Republicans vs. Neoconservatives

Anywhere between 90-99% of all insurgents, according to US military estimates, are native Iraqis. Do with that what you will.

 

Republicans are neoconservatives.

 

You forgot the "some" at the head of that, partner.

 

If you support Republicans, then you are supporting the neo conservative movement. If you support them, then you're one of them. Didn't Bush say something like that?

 

There are still Republicans in elected office who don't fit the definition of neoconservative.

And, there is the idea that, when having to decide from a limited menu of choices, you pick the guy who disagree with least.

And, for that matter, there are plenty of Republicans who aren't supporting the President and his closest advisers. Does that mean they're not Republicans since all Republicans are neoconservatives, according to you?

 

I agree the election is going to go down to the wire but for concerned Republicans and moderates this need not be a choice of the lesser of two evils.

It is extremely unlikely that Congress will go Democrat anytime soon so a Kerry Administration will be restrained by the Republican Congress and vice versa.

What we've seen the last two years is a Congress that has pretty much failed to be accountable since it is controlled by the same party as the Presidency.

 

Look, I'm not saying you have to support the democrats. I'm just saying that the republican party supports the neo-conservative movement. If you support them, then obviously you don't care if the neo-cons are in power. I think that's a shame.

 

ZRB, I think it might be more accurate to say that the "neo-conservative" or "far-right, fundamentalist" wing of the Republican Party currently has control of the leadership, thus having control of the White House and great influence in Congress. There are plenty of Republicans who disagree with many of the tenets of the ruling group or clique, if you will, and wish a more moderate Republican group had control, that was still conservative in many aspects.

I don't wish to speak for our Republican friends, but I know several Republicans who detest Bush, Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Hastert (a tool) and Frist (a slicker tool, but still a tool). They really want a change in the party. They feel betrayed that Bush lied about the whole "compassionate conservative" BS, as he has about so much else... deliberately or reading from a script.

That's my take. I could be wrong.
(nah!)

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2568324

Criticism of Iraq war rising from GOP right
By STEVEN THOMMA
Knight-Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON -- President Bush is facing sharp dissent from his conservative base about the war in Iraq that could force him to change course or risk losing critical support for his re-election campaign.

The complaints are rising from the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party -- including such influential voices as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and columnist George Will -- who are challenging the "neo-conservative" doctrine that the United States can remake the Middle East by toppling dictator Saddam Hussein and nurturing a democracy to replace him.

"It would be foolish, not to say ruinously arrogant, to believe that we can determine the future of Iraq," said Hyde, an elder statesman in his party and the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, on Thursday before his panel.

"All of our energies, all of our talents, cannot substitute for the Iraqi people's assumption of responsibility for their own fate. However convinced we may be of our fate to do so, we cannot reinvent their country for them. Let us understand what is possible. We can assist them in that immense effort. We have already dramatically altered their universe of choices by providing them with the opportunity to choose their own government and their country's future path. But, foolish or not, the choice is theirs," Hyde said.

Bush still has solid support from his party's rank and file -- 95 percent of conservative Republicans plan to vote for him or are leaning toward voting for him, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. And few conservatives are likely to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

But if dissatisfaction over the war and other hot-button issues -- such as soaring federal budget deficits, an expensive new Medicare drug entitlement and a proposed near-amnesty for illegal immigrants -- spreads through conservative ranks, it could force Bush to change course or face the prospect that some conservatives might sit out what's expected to be another close election.

Days earlier, Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested in a speech in Kansas that Bush's vision of America's role in the world may be unrealistic and unwise.

"We need to restrain what are growing U.S. messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering where the United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by force if necessary," Roberts said.

"The United States must be willing to use force, unilaterally if necessary to protect our security and that of our allies. But it is also time for some hard-headed assessment of American interests," Roberts said.

Hyde and Roberts aren't abandoning their support for the Iraqi war. Both voted for the congressional resolution last year authorizing military action in Iraq, citing the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

But no evidence has been found that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear weapons program, and Hyde and Roberts now insist that the administration's first priority should be to stabilize the country so Iraqis can form their own government.

Bush faces other criticism from traditional conservatives, notably over his budget policies. Economic conservatives complain that Bush is presiding over an explosion of federal spending that's creating record budget deficits and soaring public debt.

"Federal government spending is out of control," David Keene, the president of the American Conservative Union, complained in a recent letter to members.

 

I'm sorry, were you speaking to me?

 

No, I am not questioning YOUR ability to analyze information, but there are certainly SOME (including some on this board) who seem to parrot the party line no matter how much evidence is brought to the fore that is contrary to the party position.

I wish that some of the conservatives out there would do just this.

But there is plenty to dislike Bush for based on information that is absolutely complete and the biggest example is that at least two members of the administration are felons who outed an undercover CIA operative for revenge. If I were President (it wouldn't have happened in the first place, but) I would have blasted and seen to prosecution anyone who would stoop so low as to endanger ongoing covert operations by leaking the name of a CIA operative.

And yet he strikes me as definitely on the conservative side. The difference is that he seems to have taken some of the revelations about this administration to heart.

 

Did anyone read this yet?

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=2379

The Basic Flaw in Neoconservatism


by Charley Reese

The basic flaw in the neoconservative ideology is that democracy cannot be imposed on other people at the point of a gun.

Furthermore, if neoconservatives came from an American tradition rather than a Trotskyite tradition, they would understand that America itself is not a democracy. Benjamin Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention and a lady asked him, "Well, Mr. Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" He did not say democracy. He replied, "Madam, we have given you a republic – if you can keep it."

A republic and a democracy are two different animals. A democracy, which can actually work only in a very small country, allows citizens to vote on every issue. A republic allows citizens to elect representatives, who then use their own judgment to decide issues. If the citizens disagree with the representatives' decisions, they can replace them at the next election.

Furthermore, mere elections are not what define America's unique form of freedom. Today, practically every country in the world has elections, most of dubious validity. What most countries lack is a commitment on the part of their individual citizens to the concept of human rights, which cannot be legitimately abrogated by government.

For us, that concept took centuries of thought and conflicts to mature. It began at Runnymede when some barons presented a British king with demands that became known as the Magna Carta. It placed limits on the king's powers and defined certain rights not only for the aristocracy but for the common folk, too. And the barons were there with their swords to make sure the king understood that it was not negotiable.

A great deal of blood was shed and words written and spoken before the concept matured. Today it's found mainly in what in politically incorrect days were called the Anglo-Saxon countries – the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Our form of freedom is a gift from our English-speaking ancestors. In other parts of the world, government went off in different directions, even those we consider more or less free. But their concept of freedom is not the same as ours.

Ours is best summed up in the Declaration of Independence. All men are given unalienable rights by God. The sole purpose of government is to protect those rights. When a government instead abuses those rights, then the people have the right and the duty to overthrow it and create a new government.

Some Americans today are so stupid and/or ignorant of their country's history that if you asked them if people have the right to overthrow a government, they would reply in the negative. I had a professor who asked that question, and in a class of more than 30 students, only four of us said "Yes."

For God's sake, if you're going to claim to be an American, at least read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. A good history of England and America certainly wouldn't hurt.

Our concepts of a free society are as foreign to the Arabs (and the rest of the non-Anglo-Saxon world) as Arabic and Chinese are to us. If Allah wills, they might evolve their own version of a more or less free society, but it will not be like ours. And they darn sure are not going to accept anything imposed on them at the point of a gun by "infidels."

George W. Bush is dead-wrong to believe he's been anointed by God to spread democracy. He was merely barely elected to serve the people of the United States in accordance with our Constitution. Even that appears to be more than he can handle. But if he tries to lead a crusade against the Muslim world, he will meet the same fate as the earlier Crusaders – defeat and disgrace.

 

Batman Jones, this is not directed towards you, but to any conservatives that may need to take a step back for a second and reevaluate the situation...

If one reads the Bible, you'll relate to these passages... Basically, *The foolish will "hang" themselves sooner or later.*

The scary part is that the neo-cons are *using* GWB's foolishness to *their* advantage. That means that democrats and republicans going along for the "ride."



Proverbs 13:16 - Every prudent man dealeth with knowledge: but a fool layeth open his folly.
Proverbs 14:8 - The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.
Proverbs 14:18 - The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.
Proverbs 14:24 - The crown of the wise is their riches: but the foolishness of fools is folly.
Proverbs 14:29 - He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly.
Proverbs 15:21 - Folly is joy to him that is destitute of wisdom: but a man of understanding walketh uprightly.
Proverbs 16:22 - Understanding is a wellspring of life unto him that hath it: but the instruction of fools is folly.
Proverbs 18:13 - He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Proverbs 26:4 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 - Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Proverbs 26:11 - As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

 

May 19, 2004, 10:21PM

Sit-down strike that could haunt Bush
By ROBERT NOVAK


DURING George W. Bush's keynote address to the 40th anniversary black-tie banquet of the American Conservative Union last week, diners rose repeatedly to applaud the president's remarks. But one man kept his seat through the 40-minute oration. It was no liberal interloper but conservative stalwart Donald Devine.

As ACU vice chairman, Devine was privileged to be part of a pre-dinner head-table reception with President Bush. However, Devine chose not to shake hands with the president. Furthermore, he is one of about 20 percent of Republicans that polls classify as not committed to voting for Bush's re-election.

The conventional wisdom portrays the latest Zogby Poll's 81 percent of Republican voters committed to Bush as reflecting extraordinary loyalty to the president by the GOP base. Actually, when nearly one out of five Republicans cannot flatly say they support Bush, that could spell defeat in a closely contested election. When Don Devine is among those one out of five, it signifies that the president's record does not please all conservatives.

In a time of crisis in Iraq, Bush spent more than an hour at the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Washington last Thursday night to celebrate the ACU's anniversary and woo his conservative base. His speech was crafted to evoke the maximum response from that audience. There was no mention of either "compassionate conservatism" or "no child left behind "

Why, then, did Devine dismiss a consciously conservative speech as "long and boring"? At age 67, Devine has spent a lifetime as a party regular and faithful conservative. I first encountered him about 30 years ago when, as a University of Maryland political science professor, he was adviser and strategist for conservatives in rules fights at Republican national conventions. Directing President Reagan's Office of Personnel Management, he was one senior administration official who took seriously the Reagan Revolution. He was a political adviser in Bob Dole's presidential campaigns and ran himself for Congress and statewide office in Maryland.

So, the question remains: Why would Devine stay seated at the ACU dinner when everybody else was standing and clapping? To begin with, he shares concern with many Republicans about what the United States is doing in Iraq and where it is going. Businessmen I have talked to recently exercise limited patience in how long they will tolerate the bloodshed and confusion.

What most bothers Devine and other conservatives is steady growth of government under this Republican president. If Devine's purpose in devoting his life to politics was to limit government's reach, he feels betrayed that Bush has outstripped his liberal predecessors in domestic spending. A study by Brian Riedl for the conservative Heritage Foundation last December showed government spending had exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II. Riedl called it a "colossal expansion of the federal government since 1998."

Curbing this expansion surely has not been on the top of Bush's agenda for much of his time in the White House. Until recently, when a presidential political aide heard conservative complaints about runaway spending, he predictably would point to the partial-birth abortion ban and tax cuts rather than address the grievance. In the last few months, the president's men have talked a better game about spending. Nevertheless, it is too late to satisfy Republicans such as Devine who care deeply about governmental growth.

Bush is also under pressure from his conservative base to speak more clearly and more frequently against same-sex marriage. At the ACU dinner, he drew one of his many standing ovations by declaring: "We stand for institutions like marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society." That was all he said on the subject in a speech that went on at length about the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Bush's saving grace for the 2004 election may be John Kerry. In the end, I am sure Don Devine will cast his ballot for George W. Bush, if only because the alternative is noxious. How many of the rest of that 19 percent of non-Bush voting Republicans in the Zogby Poll will fall in line may determine the outcome Nov. 2. That is the importance of Devine's little sit-down strike.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/2580828