"I'm still waiting for proof that Coors and Scaife were "neo-cons", as you know as well as I do that your site, Brock, doesn't cover that subject."

No. I know better than you because I actually read the book that I cited and he does in fact name Scaife and Coors as the driving force of what Hillary described as "the vast right wing conspiracy."

I'm aware, too, that Brock says that, and who knows, he may be right about the VRWC stuff. OTOH the assertion you made was that Scaife and Coors were proved to be "neo-cons" by Brock. You and I know he didn't.

"'Neo-con' came into its own..."

Oh and who is moving the goal posts now? Before it catagorically didn't exist, then it existed later, in the meantime it was the boogeyman of the liberal imagination and now it "Came into its own..." at such and such a time.

Where did I say it "didn't exist"? I said "blip on the radar screen". Why would you just make something like that up?

I'm aware that Kristol wasn't born in 2000. I'm also aware that his great "mugging by reality" was when Reagan was in office and Kristol was a strong, strong supporter of Reagn.

"Frankly all you proved here is that voting for the war in Iraq isn't the qualifying mark to be a 'neo-con', but being a social conservative is, which, imho, is the opposite of reality."

Frankly, you're boring me with your insistance that words only mean what you think they mean regardless of the facts refuting your "thinking."

You’ve yet to produce a “fact”, all you’ve relied on is someone in a wikipedia article that even wikipedia says is biased and unsupported. Frankly, it’s boring me too.

Suffice it to say that Gingrich is on the “neo-con” list I provided, Thompson isn’t.

The rest of the stuff about how we’re paying for “Hillarycare” being defeated (even Democrats rejected, and you notice even she‘s let that dog alone ) is just too silly and off topic to bother with if we’re going to try to do some objective conversation about the coming election.

Yeah, I said that I think Newt can win, which ought to set another of your strawman arguments ablaze. All you need to do is admit you're wrong.

Wait a sec, Thompson will have to bear the “neo-con” burden (even though the label doesn’t fit) and can’t win, but Gingrich, who supposedly is a neo-con is burden-free and can take it all, and somehow I created a strawman about it all.

Got it.

One sided doesn't even begin to describe this love letter to self..

You expect objectivity from a partisan like Kristol? I sure didn't link to it for that reason.

I thought it would be informative if people had a chance to hear what the guy credited (or blamed, if you prefer) with giving life to neo-con thought said it was.

which Mikebutler222 proudly links in evidence of there never having been such a thing as neocon!

Again with the invention that I said "there never having been such a thing". What's up with that? Can't debate me on what I've actually said?

Here is what makes Mikebutler222's use of this link without a major "Gee I guess I really didn't know what the eff I was talking about after all!" mea culpa attached... remember how Mike keeps saying that Neo Conism is about foreign policy...."AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience."

Are you suggesting that refutes something I said? Read on to his "set of attitudes"...it's all there. Below, when the subject becomes the US supporting freedom, he says it all.

"

"Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing."

I left in the part about the Commies so you could see how it related to the post above where I talk about the Neo Cons and the end of the Cold War.

Kristol here is talking about the “mugging” of reality that lead him from his liberal pals who incessantly engaged in the moral evolves arguments that you might not even be aware of. Reagan was demonized by Kristol's old pals, and he's defending him here.

"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II."

Excuse me, aside from the "Godwins Law" of this "logic", The author is using the second sentence as evidence of the first and at the same time using the first sentence to justify the second.

Here we go again with the oft-topic use of Goodwin. His point, agree with it or not, is that the US has an interest in FREEDOM (even if the threat is internal), and exporting it, militarily if necessary. I’m not asking you to agree with the man’s theory, simply to accept the fact that that idea encapsulates neo-con thought. That’s a massive break from “they’re bastards, but, by god, they’re our bastards” of Realpolitik, which drove US foreign policy throughout the Cold War.

You can see that pov in Bush’s assertions about the planting of a democracy in the Middle East.

Again, I’m not asking you to agree with Kristol (or Bush), simply accept that he’s expressing the sentiment of the philosophy he’s credited with.

"That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. "

Apparently written when the Raison D' Jour for the invasion of Iraq was to protect Israel! Ah being topical is hell!

Well, you missed the point again, he’s not using it solely as the reason to support the war in Iraq, nor is he saying the war is solely to protect Isreal. He’s saying it’s a no brainer that Isreal, being the only democracy in the Middle East, deserves US support even if it costs us in trade, world affection, etc.. Freedom before all other considerations, no more dealing with dictators for the sake of "stability".

Anyway Mikebutler222, this link only proves that you don't know diddly squat about Neocons.

Now can we move on?

I think you’ve proved the opposite, and in the process proved something about yourself.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

You are looking at the wrong Coors, You're looking at Coors Light!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Coors

This is the guy, and he ain't on the list of the living members of anything!

[/quote]

And he's a "neo-con" how, and accroding to whom?

To the lengthy Kristol post above "moral evolves" should read "moral equivalency"

deep

I went back and I looked, I didn't say most of the things you say I said.

The point is, my worthy adversary, that you you have a bad habit of putting your words where they don't belong. You put them into others mouths and you put them into the mikebutler222 dictionary to define other words that have totally different meanings from the ones you think they ought to have.

After reading your explication of Kristol's editorial I can see maybe why you have this habit. You assume that everyone is talking in "code" as Kristol is, saying by not saying, not saying by saying. Still in all, your own source cut you off at the knees (in that he see the Neocon agenda as much more of a domestic agenda than you do).

That's not my style, my style may tend towards hyperbole, but I'll tell you what I think, and I'll take you at your word.

I enjoyed our conversation. Thank you.

Just as to Coors and Scaife (and Kristol too).

They funded the machinery of the Neo Con "Movement". Scaife owned the American Spectator and Coors donated millions to the cause.

Did they think that they were just plain old conservatives? I don't think so. There was plenty of controversy around the diection of the Conservative ideology (as Kristol points out, old guard Conservatives like Goldwater were dumped) and so Scaife and Coors would have been able at any time to pull their funding if they had ideological differences with the projects they were funding. They didn't fund institutes that didn't help them advance the cause.

Kristol also made mention of the other "Advantage" of Neo Conservancy  "Nevertheless, they cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters."

It is this very partnership that is most troubling to me. The direct relationship of business and government is a powerful corrupting force in both directions.

"You sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas." The AEI has no recourse, they took the money. We know who gave the money and we know what those donors were promoting.

Northern Republicans are much more likely to vote for Rudy (I'm not a fan of his) than someone who has the fleas of the dog. Even if he only has the fleas because he patted the back of the guy who actually did the sleeping. And you can be sure that, if its a close race, that card is going to be played! HARD!

This topic got way off course.

Who's running for President?

Who's on first?

What did you say?

Who's running for President?

oh, Who is.

Coors? ...heck, who cares' just get me a bud. 

This bud's for you.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The point is, my worthy adversary, that you you have a bad habit of putting your words where they don't belong. [/quote]

I know you won't provide an example of me doing this, because you can't. You, otoh, made up a number of quotes for me, including the claim that I had said "neo-con" "didn't exist". You know better than that.

Now, rather than let the thread die because we disagree about what defines "neo-con", which is a side-issue, let's agree to disagree on it, and move to other issues involving the election.

Actually Mike, I went back and did a "He said, I said" post that was ridiculously long.

I would be stretching it to say that you said they didn't exist, but you said several times that "Neo con" (in quotes) had taken on a "boogeyman" type mythology. Since boogeymen don't exist, I stretched the meaning to say that you doubted the existence of "neo con" (with the quotes, which is important because the quotes imply that you are not refering to the actual adherents to the political movement but rather to the stereotypes that you assume everyone attaches to the term). 

As to disagreeing about the meaning of the term, I'm willing to accept the definition as laid out by Mr. Kristol. Are you?

I still say that it will come down to Newt v. Hillary. So far they are the only real professionals in the race. They both have spent the last 8 years running to the opposite parties base. This gives them the bona fides of being bipartisan.

Ther's no doubt about the fact that Hillary has "Queen Latifa"ed the Democratic left who now look more at Gore as a standard bearer.

newt has been under the radar and surprising the left when he pops up without his "red suit on and a widows peak  with a pointy tail and kinda a sulphur reek" and then when he talks about health care

Here's a site where there is a clip of Newt talking about oil dependency http://www.generationengage.org/index.html

One thing that Newt is good at doing is letting the audience agree with him by stating, not exactly the obvious, but danged near it and so his audience feels they are in tune with him.

http://www.generationengage.org/videoplayer/videos.html?gcli d=COOo7pP9mYsCFRoeUAodYDeTmA

Maybe this one will take you to the new Newt.

While Neo Conservatism was the liberal intellectual blowback against the stupidity of rank and file knee jerk liberal mindset. Newt is the vanguard of the Neo Lib mindset.

Election law requires that TV stations give all candidates equal time. Experts said Thompson -- like the last movie-star candidate, Ronald Reagan -- would probably vanish from the airwaves except in news programming. That would probably mean that he would leave "Law & Order" and that networks would not air his reruns during the campaign.

In the 1970s and 1980s, stations dropped "Bedtime for Bonzo" and other Reagan movies during his campaigns for governor of California and for president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03 /28/AR2007032802195.html

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I still say that it will come down to Newt v. Hillary.... [/quote]

I think this represents a gross misunderstanding of the GOP internal workings. Even Republicans suffer from Newt-fatigue. He's an ideas man, and better suited to that role, which is why he was a much better bomb-trowing back-bencher than a Speaker.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] They both have spent the last 8 years running to the opposite parties base. [/quote]

Newt's had little to nothing to do with running to the GOP base. There are still some pretty big grudges held again Newt about how he left toe Congress and his poll numbers with GOPers is in the pits, almost as low as he is with the general public.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

 Newt is the vanguard of the Neo Lib mindset.

[/quote]

This is the guy that talked about orphanages, for crying out loud. He's neo-con and liberatrian.

"This is the guy that talked about orphanages, for crying out loud. He's neo-con and liberatrian."

Tom Wolfe was on the bus with Ken Kesey and wrote Electric Kool Aid Acid Test.

That was the point, that turncoats are often the most radical zealots.

"Newt's had little to nothing to do with running to the GOP base.'

"Welp, huh hu, there you go again..." I said that he and Hillary spent the time running at base of the opposite party. Hillary has actually higher than expected marks with the Republican right (not that you particularly like her). That would mean that I meant that Newt was running at the Left base.

Bab,

Thanks for that. I sort of thought I was kidding, I'm sure, now, that Dick Wolf (and all of the actors that were regulars only during those L&O seasons with Thompson) are voicing their concerns.

What would be nice though is if the L&O syndicators would release the earliest shows with Michael Moriority as the ADA, just because we haven't seen those eps in a very long time.

A friend of mine was the broker for the guy who was DA all those years. This was the guy that went on to do the Ameritrade ads before Waterson, so I'm not entirely sure how good the relationship was.

I found this on a site where I am not known to lurk (although I suspect that they suspect that I do)... It's a site filled with artsy fartsy lefty knee jerky types (they don't like me either so it has almost nothing to do with my actual politics).

I'm not fond of Newt Gingrich......but he was on Charlie Rose yesterday and said something interesting. He was promoting more training and employees in the State Dept. He said that with the internet now......everyone can have a loud voice......and even though the U.S. is the most powerful country in the world........We should not be flaunting it/don't need to flaunt it. What we need to be doing is listening to all these people around the world who want to have a voice. We need to have a State Dept. that reaches out and quietly listens. Not a bad idea.

http://www.thirdeyefilm.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7&sta rt=34440

I'm telling you, Newt might well be the next President!

I'm telling you, Newt might well be the next President!

  Yeah.  And I might just be the next American Idol winner.

The is no way that Newt will be the next President.  He would have to be the party nominee first and that will not happen.  The Republicans would actually like to WIN the election. We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party.

I can see him in a Cabinet position, however.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"This is the guy that talked about orphanages, for crying out loud. He's neo-con and liberatrian.

Tom Wolfe was on the bus with Ken Kesey and wrote Electric Kool Aid Acid Test.

That was the point, that turncoats are often the most radical zealots. [/quote]

Radical zealots? In just what way is this? His healthcare solution is classic libertarianism, in the link you provided to his comments on energy independence he quotes Bush, just where is this “neo-lib” theme? He’s a senior fellow at the neo-con AEI, for crying out loud.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Newt's had little to nothing to do with running to the GOP base.'

"Welp, huh hu, there you go again..." I said that he and Hillary spent the time running at base of the opposite party. Hillary has actually higher than expected marks with the Republican right (not that you particularly like her). That would mean that I meant that Newt was running at the Left base. [/quote]

Thanks for clearing that up, and as you might expect, my response is “tell me you’re joking”. Hillary has run to the GOP base? She has “higher than expected marks”? She’s evil incarnate to the GOP base (as is Newt to the left, the base of the Democrats) and if by “higher than expected” you mean they just want her head on a pike, and not to have her drawn and quartered first, well, ok.

[quote=babbling looney]

I'm telling you, Newt might well be the next President!

  Yeah.  And I might just be the next American Idol winner.

The is no way that Newt will be the next President.  He would have to be the party nominee first and that will not happen.  The Republicans would actually like to WIN the election. We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party.

I can see him in a Cabinet position, however.

[/quote]

Yep, 100%.

"We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party."

My first question is "what do you mean 'we'?"

Where is "we" located? This is a big country and a whole lot of it is only red because it's blushing. Newt has a better chance in Blue States than in traditional red states to be sure.

Newt knows how to read a map. He knows what his obsticles are and he knows how to turn the question to his advantage. If the media bashes him, he'll know how to use that to get the anti media voters activated. he knows that being ignored is the worst thing that can happen to him so he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years and he'll be able to get his message out through them.

If you went to the site I linked this morning you'll no doubt have noticed that the clips were from a video conference of small/community colleges across some area (I don't know how many were involved, I saw NYC and Va cited). He's active in front of potential activists (in our discussion last night I picked up my copy of Blinded By The Right and was reminded how the neo Con movement was recruiting heavily on the college campuses. It's how it's done. Meanwhile, the Republican parties' representative on the campus today is the Army Recruiter... I'd rather go to a rally by a guy who's advocating alternative energy than to one for a guy who's advocating dying in what I might perceive as a war for oil.)

20 states have Open primaries (and guess what? They're mostly "red' states, remember the last cycle where there was talk of Republicans voting to confuse the Democrats and give votes where the hurt the party the most... I don't remember it exactly...) What this means is that, especially if there is a strong showing by an unpopular among moderate Democrats candidate in the Dem race, there can be bleed over to Newt. (Of course moderates are notoriously bad at voting in primaries.)

I don't think that Newt is going to expect the powers that be in the Republican party will be happy to see him. This is what I said before, there'll be candidates who run against the administration.

"We are not going to put a candidate out there who would be a lightening rod and who is frankly not that popular even within the Republican party."

My first question is "what do you mean 'we'?"

If Bl doesn't mind me chiming in, I'm pretty sure she means the GOP, her being a member and all.

 Newt has a better chance in Blue States than in traditional red states to be sure.

You keep saying that, but I've yet to hear you lay out a position Newt holds that would make this possible, and your assertion flies in the face of everything I know to be true of my Democrat friends. They'd rather have their sister work at a house of ill-repute than vote for Newt. I doubt there's a poll that contradicts that view.

... he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years and he'll be able to get his message out through them.

Just what does that mean, other than that he's willing to show his face on MSNBC or CNN?

If you went to the site I linked this morning you'll no doubt have noticed that the clips were from a video conference of small/community colleges across some area ..

I didn't see Newt taking any position there that might endear him to the left. He's always been active on campuses (he was a history prof, and like that atmopsphere), but how that makes him a "neo-lib" I don't know.

 Meanwhile, the Republican parties' representative on the campus today is the Army Recruiter...

I'd rather go to a rally by a guy who's advocating alternative energy than to one for a guy who's advocating dying in what I might perceive as a war for oil.)

Newt isn't the only Republican talking about alternative energy or energy independence. Even Bush talks about that, and as to contrasting Newt to an Army recruiter, and calling the recruiter the face of the GOP, well....

 What this means is that, especially if there is a strong showing by an unpopular among moderate Democrats candidate in the Dem race, there can be bleed over to Newt.

You really think disappointed Democrat moderates who look to the GOP for an alternative would chose Newt over Guiliani, McCain or Thompson?

I don't think that Newt is going to expect the powers that be in the Republican party will be happy to see him. This is what I said before, there'll be candidates who run against the administration.

Newt won't be running against the administration any more than, say Gore "ran against" Clinton. All the GOPers will try to distance themselves from the most unpopular parts of the administration. That's what McCain does when he says he supports the war in Iraq, but takes pains to say it's been very mismanaged.

I really don't see where there's much distance between Newt and the administration, in fact he's even more of a neo-con (again, he's the AEI Sr Fellow) and I'd be very interested in you detailing what policies Newt supports that might attract Democrats.

Well the question about "we" goes first to what BL considers she will be able to do about it one way or the other. Is she part of the party leadership (even locally), or just a single vote?

Second it goes to the notion that the Republicans are some sort of monolithic voting borg. It points to the hypocricy of her statements from yesterday. It would seem that I as an outsider see the Republicans as a more diverse group than she does as an insider.

" I've yet to hear you lay out a position Newt holds that would make this possible..."

Perhaps you want a more detailed map of Gingrich's strategy than I am able to give. But I have provided you with links and an uninterested third party's unsolicited confirmation that Newt's idea seeds are falling in fertile fields of the left.

"...your assertion flies in the face of everything I know to be true of my Democrat friends."

I can't speak for your Democratic friends. I can speak for the clients that I have who are Republican, but NY Republicans. I have long said 'Do you know what they call Northern Republicans down south? Democrats!" Kevin Philips is a Conneticut Conservative Republican (I don't know how he feels about Newt) and I'll tell you this. He is quite vocal in his dislike of the national Republican party.

Millionaire businessmen clients that I have despise Bush's handling of the... well... of everything! Some of them took a while to come to this conclusion, some were there right away. I don't know about the Democrats you know, but I'm seeing Reagan Republicans (by which I mean guys that were lifelong Dems until Reagan) being up front, out loud critics of this administration. Thee guys would love a way to save face and not have to go back to being Democrats. I think that Newt could do that for them. 

"They'd rather have their sister work at a house of ill-repute than vote for Newt. I doubt there's a poll that contradicts that view."

I don't dispute you on either point (btw their sister is a freelancer). I'm not talking about where we are today, I'm talking about where we are going to be in six months. It's still kind of a conjecture that Newt will run at all. Wait until he starts getting press coverage and people start to hear that he is not the Newt that they thought he was. Its about lowered expectations, and exceeding them.

"Just what does that [he seeded the Liberal outlets over the years ]mean, other than that he's willing to show his face on MSNBC or CNN?"

Perhaps you missed the post from the third eye film forum where the writer was talking about seeing Newt on Charlie Rose (PBS). Newt has done a lot of travelling over the last ten years, giving interviews to local guys in newspaper and radio. Newt is an excellent politician, he has every one of those guy's names on a list and he keeps in touch with each one. When he needs to get his message out, those contacts will be invaluable. He has wowed them at NPR and his programs for education and universal healthcare, and others are the itches that liberals love to have scratched! They love it that a member of the "right" is finally agreeing with what they have been saying so ineffectually for so long.

This is a brilliant political move, not one made by someone who has not planned and plotted his course many many steps in advance. Newt is so far ahead of all the other Republican candidates (with the possible exception of Guiliani, and the absolute exception of the Republican Machine, which seems to be somewhat broken right now. And Carl Rove is likely to be otherwise occupied, rightly or wrongly for a good portion of the upcoming festivities.) that they just don't stand a chance.

" Newt isn't the only Republican talking about alternative energy or energy independence."

Now we're back to his speaking style, which I mentioned before. Newt is an excellent speaker. He doesn't ah or err or uhm, he has something to say and he says it. He speaks clearly and concisely, in well moderated tones. He has the ability to speak up to his audience while still maintaining his position of the heir of authority.  

"He's always been active on campuses (he was a history prof, and like that atmopsphere), but how that makes him a "neo-lib" I don't know."

That's not what makes him a Neo Lib. What makes him a Neo Lib is his adoption of the responsibility of the State to maintain the environment wherein we may all have Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That includes taking the medical cost off of the corporations so that they don't go bankrupt and leave millions without. (BTW, that's a great way to get GM to side with you in the election AND the UAW too! which is why Bill Kristol wrote the memo!) Elections cost money, parties cost money. Just like Bush rewarded the wealthy supporters by waging war on the Estate Tax, Newt will reward GM et el. if they help him get a Congress and Senate elected. 

"contrasting Newt to an Army recruiter, and calling the recruiter the face of the GOP, well...."

It's a bit colorful, I'll grant you that. But how do you think college kids are seeing these recruiters these days? They've been after them since 10th grade now. The thrill is gone in this relationship. If you want to join the military, chances are you had a chance before you went to college. So there you are in your college and you're a college student, which means you know everything already anyway. You're seeing the war go badly and you see the recruiters on campus looking for more cannon fodder. Who do you think you're going to relate the reruiters to? The administration, of course.

"You really think disappointed Democrat moderates who look to the GOP for an alternative would chose Newt over Guiliani, McCain or Thompson?"

I think Thompson will only run if he is the anointed one. I think that Rudy would be a choice except that he's a hot head and he's almost assured to explode somewhere along the way. Rudy is not a good politician, he's an autocrat, doesn't play well with others. He's a typical, pushy, bossy, abrasive self centered New Yorker. He'll do 'ok' in NY, they'll egg him in Boston! he'll remind the south what they hate about all the New Yorkers that have moved in all around them.

Mc Cain will split the ticket. but I think that McCain is running on the old strategy, Cozy to the extreme and then run to the center. I think that doesn't work this time (could be wrong).

As I have said before, Newt has something these others don't. He has a platform. His own platform. It shows that he thought about this. it shows that he wants to be president for a reason, not just because it's the presidency.

"Newt won't be running against the administration any more than, say Gore "ran against" Clinton."

Yeah, those situations are similar, not!

In this instance I think that it is appropirate to use, interchangably, the terms "Party leadership" and "Administration." If for no other reason than that it is clear that the real power is "behind the scenes" and that the "Neo con" movement intends to retain their control of the power in Washington.

In their minds, this end would not be achieved with Newt Gingrich in the White House. Newt has his own ideas and will insist on being the top dog in his administration (and he's smart enough that they can't play puppet master with him). That in and of itself is a Grand Canyon of difference between Newt and the "administration".

And THAT alone is enough to make Northern Republicans prefer Newt over whomsoever the current party leaders chose as their next figurehead.