30-04 | Sharpink

[sharpink]

Con v. Neo-Con Monday Michael Medved’s radio show had Pat Buchanan on for an hour pumping his new book Where the Right Went Wrong. It was a very interesting hour. I’ve always thought of the Con and Neo-Con division as generational rather than ideological. But Buchanan made some really good points.

He spoke about immigration, free trade and big government and blamed the Neo-Con’ s for abandoning these issues. He made some good points on these issues. He did come off as somewhat conspiratorial in his assessment of the Neo-Cons.

I have noticed how issues like government spending have shifted from a dynamic motivating issue for the party to the back burner. I hear more rhetoric about fiscal responsibility from the democrats (I’m beginning to wonder if this issue is a political football for minority parties).

My question. Is the Con and Neo-Con division a real division or not? Has the Reagan legacy been hijacked by infidels?

[freedom44]

There's a huge division. Neo's concentrate more on foreign policy, Con's concentrate more on domestic policy. Pat's neither, he's a neo-Nazi.

[sharpink]

I can't get a line on Pat. Is he a bad guy or is he just taken out of context?

[freedom44]

He's stuck in the 1960's. Although i really enjoyed his book and agree on some minor issues, i don't think he's a conservative in 2004.

[l33t]

Pat is no longer relevant, so he lashes out at the parties he thinks are responsible.

[freedom44]

Libertarians are a big problem for the Republican party. Neo-Con's strongly support President Bush.

[l33t]

"Neo-cons" have nothing to do with Bush's less than conservative budgets.

[sharpink]

That is an interesting idea. My concern about 3rd party is that they are not geared to make an impact. Why doesn't the Libertarian party make a criteria and endorse small government republicans and dems. It seems to me that they could make an impact if they did that.

[freedom44]

If you think President Bush and Reagan aren't Neo-Con's you're living in La, La Land.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The problem with Pat is that he wanted to be President more than he valued ideas. I also believe that his Isolationist tendencies, while sincerely held, are wrong for our times.

[sharpink]

He seems to be in a self imposed exile from the party. I like free trade and immigration but not without restrictions.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Naming a Socialist as his VP choice was a sell out. He does not have a home in the GOP. The Isolationist tendencies that I was referring to is his opposition the the war in Iraq. He was most definitely right when he wrote about WW I, we would have been better off to have never gotten involved in that war. Like McCain said tonight eliminating Saddam from power was a necessary part of our effort to fight the war on terror. Bush's second term will prove why. There is a lot of misinformation out in public that will be clarified over the next four years.

[sharpink]

His last run at the Presidency was pretty sad.

As to the war in Iraq. I think it is already a success. If even a fraction of Iraq let alone the whole country becomes free, they will be a beacon in the Arab world. Like West Berlin, Hong Kong and South Korea they will prosper. Arab totalitarian regimes will have to build walls to keep their people in.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on Pat, four years ago I suggested that Pat was really a loyal Republican sent to destroy the Reform Party, intentional or not he did destroy the Reform Party.

[gcruse]

Why doesn't the Libertarian party make a criteria and endorse small government republicans and dems

They did make a criteria.  And then they made it instantly impotent by including open borders and isolationism.