PDA

View Full Version : Fred Thompson was a Nixon "mole" in the Watergate investigation


jAZ
07-05-2007, 01:53 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/04/not_all_would_put_a_heroic_sheen_on_thompsons_watergate_role/

...Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson ...tipped off the (Nixon) White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.

"Thompson was a mole for the White House," Armstrong said in an interview. "Fred was working hammer and tong to defeat the investigation of finding out what happened to authorize Watergate and find out what the role of the president was."

...

But the story of his role in the Nixon case helps put in perspective Thompson's recent stance as one of the most outspoken proponents of pardoning I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Just as Thompson once staunchly defended Nixon, Thompson urged a pardon for Libby, who was convicted in March of obstructing justice in the investigation into who leaked a CIA operative's name.

Thompson declared in a June 6 radio commentary that Libby's conviction was a "shocking injustice . . . created and enabled by federal officials." Bush on Monday commuted Libby's 30-month sentence, stopping short of a pardon.

The intensity of Thompson's remarks about Libby is reminiscent of how he initially felt about Nixon. Few Republicans were stronger believers in Nixon during the early days of Watergate.

Thompson, in his 1975 memoir, wrote that he believed "there would be nothing incriminating" about Nixon on the tapes, a theory he said "proved totally wrong."

"In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

...

John Dean , Nixon's former White House counsel, who was a central witness at the hearings, said he believed that Baker and Thompson were anything but impartial players. "I knew that Thompson would be Baker's man, trying to protect Nixon," Dean said in an interview.

...

On July 13, 1973, Armstrong, the Democratic staffer, asked Butterfield a series of questions during a private session that led up to the revelation. He then turned the questioning over to a Republican staffer, Don Sanders, who asked Butterfield the question that led to the mention of the taping system.

To the astonishment of everyone in the room, Butterfield admitted the taping system existed.

When Thompson learned of Butterfield's admission, he leaked the revelation to Nixon's counsel, J. Fred Buzhardt .

"Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call Fred Buzhardt at home" to tell him that the committee had learned about the taping system, Thompson wrote. "I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action."

Armstrong said he and other Democratic staffers had long been convinced that Thompson was leaking information about the investigation to the White House. The committee, for example, had obtained a memo written by Buzhardt that Democratic staffers believed was based on information leaked by Thompson.

...

Even as he quizzed Butterfield during the hearing, Thompson said later, he believed the tapes would exonerate Nixon, so he saw no problem in pressing for their release. It was after Thompson heard Nixon incriminate himself on the tapes that Thompson finally decided that Nixon was a crook -- and stopped be ing a Nixon apologist.

"Looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to realize at once . . . the significance of the tapes," Thompson wrote. "I realized that I would probably be thinking about the implications of Watergate for the rest of my life."

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 02:04 PM
Fred Thompson is going to wipe the floor with Hillary and her huge thighs.

MOhillbilly
07-05-2007, 02:17 PM
if Thompson runs ill vote for him.

chagrin
07-05-2007, 02:18 PM
Fred Thompson is going to wipe the floor with Hillary and her huge thighs.

LMAO

Let's remember this next time he or anyone else here says "that was so long ago, who cares now..."

patteeu
07-05-2007, 04:23 PM
Must be a slow news day at Talking Points Memo.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 04:37 PM
Well, this hurts Thompson's chances with me,which was worsening anyways as I found out more ....and I'm a swing voter for this next national election. I don't who I will vote for but there's no gaurantee it will be for the GOP.

So I think, other than the partisans, Thompson's support for Libby may hurt him with other swing voters too. Of course this would all be on top of his embracing "compassionate conservativism" (code for liberal) which I saw him promote on Fox in his own words and having lobbied for Aristade.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 04:52 PM
Well, this hurts Thompson's chances with me,which was worsening anyways as I found out more ....and I'm a swing voter for this next national election. I don't who I will vote for but there's no gaurantee it will be for the GOP.

So I think, other than the partisans, Thompson's support for Libby may hurt him with other swing voters too. Of course this would all be on top of his embracing "compassionate conservativism" (code for liberal) which I saw him promote on Fox in his own words and having lobbied for Aristade.

Most of the swing voters don't follow politics like those of us here do. I'm confident that neither of these things will hurt Thompson in the least with the swing voter group by the time the general election comes around (assuming Thompson is the nominee of course).

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 04:54 PM
Most of the swing voters don't follow politics like those of us here do. I'm confident that neither of these things will hurt Thompson in the least with the swing voter group by the time the general election comes around (assuming Thompson is the nominee of course).
That's why polls are showing most were against this?
Sorry, but what you're confidence is leaving out is that the opposition will make sure such things are known. Witness this thread.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 05:10 PM
That's why polls are showing most were against this?
Sorry, but what you're confidence is leaving out is that the opposition will make sure such things are known. Witness this thread.

There's a reason why politico's try to get bad news out of the way early if they don't think they can keep it under wraps. This won't have any impact. Besides, this is really small time stuff to begin with. Almost nobody cares now. Even fewer will care 12 months from now.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 05:13 PM
There's a reason why politico's try to get bad news out of the way early if they don't think they can keep it under wraps. This won't have any impact. Besides, this is really small time stuff to begin with. Almost nobody cares now. Even fewer will care 12 months from now.

You can't be certain of anything.

Baby Lee
07-05-2007, 05:18 PM
There's a reason why politico's try to get bad news out of the way early if they don't think they can keep it under wraps.
You mean like by writing it in a memoir 32 YEARS ago?

"Fred!!! We've got to get in front of this before the new millenium!!

penchief
07-06-2007, 02:34 PM
"In retrospect it is apparent that I was subconsciously looking for a way to justify my faith in the leader of my country and my party, a man who was undergoing a violent attack from the news media, which I thought had never given him fair treatment in the past," Thompson wrote. "I was looking for a reason to believe that Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, was not a crook."

"Looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to realize at once . . . the significance of the tapes," Thompson wrote. "I realized that I would probably be thinking about the implications of Watergate for the rest of my life."

These two concessions are pretty telling, IMO. I think they reflect the knee-jerk reactionary tendencies of a lot of people in this country. Which is one of the reasons why we let people like Bush & Cheney get away with crap they get away with.

Did he say Libby's conviction was unjust? Well if the guy from Law & Order said so, it must be so.

Mr. Kotter
07-06-2007, 05:47 PM
Fred Thompson is going to wipe the floor with Hillary and her huge thighs.

Heh.

And the moonbats will be wondering...."How the HELL did that happen???" LMAO

penchief
07-06-2007, 08:07 PM
Heh.

And the moonbats will be wondering...."How the HELL did that happen???" LMAO

Another guy who can ACT is just what the doctor ordered for those of the electorate who are unwilling to break issues down to the crux. Some people can't sleep at night unless they have a patriarchal figure who soothes their fears with a wink, a nod, and a slogan. Meanwhile, they're raping our future and our childrens' future for the sake of their beneficiaries.

To me, Thompson is just another establishment candidate. He's the backup plan if Guiliani/Hillary are exposed for the gigantic fakes they are. All the power-quo is looking to do is find a suitable replacement for their current empty suit. All I'm doing is pleading with as many people as I can to wake up and recognize.

ChiefaRoo
07-06-2007, 08:47 PM
Another guy who can ACT is just what the doctor ordered for those of the electorate who are unwilling to break issues down to the crux. Some people can't sleep at night unless they have a patriarchal figure who soothes their fears with a wink, a nod, and a slogan. Meanwhile, they're raping our future and our childrens' future for the sake of their beneficiaries.

To me, Thompson is just another establishment candidate. He's the backup plan if Guiliani/Hillary are exposed for the gigantic fakes they are. All the power-quo is looking to do is find a suitable replacement for their current empty suit. All I'm doing is pleading with as many people as I can to wake up and recognize.


Thompson was my Senator when I lived in TN. I didn't follow his personal initiatives closely but he appears to have a political philosophy I can get behind. NO one else in either field even passes this test so I'm going to give Fred a shot at running a good campaign.

Just for the record pc who would you like to see run for Pres.? If you could choose one person who would it be?

ChiefaRoo
07-06-2007, 08:49 PM
Another guy who can ACT is just what the doctor ordered for those of the electorate who are unwilling to break issues down to the crux. Some people can't sleep at night unless they have a patriarchal figure who soothes their fears with a wink, a nod, and a slogan. Meanwhile, they're raping our future and our childrens' future for the sake of their beneficiaries.

To me, Thompson is just another establishment candidate. He's the backup plan if Guiliani/Hillary are exposed for the gigantic fakes they are. All the power-quo is looking to do is find a suitable replacement for their current empty suit. All I'm doing is pleading with as many people as I can to wake up and recognize.

By the way your last post was a little melodramatic. It comes across like a Mexican Soap Opera.

penchief
07-06-2007, 09:09 PM
By the way your last post was a little melodramatic. It came across like a Mexican Soap Opera.

And your response should be a clue as to why it seems that way to you. You deal in absolutes. You can't handle details, gray area, or extenuating circumstances. You have to have things spelled out for you in black and white or else it contradicts your world view. You're incapable of breaking things down beyond point/counterpoint and, therefore, you lash out.

We all still have a lot of evolving to do. However, in this particular case regarding the present state of affairs in America I would have to say that I feel I'm beyond the point you're at. I'm only trying to encourage you to catch up because it's important to our country and because you seem like a deceht guy.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 09:09 PM
Thompson was my Senator when I lived in TN. I didn't follow his personal initiatives closely but he appears to have a political philosophy I can get behind. NO one else in either field even passes this test so I'm going to give Fred a shot at running a good campaign.


:spock: You mean his endorsing "compassionate conservativism?" :huh:

Sounds like another liberal masquerading as a conservative to me.:eek:
Sounds like another Bush.

ChiefaRoo
07-06-2007, 09:14 PM
:spock: You mean his endorsing "compassionate conservativism?" :huh:

Sounds like another liberal masquerading as a conservative to me.:eek:
Sounds like another Bush.

I'm thinking of when he ran for the Senate in TN. I haven't really heard him say anything of substance yet as it relates to his upcoming run for Pres. He better be for border enforcement or I won't vote for him.

ChiefaRoo
07-06-2007, 09:16 PM
And your response should be a clue as to why it seems that way to you. You deal in absolutes. You can't handle details, gray area, or extenuating circumstances. You have to have things spelled out for you in black and white or else it contradicts your world view. You're incapable of breaking things down beyond point/counterpoint and, therefore, you lash out.

We all still have a lot of evolving to do. However, in this particular case regarding the present state of affairs in America I would have to say that I feel I'm beyond the point you're at. I'm only trying to encourage you to catch up because it's important to our country and because you seem like a deceht guy.

Are you on your period?

penchief
07-06-2007, 09:33 PM
:spock: You mean his endorsing "compassionate conservativism?" :huh:

Sounds like another liberal masquerading as a conservative to me.:eek:
Sounds like another Bush.

I'm sorry but it seems like you still don't get it.

They're righties paying lip-service to the majority when it comes to individual issues. Because when it comes to breaking down the issues, righties lose just about every time. "Compassionate conservative" is exactly part of their charade designed to make them seem more appealing to mainstream America.

The majority of people in this country are progressively-minded. That's why Bush assigned himself the "compassionate conservative" label. He knew he didn't have the majority sentiment behind his agenda so he adopted lip-service to the majority sentiment. Liberals saw through it from day one. Why can't conservatives like yourself see through it rather than suggest that they are doing the 'liberals' work?

I'd almost bet my life that you could'nt find one single liberal that likes what this administration has done to our country while you could find a shitload of conservatives that will defend him to the end. Just look at this board as an example. To say they are acting liberal is just so not right.

So it's not that they are liberals. It's just that they know they have to pay lip service to the American people even though they aren't true conservatives, either. They're right-wing fascists through and through manipulating the heart strings of the American public.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm thinking of when he ran for the Senate in TN. I haven't really heard him say anything of substance yet as it relates to his upcoming run for Pres. He better be for border enforcement or I won't vote for him.
I liked him at first, believing he was a conservative, at least a moderate one.
But I did see him on Fox and he endorsed the NeoConservative persuasion verbatim including "compassionate conservativism." I knew then, they had gotten to him.

I thought he'd be strong on immigration but t, at this point, that is also a question mark. I gather, right now, since he lobbied mainly for corp interests that he may not be that strong on immigration. Not totally sure on this one, though I heard something but can't recall, so it's just a hunch right now.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 10:45 PM
I'm sorry but it seems like you still don't get it.

No need to feel sorry. You have to understand that's another pov...not one from your perspective.

They're righties paying lip-service to the majority when it comes to individual issues. Because when it comes to breaking down the issues, righties lose just about every time. "Compassionate conservative" is exactly part of their charade designed to make them seem more appealing to mainstream America.

The majority of people in this country are progressively-minded. That's why Bush assigned himself the "compassionate conservative" label. He knew he didn't have the majority sentiment behind his agenda so he adopted lip-service to the majority sentiment. Liberals saw through it from day one. Why can't conservatives like yourself see through it rather than suggest that they are doing the 'liberals' work?

I'd almost bet my life that you could'nt find one single liberal that likes what this administration has done to our country while you could find a shitload of conservatives that will defend him to the end. Just look at this board as an example. To say they are acting liberal is just so not right.

So it's not that they are liberals. It's just that they know they have to pay lip service to the American people even though they aren't true conservatives, either. They're right-wing fascists through and through manipulating the heart strings of the American public.
I don't quite agree. It means a certain thing; not exactly what you believe.

penchief
07-06-2007, 11:19 PM
No need to feel sorry. You have to understand that's another pov...not one from your perspective.


I don't quite agree. It means a certain thing; not exactly what you believe.

So what does it mean to you?

It has to mean something that liberals overwhelmingly oppose this administration with a passion while a majority of conservatives will blindly overlook Bush's blatant transgressions against America's legacy. That is unless you can find one single liberal that thinks this administration is liberal and supports it. I can't forsee you dredging one up, though.

Can you tell me why it is that you think they're liberal when they have absolutely zero support from liberals?

I mean, that seems like such a cop out on the part of conservatives like yourself. It would be much better if you just owned up to the miscalculation and linked arms with those of us who want to take back our country instead of taking your cue from the Bushies and blaming everything on the liberals.

BucEyedPea
07-06-2007, 11:24 PM
penchief,
Will you stop evaluating things as "cop outs" etc. I made my views well known on this subject in most of my arguments with patteeu. It reflects the neo-conservative persuasion. Didn't you recently say you agreed after, I linked that Jim Lobe article. They're a type of conservative but not exactly...not in the paleo-con sense even if there are overlaps. They do believe in the welfare state, I can say at least that much. A paleo-con doesn't.

penchief
07-07-2007, 12:36 AM
penchief,
Will you stop evaluating things as "cop outs" etc. I made my views well known on this subject in most of my arguments with patteeu. It reflects the neo-conservative persuasion. Didn't you recently say you agreed after, I linked that Jim Lobe article. They're a type of conservative but not exactly...not in the paleo-con sense even if there are overlaps. They do believe in the welfare state, I can say at least that much. A paleo-con doesn't.

I do think it's a major cop out to blame the failure of this administration on their "liberal tendencies." Any liberal will tell you that none of those people have a damned liberal bone in their collective body. It's not only a cop out, it's bullshit extraordinaire.

Look, I'm trying to reason with you. You are extremely intelligent and a very nice person from everything that I can tell. But you are very persistent about one thing that is so obviously not true that I can't let it go without challenging your assertion whenever you raise it.

I think that you and I see eye to eye 90% of the time. This is just one of those things.

ClevelandBronco
07-07-2007, 12:46 AM
I think that you and I see eye to eye 90% of the time.

I hope you're not going to take that kind of insult sitting down, BEP.

penchief
07-07-2007, 12:51 AM
I hope you're not going to take that kind of insult sitting down, BEP.

She won't because she knows it's true. I like her posts except when she tries to blame the Bush Administration on liberals. I get the feeling she would love for history to remember it that way.

stevieray
07-07-2007, 01:16 AM
Are you on your period?


No, they just have to make Bush a liar because Bill lied.

penchief
07-07-2007, 01:30 AM
No, they just have to make Bush a liar because Bill lied.

Has Bush ever lied to the American public?

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 01:37 AM
Has Bush ever lied to the American public?

Not any worse than most administrations. I'd go so far as to say he's lied a lot less the BJ Clinton who for those of you who remember his first campaign said he'd cut taxes but instead said he "just couldn't" once he took office and in fact he was going to propose a tax increase which he got. That was the first one I remember and after that they just kept a coming.

penchief
07-07-2007, 01:48 AM
Not any worse than most administrations. I'd go so far as to say he's lied a lot less the BJ Clinton who for those of you who remember his first campaign said he'd cut taxes but instead said he "just couldn't" once he took office and in fact he was going to propose a tax increase which he got. That was the first one I remember and after that they just kept a coming.

I'm asking stevieray specifically if he knows of any time that Bush has lied to the American people. I appreciate your input, though. You've made it abundantly clear that it doesn't matter to you what degree or extent that malfeasance exists, it's always justifiable because Clinton lied about a blow job.

stevieray
07-07-2007, 02:00 AM
Has Bush ever lied to the American public?

Under oath in an investigation in front of the American public?

No.

jAZ
07-07-2007, 02:01 AM
NeoCons were historically liberals, but the Reagan administration hijacked the cause and the current generation are very much Reagan conservatives.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 02:56 AM
NeoCons were historically liberals, but the Reagan administration hijacked the cause and the current generation are very much Reagan conservatives.

LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAO

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 03:04 AM
I'm asking stevieray specifically if he knows of any time that Bush has lied to the American people. I appreciate your input, though. You've made it abundantly clear that it doesn't matter to you what degree or extent that malfeasance exists, it's always justifiable because Clinton lied about a blow job.

He lied about a lot more than a bj. All I'm telling you is Power Politics in DC is a blood sport and the courts can and have been used as weapons to damage pols and to increase the other guys power. It's a tough occupation.

Logical
07-07-2007, 03:06 AM
LMAO LMAO LMAO LMAONot sure what you are laughing about:

What do neoconservatives believe? "Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs? The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world. Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.

penchief
07-07-2007, 08:15 AM
Under oath in an investigation in front of the American public?

No.

That's not my question. Do you know of anytime that Bush lied directly to the American people? Doesn't have to be under oath. Just a public lie to the American people.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 08:31 AM
Not sure what you are laughing about :

That's because you, like most liberals, don't know the difference between a neo-conservative and a conservative. Reagan was a conservative. I find the absolute stupidity of some people hilarious. Some mook places a label on someone else (or maybe even a group of people of like minds), and posts it on the internet, and suddenly morons believe what they read without question or research. People like jAZ have taken their left wing indoctrination too seriously.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 09:11 AM
Reagan had as much or more in common with the neoconservatives as George W Bush does.

I disagree with jAZ about Reagan hijacking the neocon cause though. The neocons were a strong influence on Reagan and conservatism, not the other way around.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 09:44 AM
Reagan had as much or more in common with the neoconservatives as George W Bush does.

I call :BS:. Reagan didn't expand government astronomically during his time in office. He didn't sign off on legislation that deprives Americans of their civil liberties. Need I continue?

jAZ
07-07-2007, 10:20 AM
Reagan had as much or more in common with the neoconservatives as George W Bush does.

I disagree with jAZ about Reagan hijacking the neocon cause though. The neocons were a strong influence on Reagan and conservatism, not the other way around.
Yes I agree with this. But it goes both ways. Once they are in the Reagan Admin, their influence on others becomes part of his influence on others.

wazu
07-07-2007, 10:27 AM
Right now Fred Thompson is the only candidate the Republicans have that I wouldn't vote for.

Bootlegged
07-07-2007, 10:30 AM
24x7 political obsession has replaced D&D as hobby of the geek.

wazu
07-07-2007, 10:41 AM
24x7 political obsession has replaced D&D as hobby of the geek.

No, World of Warcraft has. I should know.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 10:55 AM
No, World of Warcraft has. I should know.

LMAO Or Halo 2. I know as well.

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 11:05 AM
Reagan had as much or more in common with the neoconservatives as George W Bush does.

I disagree with jAZ about Reagan hijacking the neocon cause though. The neocons were a strong influence on Reagan and conservatism, not the other way around.

WTF are you guys talking about? Firstly, there was no such thing as a neo-con at the time. Secondly, Reagan was a classic conservative who believed that the individual makes America great not the Government.

Reagan was an idealistic optimist, hesitant to commit troops, big on fighting Communism through proxy's and he believed in appealing to peoples better instincts. He was a great leader.

Reagan was what conservatism should be today.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 11:09 AM
WTF are you guys talking about? Firstly, there was no such thing as a neo-con at the time. Secondly, Reagan was a classic conservative who believed that the individual makes America great not the Government.

Reagan was an idealistic optimist, hesitant to commit troops, big on fighting Communism through proxy's and he believed in appealing to peoples better instincts. He was a great leader.

Reagan was what conservatism should be today.

Precisely. Rep.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 11:33 AM
WTF are you guys talking about? Firstly, there was no such thing as a neo-con at the time. Secondly, Reagan was a classic conservative who believed that the individual makes America great not the Government.

Reagan was an idealistic optimist, hesitant to commit troops, big on fighting Communism through proxy's and he believed in appealing to peoples better instincts. He was a great leader.

Reagan was what conservatism should be today.
I agree with this except your point that there were no NeoCons at the time.
They came over to the GOP during his administration and provided some good intellectual cover for many conservative ideas that were considered red-necky by the left.

They were anti-Stalinist-communist but they still believed in much of the welfare state and many socialist principles but infused with conservative values and some use of markets to reform it. At that point in time the conservative movement was held together by the Cold War and anti-communism. After that, traditional conservatives or paleo-cons desired a scaled down and more humble foreign policy.

Today the NeoCons are the main intellectuals driving the debate and framing issues in the GOP with many other conservatives falling into line with it. They are dominant and their ideas are dominant just more so in FP. They are also empire builders and believe in use of the "noble lie" from philosopher Leo Strauss.

The Weekly Standard is one their key publications published by Bill Kristol the son of Irving Kristol considered the "Father of NeoConservatism" who was a Trotskyite. He represents the founding generation, many of whom were once leftists. Their editorials do make a case for empire and that Americans must fight its wars. Fred Barnes is the WS's Executive Director and he used to work for the left-wing mag The New Republic. There are others in this mold as well.

I believe it was Irving Kristol who defined NC as being a "liberal mugged by reality."

I would describe a Neo Con as a smooth creamy blend of left-wing and conservative ideas. Aka "compassionate conservative" or "neo"-conservative.

You can pick up Irving Kristol's book and/or also read the summaries and reviews of their books at Amazon.com and you can see the above trends in what they espouse.

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 11:38 AM
I agree with this except your point that there were no NeoCons at the time.
They came over to the GOP during his administration and provided some good intellectual cover for many conservative ideas that were considered red-necky by the left.

They were anti-Stalinist-communist but they still believed in much of the welfare state and many socialist principles but infused with conservative values and some use of markets to reform it. At that point in time the conservative movement was held together by the Cold War and anti-communism. After that, traditional conservatives or paleo-cons desired a scaled down and more humble foreign policy.

Today the NeoCons are the main intellectuals driving the debate and framing issues in the GOP with many other conservatives falling into line with it. They are dominant and their ideas are dominant just more so in FP. They are also empire builders and believe in use of the "noble lie" from philosopher Leo Strauss.

The Weekly Standard is one their key publications published by Bill Kristol the son of Irving Kristol considered the "Father of NeoConservatism" who was a Trotskyite. He represents the founding generation, many of whom were once leftists. Their editorials do make a case for empire and that Americans must fight its wars. Fred Barnes is the WS's Executive Director and he used to work for the left-wing mag The New Republic. There are others in this mold as well.

I believe it was Irving Kristol who defined NC as being a "liberal mugged by reality."

I would describe a Neo Con as a smooth creamy blend of left-wing and conservative ideas. Aka "compassionate conservative" or "neo"-conservative.

You can pick up Irving Kristol's book and/or also read the summaries and reviews of their books at Amazon.com and you can see the above trends in what they espouse.

Those guys played minor if not insignificant roles in Reagan's time. Who in his cabinet was a Neo-Con? I don't think you can tie any of these guys to Reagan Conservatism as he advocated it.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 11:41 AM
I call :BS:. Reagan didn't expand government astronomically during his time in office. He didn't sign off on legislation that deprives Americans of their civil liberties. Need I continue?

First, expanding government astronomically is not a neoconservative principle. Neoconservatism is dominated by foreign policy and national security concerns. There is no "neoconservative" philosophy about big vs. small government although at the present time, most neoconservatives are on the same side of that argument as you. There are some liberals, like Joe Lieberman, who is neoconservative on the issues that effectively define a neoconservative (e.g. foreign policy) but they aren't liberal [i]because of]/i] their neoconservatism.

Second, the Reagan administration ramped up the Drug War and created the office of the Drug Czar. Prior to 9/11, the Drug War was, IMO, the chief cause of civil liberty errosion in this Country. It's hard to say what Ronald Reagan would have done if he'd have been placed in the position of GWBush, in a unipolar world faced with an international islamist revolution against civilization. His assertive approach to the cold war, a central pillar of neoconservatism during the 70s and 80s, gives at least some reason to believe he would see eye to eye with neoconservatives to some extent today. Not necessarily though.

So to summarize, I stand by what I said and I don't think your comparative examples show otherwise.

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 11:42 AM
Neo ='s New by definition.

wazu
07-07-2007, 11:43 AM
Reagan was what conservatism should be today.

The spin of Reagan's presidency as being "great" continues to fascinate me.

Reagan was a neo-con, they just didn't call it that yet. And as much as I like the fact that he cut taxes, he sure didn't mind deficit spending. The national debt tripled under his watch. Reagan also didn't beat Communism. Communism beat communism. Both the Soviets and the U.S. did everything possible to bankrupt their countries on military spending. The Soviets just got there faster because of the inefficencies and basic foolishness of Communism.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 11:44 AM
Those guys played minor if not insignificant roles in Reagan's time. Who in his cabinet was a Neo-Con? I don't think you can tie any of these guys to Reagan Conservatism as he advocated it.
I didn't make a case for how minor or major their roles were. Just that they came in then.

However, Bill Bennet is one good example, although he is not an original founding generation NC. Instead of making a case to abolish the Dept of Ed,which reagan promised to do if elected, which is an unConstitutional dept, he accepted a position to head it. In his words he could at least do some good by bringing conservative ideas into education.

So there you go....that's the smooth creamy blend I referred to. It's a fusion of big govt with conservative ideas...it is not a reduction in the growth of the state. And it is through the Dept of Ed, nothing but a centralized federal power grab over education to a paleo-con, that some of the most destructive ideas have come into education with things getting worse.

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 11:45 AM
Neo ='s New by definition.

Like Pat. says Reagan didn't want to expand Govt. he wanted to limit it and give tax cuts back to the people and the private sector. The heavily controlled Dem. Congress under Tip O'Neill as Speaker just kept a spending and since there was and is no line item Veto the Pres. had his hands tied on a lot of legislation that was bloated pork surrounding other laws in the bills he signed. If Reagan would of had the early 1990's Congress led by Gingrich I believe spending would of been limited to Inflationary Growth and would of been limited.

ChiefaRoo
07-07-2007, 11:46 AM
I didn't make a case for how minor or major their roles were. Just that they came in then.

However, Bill Bennet is one good example, although he is not an original founding generation NC. Instead of making a case to abolish the Dept of Ed,which reagan promised to do if elected, which is an unConstitutional dept, he accepted a position to head it. In his words he could at least do some good by bringing conservative ideas into education.

So there you go....that's the smooth creamy blend I referred to. It's a fusion of big govt with conservative ideas...it is not a reduction in the growth of the state. And it is through the Dept of Ed, nothing but a centralized federal power grab over education to a paleo-con, that some of the most destructive ideas have come into education with things getting worse.

ok

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 11:50 AM
Expanding government astronomically is not a neoconservative principle. Neoconservatism is dominated by foreign policy and national security concerns. There is no "neoconservative" philosophy about big vs. small government although at the present time, most neoconservatives are on the same side of that argument as you. There are some liberals, like Joe Lieberman, who are both neoconservative on the issues that define a neoconservative (e.g. foreign policy) but they aren't liberal [i]because of]/i] their neoconservatism.
Just because they dominate foreign policy, as they are a type of interntationalist, just like many lefty strains of thought does not mean they support the idea of limited govt as a paleo-con would. In fact they deride the idea of nationalism. Even Bush Sr did that when the Soviet Union split.BushJr has said similar.

And yes, they are in both parties. They are those who are willing to use more military force than other liberals....like Leiberman.

One of the best sources on NeoCons, who has studied them extensively in great detail is right libertarian Justin Raimondo. Another is paleo-con Pat Buchanan. Even Ron Paul has written on them as to what the believe. Justin seems to have gone to the greatest depth though, uncovering their past. I know you don't like his site because he is a clearing house on anti-war issues but even some of the new radio broadcasts have been rich in factual detail about them and what they are doing inside the GOP. He provides great inside an analysis. Another new one is Taki's Drawer. (Paleo Con)

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 12:00 PM
The spin of Reagan's presidency as being "great" continues to fascinate me.

Reagan was a neo-con, they just didn't call it that yet. And as much as I like the fact that he cut taxes, he sure didn't mind deficit spending. The national debt tripled under his watch. Reagan also didn't beat Communism. Communism beat communism. Both the Soviets and the U.S. did everything possible to bankrupt their countries on military spending. The Soviets just got there faster because of the inefficencies and basic foolishness of Communism.

I agree, "great" is pushing it; but you are not giving Reagan some credit that he deserves.

Reagan's foreign policy/security stance matches up with neocons; however, he was more traditionally conservative on fiscal policies--than an isolated consideration of deficit spending would suggest. Yes, the deficit grew. However, as a percentage of GDP....it was within the acceptable parameters of the trickle-down/supply-side economic models. Reagan restrained the growth of the The Great Society legacy in a way that was necessary to slow down our march from a welfare state, toward a truly socialistic government. Reagan compromised on the deficit, because Congress gave him what he wanted on defense.

If you don't think Reagan's policies, at a minimum, expedited the demise of communism (or, conversely, one could say...the rise of democracy within the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,) I'd offer than you are simply wrong. Yes, communism had significant problems which doomed it in the long term, but Reagan's policies hastened its demise. However, the notion the U.S. was attempting to bankrupt itself is pure balderdash--it wasn't/isn't even close.

If you take this cynical of a view of Reagan, surely...you'd consider Clinton's years as nothing short of abysmal (which, I don't....FTR.) While they were NOT abysmal, the 90s under Clinton....pale in comparison to what was accomplished during the 1980s, both in terms of foreign policy and domestic redirection (despite the blemishes, that one can rightly point out....during either period.)

stevieray
07-07-2007, 12:06 PM
That's not my question. Do you know of anytime that Bush lied directly to the American people? Doesn't have to be under oath. Just a public lie to the American people.

Not that I'm aware of.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 12:13 PM
WTF are you guys talking about? Firstly, there was no such thing as a neo-con at the time. Secondly, Reagan was a classic conservative who believed that the individual makes America great not the Government.

Reagan was an idealistic optimist, hesitant to commit troops, big on fighting Communism through proxy's and he believed in appealing to peoples better instincts. He was a great leader.

Reagan was what conservatism should be today.

I don't disagree with your last two paragraphs although we would probably differ on who carries the Reagan mantle today.

As for the first paragraph though, there were definitely neoconservatives at the time of Reagan.

Here is a Jonah Goldberg explanation (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052003.asp) of the origins of neoconservatism. I urge you to read it so that you can get a different perspective than that offered by BucEyedPea. BEP mixes in enough truth to kind of get the story straight, but she takes some sharp left turns when she gets to her conclusions which taints the whole take, IMO.

Excerpts:

The word "neoconservative" was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who'd moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of "running dog" or "fellow traveler."

Wilson's assertion that neocons have no common "manifesto, credo, religion, flag, anthem or secret handshake." This holds even truer today. The idea that, say, Hilton Kramer, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Richard Neuhaus, Michael Novak, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick all receive orders from some central Comintern or politburo — as Pat Buchanan is so fond of suggesting — is bizarre enough. The idea that they are all consulting in lockstep the collected works of Leon Trotsky is simply hysterical.

Moreover, the transformative impact of the neocons has always been exaggerated. Yes, it's true that the neocons contributed new blood and new ideas to conservatism, but their chief contribution, as William F. Buckley has argued, derived from their ability to incorporate the language and methods of the social sciences into the conservative cause. It was not so much that the neocons had dramatically new opinions about the evils of the Soviet Union or the rise of secular humanism or — to a lesser extent — the threat of an overweening welfare state, it was that they employed new arguments using the still-respected language of social science which remained the lingua franca of the liberal Left. For example, "The law of unintended consequences" so widely hailed as an incandescently brilliant neocon formulation is really just a fancy restatement of fundamental Burkean conservatism. But when nice Jewish intellectuals and respected academics are simply repeating what other conservatives had said before them, the elite liberal media tends to pay attention.



The conservative losers became a distinct faction when Ronald Reagan passed over the University of Dallas historian Mel Bradford in favor of Bill Bennett for the chairmanship of the National Endowment of the Humanities. As David Frum recently argued, the White House was put off by Bradford because 1981 was hardly a conducive year for Ronald Reagan to appoint an academic who had some decidedly un-P.C. things to say about the Civil War (many of the losers sunk themselves by refusing to let go of their lead-weight ideas about the Civil War and Jim Crow). Regardless, however the White House reached its decision, the losers — now beginning to call themselves "paleoconservatives" — believed the move was orchestrated by a cabal, comprised mostly of clever liberal Jews and faux conservatives.

Today, "paleoconservatism" has become the real "neoconservatism," in that it is literally the newest form of conservatism out there, resembling very little the conservatism of William F. Buckley or Barry Goldwater or the rank-and-file of the Republican party. An even funnier irony is that in many respects paleoconservatism is more left wing than what we call neoconservatism. The reason this is funny is that so many self-described paleos view themselves as "further to the Right" than those they label neocons. But they need to explain why Pat Buchanan's public policies sound so liberal.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 12:48 PM
Those guys played minor if not insignificant roles in Reagan's time. Who in his cabinet was a Neo-Con? I don't think you can tie any of these guys to Reagan Conservatism as he advocated it.


His Secretary of Education, Bill Bennett. Bennett's chief of staff was Bill Kristol. Beyond that, he named Jeanne Kirkpatrick to be his ambassador to the United Nations. Elliot Abrahms served in a varitey of high level State Department posts. Richard Perle was Assistant Secretary of Defense and two of his deputies were Doug Feith and Frank Gaffney. , Kenneth Adelman was the Director of the U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency and Paul Wolfowitz was an ambassador.

patteeu
07-07-2007, 12:57 PM
Just because they dominate foreign policy, as they are a type of interntationalist, just like many lefty strains of thought does not mean they support the idea of limited govt as a paleo-con would. In fact they deride the idea of nationalism. Even Bush Sr did that when the Soviet Union split.BushJr has said similar.

And yes, they are in both parties. They are those who are willing to use more military force than other liberals....like Leiberman.

One of the best sources on NeoCons, who has studied them extensively in great detail is right libertarian Justin Raimondo. Another is paleo-con Pat Buchanan. Even Ron Paul has written on them as to what the believe. Justin seems to have gone to the greatest depth though, uncovering their past. I know you don't like his site because he is a clearing house on anti-war issues but even some of the new radio broadcasts have been rich in factual detail about them and what they are doing inside the GOP. He provides great inside an analysis. Another new one is Taki's Drawer. (Paleo Con)

A lot of their critics have written things about them. In many cases, it's laughably inaccurate.

The fact that some neoconservatives hold liberal views cannot be extrapolated into the general principle that neocons are liberals. That would be like saying all girls are fat just because some of them are. Girls come in all sizes and neocons have a variety of views on a variety of issues. There are some things that make a girl a girl, but how plump she is is not one of them. Similarly, there are some policy positions that tend to make a neocon a neocon, but how much one favors big government is not one of them.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 01:03 PM
I see you relied on the Jonah Goldberg explanation of the origins of neoconservatism. From a leading NeoCon himself who is in denial of being one. Writer for the National Review, one of the other leading NC publications, even if it does have conservative articles in it. For one thing Buckley's conservativism has been highly suspect for years.

Goldberg is flat out wrong about paleo-conservativism in your last paragraph.

And as far as Buchanan saying these guys take orders from the cominterm, that's just used for satire, hyperbole and exaggeration. It's not meant literally.

They are big govt conservatives. That does not mean they can't disagree as individuals on some things or have been part of the founding older generation.
George Bush has governed to the left of LBJ on domestic policy under their dominance. Why do you think some call it an "idea whose time has come."

patteeu
07-07-2007, 02:27 PM
I see you relied on the Jonah Goldberg explanation of the origins of neoconservatism. From a leading NeoCon himself who is in denial of being one. Writer for the National Review, one of the other leading NC publications, even if it does have conservative articles in it. For one thing Buckley's conservativism has been highly suspect for years.

Goldberg is flat out wrong about paleo-conservativism in your last paragraph.

And as far as Buchanan saying these guys take orders from the cominterm, that's just used for satire, hyperbole and exaggeration. It's not meant literally.

They are big govt conservatives. That does not mean they can't disagree as individuals on some things or have been part of the founding older generation.
George Bush has governed to the left of LBJ on domestic policy under their dominance. Why do you think some call it an "idea whose time has come."

You and I will never agree on this. I think Goldberg is right on target. Anyone who has been suspicious of WFBuckley's conservatism over any length of time during the past several decades is pretty far out on the fringe.

Bush's big government impulses have nothing to do with neoconservatism.

There is no reason to believe that neoconservatives, as a group, are any more liberal on domestic, size-of-government issues than social conservatives or neo-isolationist "true" conservatives.

BucEyedPea
07-07-2007, 06:23 PM
You and I will never agree on this.
You're right about that.
However, if you know that a neo-con's nature is to lie and spin; including being intellectually dishonest then you can start to see the forest for the trees. Goldberg is a liar. His intellect, as well as the rest of them, is to discredit original conservativism as it is a competing idea. It's out of Orwell's treatise on language and how it is manipulated to implement one's own persuasion. Propaganda by redefining things.

Here's a critique of Goldberg's red herrings from a paleo-con pov:
Jonah’s Lament – Neo-conservatism was just an invention, but it has ended!!! (http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar18.htm)

He promotes 4 main myths...I'll just take up the last one:


Goldberg’s myth number four is another falsehood, another red herring and another lie, namely that being a liberal in the past somehow disqualifies one as being conservative. That is so blatantly untrue one wonders how any NR reader would believe it. The paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian critique of these phony conservatives, these neo-cons, is that they are still liberal! They are social democrats. They invariably support the spending programs of the socialist welfare-warfare state, and when they do trumpet some so-called conservative plan, rest assured that they make sure that no other significant government program is ever abolished. Their power rests in the growth of the welfare and warfare budgets and the concentration of power in Washington, DC. (emphasis mine)

True conservatives, of the paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian variety, support the dismantling of the welfare-warfare state, the end to American Empire and entangling alliances abroad, and the establishment of peaceful relations, based upon free trade, with all countries. In other words, they support a return to government – at all levels – that is so small it is either not needed and hence could be abolished, or that if it does exist, no one notices it. This was the plan of the founders of this nation, a plan that they knew was the only way to secure individual rights to life, liberty and property.( You defend the notion that none of this is possible on pragmatic grounds....much like Gingrich another leading NC0

Neither Jonah Goldberg, David Frum, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, George Will, William Kristol, Richard Perle,[Newt Gingrich,Podhoretz et al] nor any other neo-cons subscribe to this idea. They are pro-state, pro-empire, and anti-individual rights to life, liberty and property. They are not conservatives. While they claim that their policies and actions will preserve individual rights, they are lying. That is why they are the Axis of Deceit.

Baby Lee
07-07-2007, 06:56 PM
However, if you know that a neo-con's nature is to lie and spin; including being intellectually dishonest then you can start to see the forest for the trees. Goldberg is a liar.
Tell 'em 'bout the horns, Borat!!!

Baby Lee
07-07-2007, 07:07 PM
Goldberg’s myth number four
Jesus, another round of aesceticism.
Another round of zero-animal footprint vegans grousing because their friend didn't throw the folks wearing leather shoes out of their dinner party.
Those who accede to social programs in todays world are NOT closet socialists who've been aching to turn us into Sweden under the guise of conservatism.
They're people who live in the real world, who realize that taking the Federal Government back to the 1820s will NEVER HAPPEN.
People have grown accustomed to government at least appearing to take care of their needs. You can either champion restraint and have a chance to govern, or you can champion abolition and take your seat in irrelevantmutteringcootsville.
And branding them as traitors to the cause for settling for restraint, when abolition MUST BE!! the standard, just gets you a personalized seat in irrelevantmutteringcootsville.

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 09:41 PM
Jesus, another round of aesceticism.
Another round of zero-animal footprint vegans grousing because their friend didn't throw the folks wearing leather shoes out of their dinner party.
Those who accede to social programs in todays world are NOT closet socialists who've been aching to turn us into Sweden under the guise of conservatism.
They're people who live in the real world, who realize that taking the Federal Government back to the 1820s will NEVER HAPPEN.
People have grown accustomed to government at least appearing to take care of their needs. You can either champion restraint and have a chance to govern, or you can champion abolition and take your seat in irrelevantmutteringcootsville.
And branding them as traitors to the cause for settling for restraint, when abolition MUST BE!! the standard, just gets you a personalized seat in irrelevantmutteringcootsville.

Damn, BL is "on" his game...in the "zone" of late... Vince Carter last time; we'll go with classic MJ this time...

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 10:04 PM
Tell 'em 'bout the horns, Borat!!!

LMAO

Logical
07-07-2007, 10:16 PM
That's because you, like most liberals, don't know the difference between a neo-conservative and a conservative. Reagan was a conservative. I find the absolute stupidity of some people hilarious. Some mook places a label on someone else (or maybe even a group of people of like minds), and posts it on the internet, and suddenly morons believe what they read without question or research. People like jAZ have taken their left wing indoctrination too seriously.

You obviously did not read the data I provided. By the way I was a huge Reagan supporter, supported George's Dad as President, did not support Clinton 1 or Clinton rd 2, even voted for the Chimp over both Gore and Kerry, so you calling me a liberal is just plain silly. I also vote Arnold into office here in California, I have never voted for Feinstein or Boxer and I have voted for Duncan Hunter in every HORep election since I lived out here. I am far from a liberal you moonbat.

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 10:21 PM
You obviously did not read the data I provided. By the way I was a huge Reagan supporter, supported George's Dad as President, did not support Clinton 1 or Clinton rd 2, even voted for the Chimp over both Gore and Kerry, so you calling me a liberal is just plain silly. I also vote Arnold into office here in California, I have never voted for Feinstein or Boxer and I have voted for Duncan Hunter in every HORep election since I lived out here. I am far from a liberal you moonbat.

LMAO

Fair enough Jim. No harm, no foul. You have to admit though, many of your views are VERY liberal. And Aaaaaaaaaahnold is not exactly a staunch conservative either. Anyway, I was out of line to refer to you personally as a lib. Es tut mir leid.

Logical
07-07-2007, 10:22 PM
First, expanding government astronomically is not a neoconservative principle. Neoconservatism is dominated by foreign policy and national security concerns. There is no "neoconservative" philosophy about big vs. small government although at the present time, most neoconservatives are on the same side of that argument as you. There are some liberals, like Joe Lieberman, who is neoconservative on the issues that effectively define a neoconservative (e.g. foreign policy) but they aren't liberal [i]because of]/i] their neoconservatism.

Second, the Reagan administration ramped up the Drug War and created the office of the Drug Czar. Prior to 9/11, the Drug War was, IMO, the chief cause of civil liberty errosion in this Country. It's hard to say what Ronald Reagan would have done if he'd have been placed in the position of GWBush, in a unipolar world faced with an international islamist revolution against civilization. His assertive approach to the cold war, a central pillar of neoconservatism during the 70s and 80s, gives at least some reason to believe he would see eye to eye with neoconservatives to some extent today. Not necessarily though.

So to summarize, I stand by what I said and I don't think your comparative examples show otherwise.

You and I really agree on this point, it has been too long.

Logical
07-07-2007, 10:29 PM
LMAO

Fair enough Jim. No harm, no foul. You have to admit though, many of your views are VERY liberal. And Aaaaaaaaaahnold is not exactly a staunch conservative either. Anyway, I was out of line to refer to you personally as a lib. Es tut mir leid.Kein Schaden kein regelwidriges

go bowe
07-07-2007, 10:40 PM
You can't be certain of anything.LMAO LMAO LMAO

so that's your rebuttal?

that's it?

that's all ya got? :p :p :p

CHIEF4EVER
07-07-2007, 10:50 PM
You and I will never agree on this. I think Goldberg is right on target. Anyone who has been suspicious of WFBuckley's conservatism over any length of time during the past several decades is pretty far out on the fringe.

Bush's big government impulses have nothing to do with neoconservatism.

There is no reason to believe that neoconservatives, as a group, are any more liberal on domestic, size-of-government issues than social conservatives or neo-isolationist "true" conservatives.

You have a point...to an extent. I am one of those "neo-isolationist" Libertarian conservatives. But I think that the current crop of Neo Conservatives and their actions DEFINE neoconservatism. They support expansion of big government which is a liberal value.....while supporting tax cuts which to me is nothing more than pandering to the electorate. Sort of talking out of both sides of your mouth in a sense. The thing that pisses me off about them is that they are in favor of limiting civil liberties (see 'Patriot Act'). Hence my criticism of them.

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 11:11 PM
You obviously did not read the data I provided. By the way I was a huge Reagan supporter, supported George's Dad as President, did not support Clinton 1 or Clinton rd 2, even voted for the Chimp over both Gore and Kerry, so you calling me a liberal is just plain silly. I also vote Arnold into office here in California, I have never voted for Feinstein or Boxer and I have voted for Duncan Hunter in every HORep election since I lived out here. I am far from a liberal you moonbat.

If you are providin' "data"....at the least you should provide a GD link, Jim. Wiki....is pretty good stuff most of the time, but at least be man enough to claim it.

You ain't liberal; but you sure as hell ain't conservative...since your medical issues. Period, bro.

Logical
07-07-2007, 11:31 PM
If you are providin' "data"....at the least you should provide a GD link, Jim. Wiki....is pretty good stuff most of the time, but at least be man enough to claim it.

You ain't liberal; but you sure as hell ain't conservative...since your medical issues. Period, bro.I admit I screwed up in not providing the link, sorry. I am still a conservative compared to the liberals I know.

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 11:38 PM
I admit I screwed up in not providing the link, sorry. I am still a conservative compared to the liberals I know.

You live in GD Cali....WTF do you expect, bro? :)

LMAO

Logical
07-07-2007, 11:44 PM
You live in GD Cali....WTF do you expect, bro? :)

LMAOIt is all about perspective isn't it?

Mr. Kotter
07-07-2007, 11:53 PM
It is all about perspective isn't it?

It is, Jim...it is. :)

FTR, RHCP "Kalifornication" is still one of my favs....from the contemporary charts. Heh. ;)

wazu
07-08-2007, 12:10 AM
I agree, "great" is pushing it; but you are not giving Reagan some credit that he deserves.

Reagan's foreign policy/security stance matches up with neocons; however, he was more traditionally conservative on fiscal policies--than an isolated consideration of deficit spending would suggest. Yes, the deficit grew. However, as a percentage of GDP....it was within the acceptable parameters of the trickle-down/supply-side economic models. Reagan restrained the growth of the The Great Society legacy in a way that was necessary to slow down our march from a welfare state, toward a truly socialistic government. Reagan compromised on the deficit, because Congress gave him what he wanted on defense.

If you don't think Reagan's policies, at a minimum, expedited the demise of communism (or, conversely, one could say...the rise of democracy within the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,) I'd offer than you are simply wrong. Yes, communism had significant problems which doomed it in the long term, but Reagan's policies hastened its demise. However, the notion the U.S. was attempting to bankrupt itself is pure balderdash--it wasn't/isn't even close.

I agree Reagan's policies accellerated the demise of the Soviet Union. I also think that they put the future of America at risk as well with the tripling of our national debt. The national debt is the elephant in the room that virtually everybody in politics, especially Republicans seem to ignore. Even when there were budget surpluses in the Clinton era, Republicans were stating that should warrant tax reductions. (Rather than actually paying down the huge national debt.)

Much of what Reagan did was good, but nobody can balloon the national debt like he did and be considered a "conservative" in my book. Republicans should be the party of fiscal responsibility. Eradicating the national debt should be at the top of their agenda, but in reality does not appear to be anywhere on their agenda. Instead, they have decided to take the title of "military imperialist spendaholics", while Democrats are basically full blown socialists who promote the redistribution of wealth. It's depressing, and sad that so many Republicans actually want to be compared to Reagan rather than forging a new identity of being fiscally responsible.

patteeu
07-08-2007, 07:24 AM
You have a point...to an extent. I am one of those "neo-isolationist" Libertarian conservatives. But I think that the current crop of Neo Conservatives and their actions DEFINE neoconservatism. They support expansion of big government which is a liberal value.....while supporting tax cuts which to me is nothing more than pandering to the electorate. Sort of talking out of both sides of your mouth in a sense. The thing that pisses me off about them is that they are in favor of limiting civil liberties (see 'Patriot Act'). Hence my criticism of them.

The problem with your analysis is that you are attributing all of the things you don't like about GWBush's administration to neoconservatism when the truth is that neoconservatism is really only responsible for our current approach to foreign policy (particularly Iraq).

You should be blaming the political people (like Karl Rove) and Bush's comfort with the establishment wing of the party for things like NCLB, the prescription drug entitlement, and so-called amnesty for illegals, not the neocons. With the exception of the cost of war, expansion of big government can not be laid at the feet of the neoconservatives.

Maybe what you're really upset about is that you've realized that almost none of our supposedly conservative elected representatives in Washington DC (whether they are neoconservative, paleoconservative, socially conservative, or otherwise conservative) are really willing to push a small government conservative ideology at the risk of their own political careers. This has always been true, it's just more noticeable since Republicans took over control of both houses of Congress.

patteeu
07-08-2007, 07:27 AM
You and I really agree on this point, it has been too long.

It *has* been a while.

penchief
07-09-2007, 08:05 PM
Not that I'm aware of.

What about when he gave that speech and he was asked about the secret spying program and he reassured us that when we heard the word, "wiretap" it meant that a "court-order" was needed? Remember that?

He then went on to mention FISA in order to reassure us that a court order was required. Meanwhile, they were already subverting FISA and not getting a court order at all.

Boyceofsummer
07-09-2007, 08:20 PM
There's a reason why politico's try to get bad news out of the way early if they don't think they can keep it under wraps. This won't have any impact. Besides, this is really small time stuff to begin with. Almost nobody cares now. Even fewer will care 12 months from now.

This is why we are sending our resources to a bottomless pit in the Middle East. A trillion dollars has been spent and many lives shattered. It is the biggest mass brain washing of all time.

Mr. Kotter
07-09-2007, 08:51 PM
...Republicans should be the party of fiscal responsibility. Eradicating the national debt should be at the top of their agenda, but in reality does not appear to be anywhere on their agenda.....

Good post. Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree with the excerpt I've quoted here.....all I can say to that, is they CAN'T be what you or I would like. Not in the modern welfare state/nanny state we live in.

People SAY they want the budget balanced. However, whenever anyone proposes meaningful cuts, everybody and their grandmother screams bloody friggin' murder. Waaaaahhhhhhh!!!

It's pathetic and sickening, IMO too. The Republicans have, as a result, adopted the rhetoric of small government/reduce government.....coupled with targeted attempts to reduce government growth. Until someone, or something, convinces a majority of Americans that Washington DC sucking us dry in NOT THE ANSWER to our problems....we won't be weened from the teet of big government.

The Republican position of "smaller government" rhetoric, coupled with a more restrained GROWTH of government....than we would expect under Democrats, sadly....is a matter of political survival for them.

They are simply pandering to voter demands for "champagne taste on a beer budget"....as we pass the bill onto the next generations. :shake:

But can you REALLY blame them? :shrug:

patteeu
07-10-2007, 07:24 AM
What about when he gave that speech and he was asked about the secret spying program and he reassured us that when we heard the word, "wiretap" it meant that a "court-order" was needed? Remember that?

He then went on to mention FISA in order to reassure us that a court order was required. Meanwhile, they were already subverting FISA and not getting a court order at all.

The NSA program is presumably distinguishable from wiretapping.

penchief
07-10-2007, 09:41 AM
The NSA program is presumably distinguishable from wiretapping.

Presumably distinguishable to whom? He didn't seem to be trying to distinguish the two. In fact, it was the NSA program he was referring to when he spoke of wiretapping, court-orders, and FISA. He was trying to use FISA as cover while they were actively subverting FISA. He shouldn't have brought it up if they were presumably distinguishable to him, which they obviously weren't.

recxjake
07-10-2007, 09:55 AM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0707/The_tapes_that_keeps_on_giving.html

Nixon called F. Thompson dumb as hell ROFL

Adept Havelock
07-10-2007, 10:47 AM
But can you REALLY blame them? :shrug:

Sure can...just like I REALLY blame the dems as well.

What's up? Tossed out accountability in pursuit of electability? :p

BTW- Thought of you yesterday morning when I read this over my morning Coffee and Croissant. Thought you might find it a little funny as well.

:)

.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2007, 10:53 AM
"HUNK-A-BURNIN' BUCAROO!"

That IS my dream candidate Adept!!!

patteeu
07-10-2007, 01:05 PM
Presumably distinguishable to whom? He didn't seem to be trying to distinguish the two. In fact, it was the NSA program he was referring to when he spoke of wiretapping, court-orders, and FISA. He was trying to use FISA as cover while they were actively subverting FISA. He shouldn't have brought it up if they were presumably distinguishable to him, which they obviously weren't.

I'm pretty confident he was distinguishing the two. Back during the Clinton administration we called this kind of thing slick. You should pay attention to what politicians literally say and maintain a certain level of skepticism about what they mean. Politicians on both sides of the aisle use language to mislead. You talk about these people like they are snakes from the pits of hell but apparently you trust them when they talk to you as if they were innocent little bunnies from happyville.

Neither of us can possibly know if he was distinguishing the two because neither of us have much of a clue about what the NSA Surveillance program is. It always strikes me as odd that people can be so firmly opposed to something about which they know so little.

penchief
07-10-2007, 06:18 PM
I'm pretty confident he was distinguishing the two. Back during the Clinton administration we called this kind of thing slick. You should pay attention to what politicians literally say and maintain a certain level of skepticism about what they mean. Politicians on both sides of the aisle use language to mislead. You talk about these people like they are snakes from the pits of hell but apparently you trust them when they talk to you as if they were innocent little bunnies from happyville.

Neither of us can possibly know if he was distinguishing the two because neither of us have much of a clue about what the NSA Surveillance program is. It always strikes me as odd that people can be so firmly opposed to something about which they know so little.

Please don't give me a lecture on how politics works and then give me a poor example.

We oppose it because we don't know what it's about. Because the government is accountable to us. Just because they use some Orwellian term like "Terrorist Surveillance Program" doesn't excuse them from their obligation to us, the people. And it doesn't deflect away from their well-established patterns of deceit, disrepect, and aggression.

We don't know anything. Everything they've dragged this country through is still not understood because they won't disclose the people's business to the people. How can anyone defend that? Give me one thing that this administration has been held accountable for?

They have a subservient congress and an ideological court protecting them from accountability. And there are those of you who think it is okay for them to hide 100% of what they choose to hide while we, the people, are losing our right to privacy against our will and at an alarming rate.

I really don't get where some of you are coming from.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 06:32 PM
We oppose it because we don't know what it's about. Because the government is accountable to us. Just because they use some Orwellian term like "Terrorist Surveillance Program" doesn't excuse them from their obligation to us, the people. And it doesn't deflect away from their well-established patterns of deceit, disrepect, and aggression.

We don't know anything. Everything they've dragged this country through is still not understood because they won't disclose the people's business to the people.

I EFFING LOVE the bolded part in spite of me being a Conservative and you being a lib. I am practically fanatical on the point of us being the sovereigns in our government. However, I think where you and I differ is where to place the blame. I think the blame is with US, the PEOPLE. We screwed the pooch by not being vocal enough and allowing ourselves to be put to sleep with rhetoric. Bulshit like the 'Patriot Act' (just an example) is proof positive of our complete failure to hold our elected officials accountable for legislation that runs contrary to the will of the people. If there had been more public outcry (like in the case of the HORRIBLE Illegal Immigration Bill they tried to f*ck us with) we wouldn't even HAVE a 'Patriot Act'. [/soapbox]

penchief
07-10-2007, 06:41 PM
I EFFING LOVE the bolded part in spite of me being a Conservative and you being a lib. I am practically fanatical on the point of us being the sovereigns in our government. However, I think where you and I differ is where to place the blame. I think the blame is with US, the PEOPLE. We screwed the pooch by not being vocal enough and allowing ourselves to be put to sleep with rhetoric. Bulshit like the 'Patriot Act' (just an example) is proof positive of our complete failure to hold our elected officials accountable for legislation that runs contrary to the will of the people. If there had been more public outcry (like in the case of the HORRIBLE Illegal Immigration Bill they tried to f*ck us with) we wouldn't even HAVE a 'Patriot Act'. [/soapbox]

You and I obviously agree on a whole lot.

But I also hold accountable those who would exploit and take advantage of the people's trust in order to initiate a power grab, and IMO, an eventual clampdown on our social freedoms.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 06:51 PM
You and I obviously agree on a whole lot.

But I also hold accountable those who would exploit and take advantage of the people's trust in order to initiate a power grab, IMO, a total clampdown on our social freedoms.

That just illustrates my point Penchief. WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereigns. The trust of the people has been vested in people who ANSWER TO US. Blaming those who work for us is equivalent to being in complete denial of our own apathy IMO. I equate that to an employer blaming his underlings for an accounting mistake. These people aren't our betters. Just our mouthpieces. That is how I view them. The problem is (that for far too long) we have allowed them to obtain a sense of entitlement because of wealth or status. WE have forgotten who responsible for our civil liberties and our freedoms. WE ARE. As I have mentioned before, until WE collectively take more interest in our governing and how it is executed, we have only ourselves to blame when it goes horribly wrong. IMO.

penchief
07-10-2007, 07:17 PM
That just illustrates my point Penchief. WE THE PEOPLE are the sovereigns. The trust of the people has been vested in people who ANSWER TO US. Blaming those who work for us is equivalent to being in complete denial of our own apathy IMO. I equate that to an employer blaming his underlings for an accounting mistake. These people aren't our betters. Just our mouthpieces. That is how I view them. The problem is (that for far too long) we have allowed them to obtain a sense of entitlement because of wealth or status. WE have forgotten who responsible for our civil liberties and our freedoms. WE ARE. As I have mentioned before, until WE collectively take more interest in our governing and how it is executed, we have only ourselves to blame when it goes horribly wrong. IMO.

Which is exactly why I hang out here and speak my mind. I think as individuals we all have a responsibility. That said, when some people suggest that voting is the be all and end all of holding our government accountable, I don't buy that.

We also have a responsibility to hold them accountable after we elect them. When they start wars based on manipulated evidence. When they interfere with justice in order to influence election outcomes. When they spy on the American people. And when they commit torture.

Basically, we have a responsibility to call them on their bullshit when they tell their partners in democracy to fugg off. But you can't blame it all on the voters because only if we had a crystal ball would we have been able to see how far this administration would push the envelope.

At this point it appears that we, the people, have two options. Republicans in congress are not yet ready to do the people's will. We can either wait them out or we can take it to the streets.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 07:37 PM
Which is exactly why I hang out here and speak my mind. I think as individuals we all have a responsibility. That said, when some people suggest that voting is the be all and end all of holding our government accountable, I don't by that.

I agree 100% obviously.

Basically, we have a responsibility to call them on their bullshit when they tell their partners in democracy to fugg off. But you can't blame it all on the voters because only if we had a crystal ball would we have been able to see how far this administration would push the envelope.

This I disagree with. First of all, let's you and I leave ALL admistrations and Congresses out of it for a minute and focus on the root problem. We don't need a crystal ball. We simply need to FOLLOW UP like any citizen who has a vested interest in their governance is wont to do. And when we smell something bad, we need to 'check our shoes'. Regardless of what was promised by a 'leader' when they were elected, we have the RESPONSIBILITY to redress grievances when they occur. Unfortunately, the public has failed in that regard. Apathy has crept into the public political landscape and our people have failed to do the most basic research into bills being introduced (which is easily available public information). When we rely on CNN or FOX to inform us of the details of upcoming legislation, we are in serious trouble. In that regard, WE are to blame for the f*cking we have received from our elected 'leaders'. WE did it to ourselves. WE allowed it to continue without so much as a whimper. Until the public demands transparency in governance, none will occur.

At this point it appears that we, the people, have two options. Congress are not yet ready to do the people's will. We can either wait them out or we can take it to the streets.

Notice I took the party out of it. Both parties are culpable in the finger pointing and abject failure in accomplishing anything.

penchief
07-10-2007, 07:52 PM
This I disagree with. First of all, let's you and I leave ALL admistrations and Congresses out of it for a minute and focus on the root problem. We don't need a crystal ball. We simply need to FOLLOW UP like any citizen who has a vested interest in their governance is wont to do. And when we smell something bad, we need to 'check our shoes'. Regardless of what was promised by a 'leader' when they were elected, we have the RESPONSIBILITY to redress grievances when they occur. Unfortunately, the public has failed in that regard. Apathy has crept into the public political landscape and our people have failed to do the most basic research into bills being introduced (which is easily available public information). When we rely on CNN or FOX to inform us of the details of upcoming legislation, we are in serious trouble. In that regard, WE are to blame for the f*cking we have received from our elected 'leaders'. WE did it to ourselves. WE allowed it to continue without so much as a whimper. Until the public demands transparency in governance, none will occur.

The people's power is vested in the congress. When congress tries to do its job but the exectuve branch says, "eat me," the White House is basically telling the American people to go jump off a cliff.

Our founding fathers gave us the tools to deal with tyrants but the administration has exploited a national tragedy in order to evade those rules. Which is something completely foreign to contemporary America. It took a long time for the the seriousness of the Bush Administration's manipulations to seep in to the American peoples' daily consciousness, but I think it's finally resonating.


Notice I took the party out of it. Both parties are culpable in the finger pointing and abject failure in accomplishing anything.

Generally I'd agree with you but this administration has been so extreme that it would be completely unfair to anyone that has come before them to suggest that "they all do it," including Nixon.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 08:16 PM
The people's power is vested in the congress. When congress tries to do its job but the exectuve branch says, "eat me," the White House is basically telling the American people to go jump off a cliff.

Our founding fathers gave us the tools to deal with tyrants but the administration has exploited a national tragedy in order to evade those rules. Which is something completely foreign to contemporary America. It took a long time for the the seriousness of the Bush Administration's manipulations to seep in to the American peoples' daily consciousness, but I think it's finally resonating.

In case you haven't noticed, the White House had no part in the 'Immigration Reform' abortion being utterly and totally rejected. On the contrary, THE PEOPLE called, emailed and wrote ceaselessly to convince the Senate to vote it down. THE PEOPLE finally asserted themselves to force the Congress to do their will. Unfortunately, this is an isolated incident. WE only have to continue this process to effect change. Again, WE are to blame....not the White House, not the Congress. WE ARE. WE haven't made our voices heard loudly enough. To be honest, I laughed my ass off to see the reactions of GW Bush and Ted Kennedy on the failure of the 'Comprehensive Immigration Bill'. Why? Because they finally came to the realization that THE PEOPLE are the final check and balance and the people spoke loudly that day. Too bad the people don't speak so forcefully and loudly on other issues.

penchief
07-10-2007, 08:39 PM
In case you haven't noticed, the White House had no part in the 'Immigration Reform' abortion being utterly and totally rejected. On the contrary, THE PEOPLE called, emailed and wrote ceaselessly to convince the Senate to vote it down. THE PEOPLE finally asserted themselves to force the Congress to do their will. Unfortunately, this is an isolated incident. WE only have to continue this process to effect change. Again, WE are to blame....not the White House, not the Congress. WE ARE. WE haven't made our voices heard loudly enough. To be honest, I laughed my ass off to see the reactions of GW Bush and Ted Kennedy on the failure of the 'Comprehensive Immigration Bill'. Why? Because they finally came to the realization that THE PEOPLE are the final check and balance and the people spoke loudly that day. Too bad the people don't speak so forcefully and loudly on other issues.

You're right. I was one of those who was glad to see that bill go down in flames. The example you're citing supports your point well but I also think it touches on my point. Sometimes it takes a long time for Americans to absorb the truth behind the rhetoric and manipulations. This country's unpreparedness for intrusions against our domestic sovereignty by our own government is a reason we are sluggish to speak out against them, IMO. We simply aren't willing to think our leaders are crooks.

Our faith in those who carry the torch for us has been tested again. And because we want to trust those with whom we place our faith, we are not as diligent when we get someone that is willing to betray that trust.

CHIEF4EVER
07-10-2007, 08:55 PM
You're right. I was one of those who was glad to see that bill go down in flames. The example you're citing supports your point well but I also think it touches on my point. Sometimes it takes a long time for Americans to absorb the truth behind the rhetoric and manipulations. This country's unpreparedness for intrusions against our domestic sovereignty by our own government is a reason we are sluggish to speak out against them, IMO. We simply aren't willing to think our leaders are crooks.

Our faith in those who carry the torch for us has been tested again. And because we want to trust those with whom we place our faith, we are not as diligent when we get someone that is willing to betray that trust.

Bingo.

patteeu
07-11-2007, 07:40 AM
Please don't give me a lecture on how politics works and then give me a poor example.

We oppose it because we don't know what it's about. Because the government is accountable to us. Just because they use some Orwellian term like "Terrorist Surveillance Program" doesn't excuse them from their obligation to us, the people. And it doesn't deflect away from their well-established patterns of deceit, disrepect, and aggression.

We don't know anything. Everything they've dragged this country through is still not understood because they won't disclose the people's business to the people. How can anyone defend that? Give me one thing that this administration has been held accountable for?

They have a subservient congress and an ideological court protecting them from accountability. And there are those of you who think it is okay for them to hide 100% of what they choose to hide while we, the people, are losing our right to privacy against our will and at an alarming rate.

I really don't get where some of you are coming from.

If you want to complain about how little you know about this program then fine. I only criticize you when your complaints are based on assumptions about what this program is. Assumptions for which you have almost no real basis.

This program was subject to oversight all along and at no time has anyone who knows what's going on seriously tried to stop it. That's both Republicans and democrats.

And what's Orwellian about calling the program a Terrorist Surveillance Program? That seems like an odd accusation to make.