Nice Shakespearean touch there.
And I meant my agreement. Those who live and die by that term are looney-tunes.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Posted on 03/16/2009 7:48:46 AM PDT by Liz
As far as I can tell, traditional GOP values have included social conservatism. It is only of late that some have attempted to remove social conservatism from the 'list' of GOP values. If you have some documentation that says otherwise, I'd be interested.
Good points. I would suggest that there was almost no difference between the U.S. foreign policy agenda under Clinton and under George W. Bush. Their approaches may have been different, but the end result — and the underlying agenda — was nearly identical.
So, Pat Buchanan is our savior?
I didn’t write the wikipedia article. If you feel the definition is inaccurate, you can edit the entry.
Nice Shakespearean touch there.
And I meant my agreement. Those who live and die by that term are looney-tunes.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Before that it was not a particular "GOP pillar", with foreign and fiscal issues being far more characteristic of the GOP. The reason not at least being that the US society as a whole was more traditional/religious. When in the 1960's, 1970's the Dems drifted increasingly leftwards and social "liberalism" became stronger in the US, there emerged a political "social conservative" force in the GOP. However even the "arch-Conservative" Goldwater, was not "socially Conservative" by 1980's or current standards.
I’d highlight the deciding difference that GWB was going after islamist terrorists, while Clinton was not.
Keep in mind that senior neocons were Trotskyites who departed the Reds when Stalin executed their hero.
Many oldtime Pubbies saw punkneos surveiling victorious Republicans (then-enjoying a generation of wins allover the US and DC, thanks to so/cons).
Savvy Pubbies predicted the punks would kick conservatives to the curb, and squat in our party, as the way to pursue their hidden agenda.
This piece and the comments that follow are ridiculous and sad. William Kristol is the reason Sarah Pallin was chosen to run as VP, but now suddenly she's a "neo-con"?
We're doomed and not because every GOP member fails to check every box on the Conservative list.
Very tolerant. Do you have similar objections to the folks who want to read Ron Paul and his followers out of the party?
Someone would have to define what a purist Republican was. Nailing jello to the wall comes to mind.
Phew! Glad I am not the only one in this boat! My liberal friends call me one, and when i ask them what it means, I get a far different definition (each time) than what i read here.
HELP! I'm sooooo confused!
Maybe you're the only one here who doesn't realize that the meaning of words change over time. You know, whomever controls the language controls politics.
A learned man such as yourself should certainly be aware of this. Instead of reading what others have written here that explains how the term "neoconservative" has been bastardized by the left, you're busy ranting about your own superiority regarding a term that was coined more than thirty five years ago. The popular understanding/meaning of that term has changed dramatically over time and it's unfortunate you're still clinging to a definition no one uses any longer. Instead of admonishing others to learn from you perhaps it is you who should be doing the learning. Looks like you have a little homework of your own.
Back in 2004 pukeneo Billy Kristol calculatedly attacked Rummy----as a thinly-disguised, back-door attack on then-President Bush------just more of the anti-America rhetoric neocons regularly engage in.
It did not escape conservatives' notice that Bill Kristol's gleeful attack on Sec Rumsfield was a carefully constructed attack on Mr Bush............ and on conservative thought.
Kristol's backhanded hectoring of Mr Bush and his administration was unconscionable.
Such undermining of a president (from one who claimed to be a Republican) did not exist even in the flawed Clinton administration and certainly not to the degree approaching that neocons visited on Pres Bush by a group that purports to be in its corner-----the neocon cabal.
====================================
WISHFUL THINKING Kristol recently announced "conservatisn is dead." Citing an extremist like Kristol as if he speaks for conservatives is silly and will not be tolerated. Course, it's always difficult to determine which country Bill Kristol is defending, and what motivation drives his elliptical thinking, and convoluted thoughts.
What Americans wanted to know---and what President Bush should have found out----exactly who was "tasking" Kristol to attack Sec Don Rumsfeld.
For a president who values loyalty, Mr Bush must have been pained that neocons showed their true stripes........and demonstrated that they cannot be trusted.
Neocons were the ones manufacturing forged Niger documents, and other legerdemain, to goad the US into toppling the Iraq regime. Then neocons came out against the Iraq conflict altogether and gleefully lacerated Rummy and Bush.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Already done............months ago.
The people who want Republican purity are the same ones who want us to lose to teach America a lesson...or they’re Demiocrats, it’s impssible to tell the difference.
I like that definition.
Okay, thats nuts
. Whereas I would highlight the differences as being 180 degrees opposite.
Clinton allowed multiple repeated attacks by rabid muslim islamic fundamentalists - and then ran away and supported...rabid muslims by attacking Christians with overwhelming military force in Serbia.
Bush attacked the Taliban 1st thing and wiped them off the board as major players in Afghanistan, allowing a more modern and more civilized government to take hold, attacked and invaded Iraq in order to stabilize an entire region from a pan Arab militant Nationalist who had dropped poison gas on his own people, who had started 2 major wars by invasion, and who had very close ties with terrorist organizations while paying suicide murderers cash rewards to blew woman and children in Israel to bloody pieces.
That's the difference.
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.