Posted on 01/23/2005 12:18:58 PM PST by wagglebee
The Los Angeles Slimes will never understand what America is really about. Bush's speech reminded me of Reagan, it was that great.
The speech was an Inaugural Oratory, not a specific policy speech. The media continues to attempt to spin this as some sort of division in the Republican Party. The reason for that is obvious. They have no power, so their only viable strategy is attempt to divide Republicans so that they have internal difficulty in going forward.
Could not agree more! VERY upset with Peggy ("over the top") Noonan et al.
The leftist media spent eight years under Reagan saying that he was tearing the GOP apart, they didn't understand what was actually happening.
The use of the term "neo" has only been widly used in recent years in the term "NeoNazi". The left and the media are not being subtle.....
Im curious, what is the new meaning of neocon these days?
The media uses it as if it should be a degrading insult.
Interesting.
The term "neo-liberal" is something of an anachronism, since very few people with an IQ over 80 who ever considered themselves conservative would ever become a liberal in any sense of the word.
I believe we need to pursue and finish the Iraqi war. I believe we need to keep an eye on Iran , and if need be, take action. I believe in freedom of religion, speech, right to keep and bear arms and all the other freedoms our bill of rights conveys on us.
I believe we need to get out of the UN. I believe that we need more family values in this country. I believe we need to do something about illegal immigration and that means we need to deport ILLEGALS. Illegal being the key word.
I believe in Americans having the freedom we once injoyed retored to us. If that is a neocom I guess I am one. I only vote republican because at this time it is the only party in which some of the leaders believe the way I do and the closest one is Bush, minus the immigration thing and I won't hold that against him. We all have our quirks.
This appears to be a contradiction in terms.I don`t think Nixon would qualify as a die heart conservative.He was anti-communist but was from the moderate (Rockefeller)wing of the Republican party.
Although Nixon did have the nutcase Pat Buchanan working for him.
I went to dictionary.com and this is the best I could find:
ne·o·con·ser·va·tism also ne·o-con·ser·va·tism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-kn-sûrv-tzm) n. An intellectual and political movement in favor of political, economic, and social conservatism that arose in opposition to the perceived liberalism of the 1960s: The neo-conservatism of the 1980s is a replay of the New Conservatism of the 1950s, which was itself a replay of the New Era philosophy of the 1920s (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
My view is that the left and the MSM are using "neocon" as if it equals "conservative". It's been obvious to me that they use the term "neo" because of the term "neoNazi". If they needed to point out "new (neo) conservatives" why not just say "new conservatives"? Or "newcons"?
They don't call John Kerry a "neoloser". Why not? Would they call this post a "neopost"? Nope.
Sneaky little devils aren't they? Why even use the term in the first place? Nobody on the left or in the MSM using it could likely give any data on how many "new conservatives" there are. But that's not the point anyway. The point, in addition to the Nazi name linkage, is to give people the impression that there are a bunch of "new" conservatives. Which "explains" why Bush won. Whereas the truth is that the vast majority of the country is conservative and always has been.
And who would be the poster boy for this? Ahnold? Sure sounds like him.
If "neo-con" can include Krauthammer, Ajami, and Hanson, it can include anyone who believes that America ought to act vigorously on any principle whatsoever. Krauthammer has recently argued against "democratic globalism," Hanson is a conservative populist with an immense sense of history, and I can't imagine what Ajami has done to get on this list besides argue against appeasing Arab dictators and the "Arab street." At least this article found some "neo-cons" who aren't Jews, but that just means that the term has gone from having an ugly implicit meaning to having no meaning whatsoever.
Besides which, the President's speech was not neo-con, it was theo-con. It was based on natural law, as Jody Bottom has pointed out in the best commentary on the speech so far, the belief that the universe has a moral structure so that "interests" cannot in the long run be separated from questions of right and wrong. Nothing Neo about it; it goes back on one side to Plato and Aristotle and on the other side to Moses and the prophets. Nothing the President said precluded a prudent and "realistic" application of moral principle; in fact, he stressed that more than he often has in the past. America does not have unlimited influence, fighting tyranny is the work of generations, there is no one model for democracy, democracy cannot simply be imposed by force of arms, etc., etc.
The opposition to the speech is mainly people who don't want to see that we are fighting a battle as big as the Cold War, one that can't be reduced to small terms or comprehended by small vision. People have all sorts of reasons for not wanting to see this, some innocent, some not, but it's blindness all the same.
Thank you for the link.
Your more than welcome.
Interesting that "new" conservatism dates back to the 1920s according to this.
So, if we look at what Bush was saying and we list the things he "believes" on one side of a ledger what currently organized "religious" or political construct of any size would list as it's "beliefs" things that would be opposite of Bushes?
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.