I am the one sensing anger. I did not want to defend Neocons. You wanted me to defend them. You wanted this debate. I said I was only stating what they believed not defending them but no that was not good enough. You wanted me to post my thoughts so you could tear them to shreds. I suspect you are the one harboring the anger and resentment

Are we projecting.??

1. My vision of America is a drunken orgasm.
2. You compare my world view to Franco and Moussolini.
3. I don’t understand your overwhelming hostility to gays. Where have I been hostile to gays….please as you said point that out to me.
4. I dont understand why your version of morality has to be imposed on everyone else. I agree…….However I dont understand why your version of morality must be imposed on everyone else.
5. If you dont want a gay marriage dont have one…….Dont impose your views on anyone else. Exactly right. But why do you impose yours on me?
6. What I see is too much anger coupled with resentment. Yes a perfect definition of not calling someone a name Technically. Perhaps it is you that is projecting.
7. And last but not least once again I repeat that if you compare my views to hitlerism you have called me a nazi. Your cute rhetoric and fancy language does not need a genius to figure out your implications.

I did not want this debate. I actually was hoping that we would have a discussion of merit but when you start comparing me to Franco, Moussolini and end up by calling my movement Hitlerite then Im sorry there is not much in the way to discuss.

You are obsessed with Gays and their rights. I am not aware that any rights of Gays have been taken away. I am aware that they are trying to get Gay Marriage passed. Good for them. I support Civil Unions.

As you so eloquently point out the disintergration of the family it is precisely this that NeoConservatives are working for and trying to protect. We attempt to protect the traditional family values and ways just as environmentalists attempt to protect the environment.

Its okay for you to work toward the subtle continued errosion of the Family and that makes you enlightened but its not okay for me to work towards the preservation of the family because that makes me closed minded?

Your entire response as well as I knew it would be was one gigantic closed minded, holier then thou attempt to put me down without calling me HERR UPINSMOKE.

And thank you for once again concluding your diatribe by pointing out that anyone who disagrees with you is a hitlerite who wants to reinstitute Nazism in America.

And you call me closed minded??

Thanks for your efforts in responding to my loaded questions. You made some points about as well as they could be made, but alas, did not give all the answers. I’m concerned about your polarized vision of America where the choices are between some kind of drunken, orgiastic chaos and something that looks too much like Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, or Mussolini’s Italy. I really believe that you are drawing the alternatives much too starkly and, together with some of your rhetoric, that’s what scares me.

For example, “Counterculturism. They believe in a United America. People who fight against the status quo of our culture are not looked on with approval. Therefore if you are a drug addict that is counter culturally unacceptable.” I am neither a drug addict nor a drunken driver. I pay my taxes, maintain my property, and act responsibly. I never voted for either Reagan (gosh, how is that even possible?) or Bush. I am not gay but I have gay relatives and friends and I don’t understand your overwhelming hostility, indeed you virtually demonize gays. They are PEOPLE who pretty much want to live their lives as quietly and peacefully as you do. I just do not understand why you feel that YOUR version of morality has to be imposed on everyone else. I have this sneaky feeling that you would be happy is everyone who disagreed with you would either shut up or leave. That’s not the way it works – not here, not anywhere. Oh sure there have been places where “shut up or disappear” has been tried, but let’s not go there.

If you want to live in a “traditional family” (whatever that is?) then do it. The fact that well over 50% of Americans no longer live their domestic lives in a “daddy, mommy, 2.5 kids” arrangement is the result of complex social and economic forces – not because of the existence of gay people. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t have one. If you don’t support abortion, then don’t get one, but do not impose your views on others.

Oh and by the way, your comment, “I know a lot of strong, strong family men and women who DO NOT even go to church. They are social conservatives with very little Christian practices in their daily lives” is curious. Why is church or christianity even an issue? Who even brought it up? Not me – I’m a “freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion” kind of guy. See, I’m an atheist (there, I said it, are you happy) but I believe my morals and ethics are every bit as strong as yours. You may think you have a “higher moral standard” but let me suggest that it’s only in your mind. What I see is too much anger coupled with resentment – this is not a healthy brew.

Two more comments and then I’ll leave. The first is that I guess you forgot to answer the part of my post about patriotism and the fact that the big mouths who define Neocon (Pearle et al) somehow forgot to do any military service. i guess that’s not what you meant by “When a social conservative places themselves in the line of fire.” That’s OK, because i was just being sarcastic and besides, everyone knows about those guys.

The other point is from one of your posts of yesterday where you said “The Democrats vote for war in Iraq then stab the president in the back.” That’s a terrific metaphor. Indeed, I believe it was first used by an angry group of people after World War I who believed in social unity, strong government, patriotism and a whole bunch of other cool stuff. They didn’t much like gays either (or Jews, gypsies, liberals, etc). Remember those guys? The ex-corporal, failed artist with the little mustache? Sure you do.

Hey, have a nice day – but I’m still creeped out.

This by its nature puts it at odds with certain liberal values. Such as Gay rights, Abortion rights, Drug legalization, drinking irresponsibly. NeoCons did not wake up one morning and say OH we oppose gays. Its that Gays oppose us because our beliefs in the traditional family does not allow easily for Gay membership. Therefore it is the Gay rights movement that has risen up in opposition to the Family rights advocates of the social Conservatives.

I know a lot of strong, strong family men and women who DO NOT even go to chruch. They are social conservatives with very little Christian practices in their daily lives.

Perhaps its the cart before the horse syndrome but as Ive watched over the years the battle unfold I have noticed that it seems to be the Gay rights movement that is much more active then is the Family Values movement.

When a social conservative places themselves in the line of fire they are way more susceptible to attack because they have set a higher standard morally for themselves then say a drug addict or a drunk driver. Hell the drunk driver can pretty much stagger around doing what he pleases and his only response is the middle finger when social conservatives demand accountability. ON the other hand when a social conservative fails it becomes a national media day for the liberals and the press.

Its the nature of the beast. In the end one has to question themselves and decide which is more important to them. Family values and personal responsibility or a lifestyle that fosters a do what I want and to hell with what anyone thinks. It really does boil down to those two positions IF….IF there is contention between the two positions.

Guess theirs a limit to the size of the post.

It is this very strength in national unity that promotes peace around the world. Ronald Reagan never had to go to war or fire a shot as president because he United America and rebuilt our Armed forces into something to be fear……..BUT NOT USED.

The strength of the Military and the Strength of its citizens are what make a country strong…..without both working together you end up uncertainty and a depressed nation. I give you America circa 2007.

2. Counterculturism. They believe in a United America. People who fight against the status quo of our culture are not looked on with approval. Therefore if you are a drug addict that is counter culturally unacceptable. Nothing spectacular here. It just means Neo Conservatives believe in taking responsiblity for their own actions which includes being a fine citizen of a great country.

3. Strong Governement. Iraq, the Middle east and about half the countries in the world that have failed to have a strong government prove daily the need for the “HUMAN BEING” to be governed. To have rules and laws to maintain law and order and to provide a stable, steady and safe environment in which to thrive and raise a family. Without a strong government to enforce these rules and laws then chaos reigns.

However having said that a strong government does not mean a government that is dictating to you how to live or what to do. There is life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that we do believe in. We just happen to believe that your happiness should not infringe on my happiness. Laws must reflect the overall good of the masses not the overall good of a pac or group that has only their interests at heart and not the best interests of the nation. Therefore no law to allow drunk driving would ever be passed. No law to legalize drugs would ever be passed no matter how large a MINORITY of you think its a good idea.

Therefore if you are a drunk driver……..that is not a right. The government therefore must step in and curtail that behavior for the welfare and benefit of the vast majority of its citizens. Most of you like to refer to it as the Nanny State and over at GTL I started referring to myself as the NANNY KING.

HUMAN BEINGS are incapable of getting together in a group without disagreeing on something. Therefore a strong government is needed to keep order while at the same time attempting to promote constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

4. Ronald Reagan made us love America again after listening to Jimmy Carter bemoaning in Public speechs how terrible the world was, how terrible the economy was and please cant you all just try to love each other. It was embarrassing to listen to some of his speeches. During this time The Neo Conservative movement was beginning to stir in America.

Americans that loved their country, would fight for it and would die if needed for this wonderful country. Not Americans that went out looking for a fight but Americans that were Proud of the country they lived in. Ronald Reagan if he did nothing else once again installed this in Americans and the power of Loving ones country, taking pride in its accomplishments and feeling a kinship with each other was amazing and turned this country from a depressed drug culture to one of a hard working ME

The other thing is this. Look at two groups of lawyers. The ones with the shiny faces, tidy dress code and with every hair in place will be the conservatives. Their lips are usually pursed and their laughs nervours titters.

I find the perfection of the conservatives intimidating. I suspect they will examine my fingernails for proper manicure.

You can recognize the liberals by their untidy hair, the forgotten neckties and the food spots on suit lapels. They read Tennyson during intermission. They won’t check my fingernails but might well question me extensivley about my hiking experiences.

I am torn between
A. rumpling the hair and unbottoning the collar button of a donservative, and
B. giving a liberal a haircut and sending his suit to the cleaners.

My quandary: which one will save America?

My excuse: I stayed up too late and now can’t sleep at all.

His lack of diplomatic skills hurt his image. On the other hand, NY is a behemoth. It takes a little authoritrianism to get anything done. Now, if only he had been an authoritarian diplomat…

I quote: Help me out because this sounds scary.

However I will be glad to offer up the basis of the fundamentals of Neo conservative movement tomorrow… Right now Im tuckered out and ready for bed…..so stay tuned and I will attempt to enlighten you on the tenets and their meanings.

See, what you said earlier was “I wholeheartedly endorse these tenets. Neoconservativism in the republican party is alive and well. Its a very strong part of what we believe and who we are and it does not need to be altered or changed.” Since you used the term “who we are” I am assuming you identify yourself as a neocon. All I’m trying to do is find out what the words mean. We can’t ask old Irving since he’s dead. Maybe we could ask little Billy Kristol, but I’m not sure he’d have any good answers either.

If these phrases are basic pillars of Neocons and if I’m not smart enough to figure out the words as Kristol wrote them, then perhaps you could enlighten me? I’m particularly interested in the “strong but not intrusive” thing. That’s kind of important don’t you agree? I realize that one person’s view of strength is another person’s view of an intrusion, but since it’s so basic I’m kind of curious what Neocons intend when they use such words. If you guys want the government to control, how did I put it, oh yeah, “highly personal decisions such as reproductive choices, sexual preferences, or medical issues,” well just let me know. At least I’ll know what you folks stand for even if I disagree.

I’m also interested in the “patriotism” thing since it’s my understanding that none of the really big guys, you know the ones, Pearle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, little Billy Kristol himself, and a few others, sort of forgot to do any military service. Maybe I’m wrong but I’d sure like to know. Patriotism has meant so many things to so many people throughout history that I’d like to know what the Neocons think it is.

These are indeed important questions because if the Neocons take over, or at least in your words, “achieve balance in the Neocon force” then I want to make sure I’m on the right side of things because there are indeed some scary implications behind old Irving’s words.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Jason……excellent questions. Questions that should be asked and questions That could never be answered to your liking. That is why their are sides to a political debate. I am not attempting to defend Neo Conservatism I was simply stating what it is.

Secondly the Bush Administration is incompetent without a doubt. But not for the reasons you espouse Gray. They are incompetent because as the President of the USA that by default makes him the leader of his party and the conservative cause of which NEO CONSERVATISM is a part.

The Bush Administration is NOT incompetent on other matters. Such as the economy is stronger then Under Clinton, Unemployment is better then under Clinton and on and on. There is much that is very good in the way of this country. The incompetence is that HE (GWB and company) have allowed the Liberals/left to define the debate, shape the argument and set the stage for the debate. They have failed miserably and as such they have ALLOWED THE LEFT to PAINT THEM EVIL.

The right has a few preachers who fall from grace………PREACHERS ARE EVIL. THE RIGHT HAS A GAY IN ITS MIDST…….Somehow we let them paint that as Conservatives are Deviants. The Democrats vote for war in Iraq then stab the president in the back……The president is clueless.

You see how you are defining the argument?

Hillary goes merrily along voting for the war and yet its okay because remember the name they used to give ole Bill Clinton……The teflon man. Nothing sticks to her……you the left/liberals are defining the argument.

Everytime I stand up and remark truthfully that Democrats saw the Evidence from a Democratic CIA DIRECTOR who said Saddam is bad and lets go get him……there is silence on the left and the argument is deflected to Bush is an Idiot because he Didnt see the light like the Democrats did or some such nonsense.

My little peep of truth is overwhelmed by the shouts, screams and bellows of the left defining the arguement with distortions of the truth.

No I disagree totally. GWB is incompetent but not for the reasons you espouse.

Right and wrong, Upin…. Right, “the Right is in an identity crisis”. Wrong, it’s not because you “have allowed the Left to define [you]“. Of course, the left does defines you, in a way that’s intended to make you look bad, and sometimes unfairly so. But the public is more influenced by the actions coming from the right side, and there are several groups that control those actions. Firstly, there’s the Bush administration, and it has proven to be incompetent and driven by the hunt for pipe dreams. Secondly, there are the leaders of the Christian right, and even though they might be more to the left than the group in average, their alls for demonizing gays and criminalizing abortion, not to speak of the ridiculous evolution and war-on-christmas campaigns shape the image. And then there are the neocons, imho not to be confused with the christian groups (Perle and Wolfowitz surely aren’t christian, and almost nobody would say that about Kristol and Ledeen, either). Their fantasies about US world domination and a global fight against evil is just to simplistic to persuade the broad public. And their influence on the WH has proven to be disastrous, so they rightly have become the target of widespread hatred.

Now, I admit that the GOP or the consevative movement in general is more than simply a sum of these three groups. But the sad fact is, this majority doesn’t play an important role in public discusion. It hasn’t come forward in opposition to the unfriendly takeover of the three fringe groups, and it hasn’t had many interesting ideas that were talking points in the media, either. The tragical shape the GOP is in today is simply a result of too many reasonable conservatives shutting up for too long, out of fear of hurting ‘their’ presidency. Sorry, but the wound is self inflicted, and imho it will take some time to heal. A moderate conservative, stepping forward and enhancing the standing of reasonable forces in the GOP would be helpful, but looking at the candidate pool for 2008, all options seem to be damaged goods in one way or another. Do you see any convincing personality that would be able to heal the rift and give the majority n the conservative movement a more decisisve voice, Upin…?

Perhaps since most aren’t familiar with everything that happened during his tenure as NYC’s mayor but calling Giuliani moderate is laughable.

Like Obama, his poll numbers are only so high because people don’t know him.

Unlike Obama there is plenty of baggage from the strong arm tactics that he used in NYC and his personal issues to make people turn against him.

I hope he does run, I can’t wait to see what the right wingers do to his sorry butt.

If you thought what they did to McCain was bad in 2000 you ain’t seen nothing yet.

What does all that mean? What is “strong but not intrusive?” I happen to consider the government interfering with highly personal decisions such as reproductive choices, sexual preferences, or medical issues as “intrusive.” Help me out here because this looks scary.

What is “social conservatism” and what’s wrong with a “counterculture” (assuming it can even be defined)? Don’t Americans get choices under the Neocon doctrine or are the choices akin to Henry Ford’s color choices regarding his Model-T (“You can have black or black or black…”). Who defines “counterculture.” If an administration acts contrary to the views of a majority of the people does that administration become a counterculture? This is starting to look like the “F” word folks (shhhhh, mustn’t say fascism”).

And now we have “Patriotism is a necessity.” What is patriotism anyway? Who defines it? My country right or wrong? My president right or wrong? Following the provisions of the Constitution that allow freedom of speech, freedom to petition the government to redress grievances? Freedom of assembly? Who defines “friends and foes?” Who defines “national interest?” To we get to vote on what all these terms mean or is there some Fearless Leader who will tell us?

Upinsmoke, I’m not trying to bust you and I don’t read Irving Kristol. I do think that words and their meanings are important, I’m really confused and I’m concerned that these terms are sufficiently general to cause a great deal of consternation among even reasonable people. If these are bedrock Neocon principles then they appear to my untutored eyes as being not only confusing, but in the wrong hands, highly statist, authoritarian, and anti-individual rights and liberties. Maybe I’m wrong but I’m just reading the words and filtering them through my own experiences and views….which I assume are as good as anyone else’s experiences and views.

According to Irving Kristol, the founder and “god-father” of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism:

1. Economics: Cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady, wide-spread economic growth and acceptance of the necessity of the risks inherent in that growth, such as budget deficits, as well as the potential benefits, such as budget surpluses.
2. Domestic Affairs: Preferring strong government but not intrusive government, slight acceptance of the welfare state, adherence to social conservatism, and disapproval of counterculture
3. Foreign Policy: Patriotism is a necessity, world government is a terrible idea, the ability to distinguish friend from foe, protecting national interest both at home and abroad, and the necessity of a strong military.

I wholeheartedly endorse these tenets. Neoconservativism in the republican party is alive and well. Its a very strong part of what we believe and who we are and it does not need to be altered or changed.

However the Liberal/Left has turned the phrase NEOCON into something that means we are Christian Warmongering Religious fanatics that want to run around the world starting wars all over the place for fun and profit for corporations.

This is simply a lie and it is this very tenet that must be reexplained and redefined and the truth be known in order to once again achieve balance in the collective NEOCON Force.

This is why I claim the Right is in an identity crisis. We have allowed the Left to define us and their defintion is Wrong. We must redefine ourselves not reinvent ourselves. Reinventing implies that we were wrong and I do not believe that.

My views are less a critique of Guiliani (OK, I’m no fan) than a brief litany of reasons why I do not think he can or will collect the Republican nomination.

Well, while there’s no reason that police brutality shouldn’t be an issue for the GOP, I think that particular criticism would affect Rudi more in the general election as it’s a concern that would more likely be brought up by the left. And I didn’t think that you were being disingenuous bringing up your recollection of it, it’s just that I think everyone’s recollection of anything political is colored by the prevailing political views of the day. Guiliani naturally made a lot of powerful enemies, and they were successful in framing discussions in particular ways just as his friends were successful in framing things in ways that flatter him.

Angliss:

He might be a great candidate for the GOP since he is reasonably moderate/centrist, but he may still be too conservative for this economically liberal/socially libertarian political pragmatist.

Of course. Can’t please all the people, all the time.

The federal and state government sued specific welfare-to-work groups for turning away people who legitimately qualified for benefits during Giuliani’s mayorship. This indicates a problem, but the question is how widespread this was throughout NYC, and I don’t know the answer. And I hadn’t heard about the tutoring programs.

The “mixed bag” that is Rudy Giuliani is why I said initially that Giuliani has questions he needs to answer before he’d get my support. He might be a great candidate for the GOP since he is reasonably moderate/centrist, but he may still be too conservative for this economically liberal/socially libertarian political pragmatist.