:lol: You are familiar with Krugman, right? Kaus actually uses ANALYSIS, so Krugman - the original American socialist "economist" - doesn't like him. Krugman is more interested in emotion. Oh, and five will get you twenty Krugman got labeled a toy poodle in that book. That's funny, Red.
Did you read the article? You're the one labeling them neocons (accurately) and I'm telling you where the neocon mindset originates, and you now want me to lay out the etymology of each person's political evolution? Neocons are liberals who've decided that "do-gooding" isn't just an economic philosophy, it's a military philosophy. They're so far left, they're on the right. Think of a line, where the left end and right ends are brought together to form a circle. Neocons were on the left edge of that circle. But you fellas go ahead and bog down in details and names and 30 second Keith Olberman/Rush Limbaugh rants. Doesn't change the truth. Ask yourself this question: How, after 8 years of what you and many consider to be a failed presidency, can the Liberal candidates be statistically in a dead heet with the Conservative candidate? Controversial war, President with very low approval ratings, the MSM and the movie/entertainment industry squarely on the Liberal side, a black candidate or a woman, one who will draw 90+% of his race's votes, the other who has all the name recognition anyone could ever want - and the Liberals are STRUGGLING to break away and lock this one up... How is that? Prediction: if the Dems don't win this presidential election, the party will implode and modern Liberal ideology will return to it's dormant state. The last thing America needs is a one party system. The answer for the Dems - as proven by Clinton - is to ditch the hippies and urban elites, and center themselves. Standing by for your rant.
You are the one who made the preposterous statement that neocons were "imported" liberals. And you still can't prove it by showing us one neocon who was ever a liberal. Circular logic is what that statement is. I repeat, lifelong republicans are NOT liberals. Neocons are radical conservatives and now that they have failed, conservatives like you, who have always backed them and still do, are trying to paint them as liberals and it is simply hogwash and everyone knows it. What truth? You have offered nothing that substantiates your statement. Is it not obvious? The democrats have two viable candidates fighting it out for the nomination. The winner is going to crush McCain. You're dreaming again. This is the answer for both parties -- ditch the extreme elements and center themselves. Most Americans describe themselves as moderates and it is high time the parties recognize this. McCains nomination shows that the republicans have already been forced to do this. Clinton was already a recognized moderate democrat. Obama is the democrat in the picture who still embraces the far left. His entrance complicated everything for the Democrats. Clinton worked hard for decades to earn black support, but Obama's candidacy has caused the blacks to abandon Clinton, otherwise she would have walked away with this thing.
Neocons in Bush admin: Rumsfeld Cheney Ashcroft Gonzales Spencer Abraham Elaine Chao Which ones are imported liberals?
Last time: Neo-conservativism comes from the left (Liberals) as a philosophy, not the right (Conservatives). Since I'm not obsessed with Bush hatred, I could care less about individual people - I've only been talking about political philosophy. And the philosophy that you all seem to hate (since you're making a big deal of it), has nothing to do with traditional Conservativism and is a virus imported from the Liberals - it moved over because the Hippies took over the Left and they are peaceniks and the neo-cons needed a philosophy that was more hawkish, so they created one on the right. But that discussion doesn't sell well on Olbermann, so you go ahead and keep obsessing about individual politicos in the administration. You'll feel better I guess. For what it's worth, Rummy isn't much of a neo-con - he's a technocrat. And you've missed the most influential Neo-cons, Wolfowitz and his cronies in the DoD. This name should tickle your Bush hatred - Scooter Libby - huge neocon. That should focus some rage. Enjoy the rest of the thread.:rolleye33:
Bandit, these guys are lifelong republicans, if they've bastardized what you think conservatism should be, so what, that's what it is now, and I don't think it's a "virus" because it ain't like these guys just converted. It's been a large part of the conservative enviorment for as long as I can remember, and I'm 45. Now that it's failed, all of a sudden, republicans and conservatives who were proud to claim this ideology are running from it.
Total BS. Neo-cons originated with Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol's dad), but didn't make a splash in the GOP until the last fifteen years or so and didn't get their hey-day until Wolfowitz, et al had climbed high enough in DoD/think tank circles to start the movement going in full. Just before the current administration. So,being 45, I guess your political memory doesn't go back very far. It was a failed ideology from the start. And it started as a Liberal ideology. And Liberals have been struggling for years now to discredit that. But the lineage is clear and undeniable, so folks like you just sling around the names of Bush administration failures, because it's easier and more convenient to discuss the symptoms of the problem than address the cause. Red said it right - the parties are failures because they pander to the vocal minorities on the fringes, make promises they either can't keep or can't blatently reverse on, and in general lose the public's trust. Congress' rating is what it is because of this.
I don't like polls. I don't trust polls. In fact, Bubba's habit with governing via polling has left me practically hating polls. However....:grin: Head-head polls of Clinton vs. McCain and Obama vs. McCain have fluctuated inside the margin of error for a long time. The argument that the Dems are beating each other up, so that's what's causing this has some merit. EXCEPT - you should remember that McCain has gotten basically ZERO press coverage, good or bad. And he's still even statistically. AND, the Dems are still holding back, hitting each other with velvet hammers, etc. GOP will not be so gentle. I agree with you - if the Dems want to win, they better find a way to give HRC the consensus nomination without a blood bath. Because, Obama has shown that he's extremely vulnerable in the middle of the voting block - and in the current ideological voting divide, that's a bad thing. It's unfathomable to me the Dems are so out of touch with middle America that they can't nominate a candidate who can win this thing walking away, based on the public fatigue with the war, the media's bias, the economic slowdown/recession, and approval ratings for govenment across the board, President Bush and the Congress. To me, this speaks to a very broken party. The fact that the GOP was able to field a candidate who is a moderate and has a shot in this kind of environment says a lot about the health of both parties. I know, different thread...
Bandit, I have to agree with you here. It is amazing with the mess the current adminstation, with the full help of the for the most part republican congress has created, this thing shoudn't even be close, and it's like I stated in the earlier post, because of the dems having to cater to the radicals in the nomination process. Both parties do this. It's a old saying, during the nomination process, repubs run to the right, and dems to the left, then both move toward the center in the general. THe fact that the republicans nominated McCain so early, while Clinton and Obama are beating the brakes off each other, could prove costly.
