Depends which version of neocon you use. The actual version, coined by Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz, is basically a pro-war global love cop liberal (Trotskyite in extreme cases). They were far left but became Republicans (note I didn’t say conservatives) during Vietnam because of support for the war. In some ways, they are modern day Rockefeller Republicans. Big government, globalism before patriotism, ect. Of course, the left now calls anyone who supports the war a neocon, which is totally ironic considering the architects of the war are their own. Also, in just about any Tinfoil Times “news” site a neocon is basically a warmongering jew controlled by big oil, big banking, ect.
I tend to stick with the original meaning myself, but the meaning has become so muddled it’s irrelevant.
I'd always operated under the impression that someone like David Horowitz or Ronald Radosh were NeoCons. Basically, red diaper babies who saw the light.
It does seem that Neo Con has taken on a much broader context. My friend (who's book was 'gotten' by said NC's) -- who's a flaming lib I don't dare discuss politics with (literary blacklist, my 'colleages' think I'm one of them, I'm ashamed to say) -- describes them as this sort of shadowy, uber fascist right leaning outfit. I guess that's the basic liberal take on 'neo con' these days, since the term crypto-fascist is just too much of a mouthful.