Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

They don't believe in "telling it like it is", even if it hurts.They do not believe in persons taking responsibility for their own actions, or if in charge taking responsibility for the actions of those beneath you.They no longer believe in filibusters.They don't like small business owners (mom and pop businesses).They do not care much for the Constitution, nor the actual history of our founding fathers.Apparently they do not like traditional values, and must hate Jimmy Stewart (I can only imagine most of his films getting banned or severely edited after they get in power, esp Mr Smith Goes to Washington and Its a Wonderful Life). Some of the comments I have been hearing have made my head swim.AbE: They also do not like taking care of our soldiers.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-13-2005 11:55 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thank you for that link, it was quite interesting as it allowed the neocons to speak for themselves. It highlighted why there was such a difference between the Bush platform in 2000 and Bush in 2004... the rise of the neocons after 9/11.I wish some of EvCs Bush apologists would watch that and explain how they can support Bush's acceptance of neocon agendas, if they are truly "traditional" republicans.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Interestingly enough they could also do the opposite: show Reps what they are accepting now under Bush and the neocon leadership, then replay old Rep quotes to remind them that those policies are sterotypical Dem policies.Kind of... "If you hated Democrats then, well that's what you are now. If you want to return to being a good Republican, better vote Democrat this time."Maybe there'd be a serious backlash if they realized Bush made them Democrats.They could print up Tshirts and bumperstickers saying "have you been liberalized?"(by the way, interesting avatar, who is it/where is it from?)This message has been edited by holmes, 06-16-2005 01:50 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Very true. Everyone seems pretty touchy these days with admitting error, and perhaps prone to hardening a position rather than switching (which could be seen as an admission). Well not to disappoint you but I'm not a Democrat either so as far as I'm concerned a win for "us" could come from either party, or both could hand "us" some losers.I am holding out hope that the traditional Reps will win the coming power struggle with the neocons and put up an actual candidate that is not playing to special interests (or divisions within the nation... ie the "culture war") in 2008.If that happens, and the Dems continue their testicular growth by not sidelining forthright candidates and attempting to pander to religious zealots, then I'll feel we've won something as a nation in 08 no matter who gets in office.The downside will be if the neocons retain control, and Dems castrate themselves (again) by trying to attract hardcore religious types.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-16-2005 02:11 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree, I had to vote for Kerry. By comparison to Bush I couldn't even call it choosing the lesser of two evils. It was choosing someone with an accomplished track record and someone with a rather massive failed record. Perhaps this occurs every once in a while when someone flipping through channels briefly hangs on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I honestly want to hear your opinion on this. Especially nice to see, would be your thoughts on the neocon documentary.Don't you feel or recognize there is a difference in core values and practices between the neocons presently in charge, and traditional republican values?One could look at all of the comments here and pass them off as liberals ripping into Reps, which they'd do anyway. But I don't think that's true for everyone. I am certainly not a Dem and was shocked by the neocon betrayal of conservative traits right when they were needed most (IMO).If Bush had not violated his own 2000 platform, or had been ousted as a candidate by traditional Reps, I might have even voted Rep in 2004. Indeed Reps could get my vote in 2008 if they manage to reject neocon candidates or supporters.Avoiding this topic doesn't actually settle the question raised here, but not answering certainly keeps it up in the air as a viable criticism.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just want to make clear that that is not my exact stance. I happen to like Dean and don't really care if he continues on as he has.All I have acknowledged is that hyperbole is not likely to attract people to any cause, unless they are already commited to that cause. Thus Dean's hyperbolic commentary will not attract many if any Reps, may turn off most of them, and could turn off some sensitive Dems.I don't think that is such a major disadvantage as any person that the Dems put in front will not appeal to Reps. It has the added nicety of having a guy who is usually right, even if a bit caustic to some.Frankly I think more was made out of that Yeeehaa! than should have been. Dean was just being excited an cheerleading a crowd. Only seen as a soundbyte played wildly out of context does it look like someone acting demented. I like his excitement and it does speak to me.Hypothetically if the Dems ran Dean in 2008, and for some reason Bush was running... I'd vote for Dean more happily than I did for kerry in 2004. It is possible however that the Reps could field a candidate I like better than Dean. That would take a firm rejection of the neocons and religious agendas.Thus, our difference is that you think his excitement and hyperbolic commentary will end up being beneficial. I think it will be neutral to slightly less helpful, though not so great as to be an actual liability. I think he would be best served with keeping his enthusiasm but losing the black-white commentary. Don't worry, I understand. If Bush had stuck to his actual platform of 2000, it is unlikely we'd be having as many debates on how lousy Bush is. He was a liar to some degree on the campaign trail, and worse still gave up every other principle in cowardice after 9/11.I could not in good conscience vote for Gore in 2000, even if I realize now he might have been better. Of course I didn't vote for Bush... heheheh.But that's what gets me, everyone who believed in and so voted for the 2000 Bush should not have voted for the 2004 Bush, and I want that paradox explained to me by those who did so.Your anger is justified, their support is an enigma.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not to "some" degree, as this thread was trying to point out. It is a near total rejection of what used to be core traditional Republican values. Again, this is why I was interested in your opinion of the documentary posted here where they themselves credit their liberal background.Don't you believe balanced budgets, strong military that is used wisely, smaller gov't, and less intrusive gov't are the main fixtures of Rep values? But this underscores schraf's team theory, as well as my contention that most Reps (unlike most Dems) are the ones into Partisanship over principle.Why could you not have interest in a Dem candidate that had a platform I mentioned above? I'm not a Democrat, crash just said he voted for Bush in 2000, and schraf said she'd have voted for McCain over Gore. What that suggests is that at least three people within this thread are not devoted to party, and concentrate on platform to make a decision.In this case people like us can criticize Reps who allow neocons to change the party platform and still try to come off as interested in "traditional" values. It appears to be a thread defining the ways neocons (who are currently in charge of Rep policy) differ from traditional Reps. For those that support this administrations policies, it is of interest to hear why they feel such a strong departure from traditional values is allowable, or a defence of why neocons are not departing from such values.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Okay, now since adopting neocon policies is what has driven most of what you just suggested, isn't there a question of why Reps should support the noecons in power? They have thrown people in jail without charges, but more importantly they used the extended privileges allowed to law enforcment in order to pursue non terror related cases.I am not massively or inherently against the "patriot" act... though frankly naming it that was offensive to me... however there are pieces of it that are unwarranted and allow for the abuses which have already occured.In the end analysis, and a reason not to have it, was that it wasn't needed. The gov't could have prevented 9/11 if it had worked properly under existing powers. Extending powers to organizations which did not do their job right in the first place, is hardly the answer. Other than their saying so, what do you base this on? I have seen nothing to support its necessity or overt benefits. Thankfully some parts are now being questioned and perhaps tossed.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to let you know, she already has.In fact I believe it is even within this thread (or maybe it was the Dean thread) schraf said she would likely have voted for McCain over Gore if that had been the 2000 election. Crash said he VOTED FOR BUSH, and I am neither a Dem or Rep and certainly disliked Gore in 2000, and if Bush had stuck with his platform it is likely I could have voted for him in 2004.That sort of defeats your assessment of her or some of the other posters here as a "team". Conversely no one from the Rep side (specifically the proBush Rep side) has rebutted her team criticism.If anything there just keeps being more evidence for it. And this fits in with my own assessment that most Reps (certainly more than Dems) are partisan in nature rather than principled. That is to say they are more likely to vote based on party regardless of the candidate (kind of a "my party right or wrong" philosophy Reps have bashed Dems with for years).You may be right that schraf could have started better, and perhaps the rest of us could have followed suit. But what we are talking about should be clear by this point in the thread, and certainly the definition of neocon (even if a bit amorphous) was established with the documentary which was posted within this thread.In 2004 the Bush platform was diametrically opposed to the 2000 Bush platform. The reason is that post 9/11, "neocon" (they made their own label) hawks were elevated in stature and made prime policy drivers, and they had nothing in common with pre 911 Bush policy promises.How could the Reps have come to vote for the antithesis of what they voted for in 2000, much less railed against during the entire Clinton Presidency? The only apparent answers are that most Reps either realized the "stereotypical Dem" was right after 9/11 and changed principles, or they rejected their traditional principles in order to vote for the party whether they were right or not.The silence by the majority of Reps about the neocon policy shift is startling, though it is finally starting to take shape with some leading Reps.In this case Schraf is only pointing out what people like McCain (you do agree he's a Rep right?) have been saying for a long time, and are now saying with much added force.So this is not Dem or liberal bashing of Reps, these are actually good points which some leading Reps feel must be addressed as the party moves into the future.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I have already stated that there are Dems who are partisan (vitriolic as well but that is another subject). My point is that proportionally there are more Reps than Dems with this quality. It can be seen in the 2000 and 2004 elections.People willing to vote "Dem" have been shown much more likely to break from party ranks in order to vote based on platform (aka principle), and thus risk losing an election for the party, than the Reps who will rally behind the party even if it holds diametrically opposed principles.I am sorry that this is what has been shown. I really am as I was hoping more americans in general were less devoted to the party system and more to their own principles. Good thing I didn't deny it then. But even if I had denied it, there has already been much clearer examples of team mentality posted. Read Paisano's post regarding never voting for a Dem.What I find laughable is you specifically criticize people who have stated where they could or did break party ranks as being "team" players. That is by definition an example of not being a team player. I have no idea and that still wouldn't matter. The only valid question is how many voted Dem because they only vote Dem no matter who is put as the lead candidate. That is what I am discussing.You did see voters move away from the Dem party as Clinton shifted away from Dem positions especially in his later years. That is part of what caused so many people to be against Gore and created the growth of alternative parties.However, when Bush failed miserably to produce results and clearly violated the most sacrosanct issues of the Rep party for the last 20+ years, he was treated to full base support. You had members like McCain vociferously saying how the values were being violated right up till election time and then he said "but I'm a Republican and now it is time to rally behind my party". After the election he went right back to saying how those on top were no longer Reps... the same ones he just helped keep in office!This is pure partisanship and the numbers bear out the analyses... unless what happened is all the Dems became Reps to give Bush his victory and all Reps became Dems and there weren't enough? Did you look at the doc before you made your statement? Did you look at what was said about the doc before you made your statement?The documentary is composed primarily of statements by the "neocons" in interviews about themselves. While there are a few statements from people outside the neocons, including conservatives (which has a direct bearing on what is being discussed here), the neocons DEFINED THEMSELVES!Let me say that again for the understanding impaired: the documentary has the people presently referred to as neocons DEFINING THEMSELVES AS NEOCONS!The BBC shouldn't be slandered anyway, as they are pretty damn good, but in this case you are just proving your own self-enforced ignorance on topics. Neocons could be said to be "primarily" concerned with foreign policy, more specifically the position of the US related to the rest of the world. They have very specific ideas of how that is to be achieved which have an impact outside foreign policy.The thread's topic was reinforced just recently in post #30 where shraf concurred with my statement in #29 as being the point of discussion... here it is again:"It appears to be a thread defining the ways neocons (who are currently in charge of Rep policy) differ from traditional Reps. For those that support this administrations policies, it is of interest to hear why they feel such a strong departure from traditional values is allowable, or a defence of why neocons are not departing from such values."This thread should be as available to Reps as to Dems as to anyone else. There are already Reps who are discussing the departure from traditional values, so that is a nonpartisan issue. I am more interested in their effect on policy than on platform, but the answer should already be obvious. They did not hold sway until after 9/11 when they rose to prominence as a "solution" to America's problems (at least for Bush). Bush turned against his original platform in 2000 and so when he ran again in 2004 he ran on his current running policies.It doesn't take a genius to note that a person vociferously against nation-building and growing the gov't and deficit spending, has changed their platform when they next run on the merits of nation-building, growing the govt, and deficit spending.They deny that they had any direct influence, despite having members directly within the President's policy making bodies, but do admit the President is acting as a neocon. Hey, how about you just download and watch the documentary so you can get those answers for yourself from their own mouths?Playing ignorant is just keeping yourself that way. Well that's not the nature of the thread so it shouldn't dissolve as you suggest. It is about differences between neocon policies and longstanding traditional conservative policies. One does not even have to say they are "bad" in order to recognize they are different. There is a question why traditional Reps would accept such deviances from tradition.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was going to leave this exchange between Flies and you alone, but I didn't see him bring up a point in his reply to this post which needs clarification.First you start with the quote by Durbin... Then you list only a small portion of the issues he was referring to and then say... I'll leave your ignoring the totality of the facts of what goes on at Gitmo to Flies and you to hash out. What I want to deal with is the obvious error (intentional or otherwise) that you have made in order to knock Durbin.As Flies pointed out Durbin did not call anyone nazis etc etc, and if this is the best you can come up with he is completely correct.The statement is pretty clear. He is saying that anyone who heard of these activities being performed at Gitmo, would not envision our troops or our prisons, but some of these most reprehensible examples.What that does NOT say is that our camps are operating in the same way those others did. It is not saying that the very actions under consideration were exactly what was being done at the others, or somehow of the same scale as the worst activities at the others.It is that in being bad treatment in general they would remind us of how our past enemies would have treated others, even if they indeed did much worse things.Its like my criticizing some new policy of saluting the flag whenever it is raised in public as being reminiscent of nazi or stalinist behavior, and then I get criticized because having to salute a flag is not nearly as bad as what others were made to do and suffer under Hitler and Stalin.Yeah, we get that they were worse. This activity is not as bad as the worst of what happened there. The point is it is behavior that those types would do, and we would think ourselves incapable of. That is such propagandizing and you know it. If you are refering only to the quality or frequency of meals you may be right. Maybe too of running water? I dunno.But even if they were poor before, living conditions are much worse at Gitmo than elsewhere in their lives. Its a freaking prison. They have no contact with anyone they want including people they should have contact with by international law.Tell you what, if they are living so well, why don't we just allow unfettered access to the prisoners so we can hear and see how well off they are? How about having trials or even charges so we can start figuring out if they should even be there?As soon as you volunteer to go live it up like them, I'll start believing what you say about living at Gitmo.AbE: removed reminderThis message has been edited by holmes, 06-22-2005 02:40 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

First off I want to congratulate you... and not meaning this in a condescending way... for moving forward on this topic in a real way. I agree with this, though it should be added that the mechanisms they favor have impacts on nonforeign policy issues. Great. Although I disagree with your assessment of what the ramifications are, who they were correctly understood by, and whether Bush should have changed, at least you do have the basis for an interesting discussion on why traditional policies are no longer the accepted ones.Clearly for you 911 meant that foreign policy itself had been mistaken up to that point, rather than there simply being practical failures within an overall correct strategy.My inherent reaction to the above would have been to say "so 911 meant that the Dems had been right all along", but you added in some differentiation... I'm going to have to mull over whether than is really enough of a difference to avoid the direct conclusion that 911 proved Dems were right about foreign policy. After all this does not change what the effects are, which is what Reps criticized, and in fact makes the actions mandatory and more frequent which will make the effects that were supposed to be "bad" more frequent. I actually do not see a difference between those two things. All you have done is describe the "why" or "how" they rose after 911. Before 911 they did not have as much power or significance, and after 911 minute portions of what they said appeared to be some sort of revelation they must be right about other things and so Bush put more stock in their way of thinking.One might note that a lot of people were in a position to say I-told-you-so regarding foreign policy and how we handled terrorism after 911. I think it is a mistake to believe that the neocons were proven right by any stretch of the imagination, and that the resultant abandonment of key principles which we will have incurred to follow their ideas, will prove them wrong in the long run. This is so vague as to be acceptable to just about everyone. I certainly agree that terrorism is so amorphous in its methods and organization that one cannot inherently set out to defend against a terrorist attack.One can however be prepared to defend against general targets or mechanisms which might be employed. Thus defence should not be abandoned entirely as pointless.There is also the problem of what "taking it to them" means. There are so many kinds of terrorist orgs and they are usually dispersed over many areas which precludes identifying a place where "the terrorists" are. Thus taking it the fight to them is not so much about attacking a location, but specific entities or organs of any specific organization.One might note that there are other quotes by Rumsfeld regarding terrorism and asymmetric warfare which were also true and have been abandoned, most especially to argue for new policies and rhetoric. The concept of Iraq being a "front" that can possibly protect us is absurd and wholly inconistent with Rumsfeld's earlier positions (though post 911) on fighting terrorism. Once again I am forced to remind you that I am not necessarily "left". Though I certainly have some liberal concepts or leanings, I also have some very standard conservative ones. I have no problems with the military or using it as a mechanism where needed.I have very little problem with pre-emption if what one is in fact doing is pre-emption. International law recognizes that right of nations.The problem is you are trying to equate neocon strategies of positioning the US higher than other nations using military force to influence countries as pre-emption. Or should I say you are accepting that cover which was given to Iraq.Remember it was originally called pre-emption, but before the war even began that had been proven false and was then called pre-pre-emption. I am thoroughly against that. Worse still, it was not attacking the terrorist threat we were facing. One has to be sure to remember that agreement with policy may not be the same as execution. I could agree with everything said about fighting terrorism, then simply point out Iraq has little to nothing to do with that.While what Rumsfeld said does not scare me, and indeed you may still be able to find the EvC thread where I am debating what is the proper nature of our "taking it to them" (I was for more of a paramilitary/intel/legal approach), I am dismayed and disappointed and disgusted with the "Bush doctrine". I have never seen cowardice advanced as bravery so clearly in a gov't document before.We would not accept that doctrine to be announced or practiced by anyone else. It does nothing to protect us and instead gives other nations a reason to be afraid of us. Given that our main enemies are terrorists and not nations, that is extra pointless.Just because neocons were right that we will be attacked by terrorists at some point, did not mean that going into hock to attack nations with no ties to the main terrorist organization threatening us was a good idea. Just because Rumsfeld was accurate that it is hard to predict and so defend against a terrorist organization, does not mean we are allowed to attack any and all countries as we deem that they could become capable of matching our military strength or in some way impede a national interest.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Gitmo prisoners don't get a choice of whether to opt out at any time. Gitmo prisoners don't get a chance to have their cases heard at all.Even the most put upon soldier eventually can retire, and they most certainly do not go through what you mentioned for as long as Gitmo prisoners have been imprisoned.Honest question, if our soldiers were treated this way by their captors it would be considered illegal, yes or no?This message has been edited by holmes, 06-22-2005 03:55 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You mean you can't figure it out? It's because his words have been so misused and stretched out of context that it has come around to bit him in the ass.Sometimes the smartest thing to do is to forget about trying to correct the misinterpretations others have, and apologize for having said something that could have been found offensive.There is no doubt he used some inflammatory words and his words were able to be twisted the wrong way and so others took offense. It is a good point that people should be careful about what they say.In any case, that does not suggest that what he said was anything other than what he said, and what he clearly meant. Even his tearful apology was not a statement that he had said what others had taken from it, just that he was sorry that it had been. I'm sorry what world are you living in? You think Durbin's comments actually inflamed animosity towards us in any way shape or form more than what Bush and Co have been saying and doing all along?By the way I love the ol' switcheroo you played there. Arabs get animous when they hear we may have desecrated a holy book... God damn those A-rabs! Arabs get animous because Durbin makes a statement construed as connecting our actions to those that nazis might have done... God damn that Durbin!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)