Why don't repiblicans see what is happening to their party? They are lost.

[stormchaser]

I don't mean to fan the flames here, but conservative principles need to be brought back. Either the Reps need to get back to their Reaganism roots or some other party will emerge (Libertarian?) to fill that void. What they need not do is move more to the left. Compromise is not an option. They must stand on principle and values and let the chips fall where they may. I fear, however, that after this current administration is finished with us, it may be too late to return to anything other than socialism.

Here here...I totally agree with all of this. Well, mostly, Reagan was not nearly as conservative as history currently reports, due to a liberal bias within the educational system. They have made him out to be far more conservative than his policies/actions prove him to be.

The Republicans need to be careful with moving to far to the extreme (same warning applies to the Dems), extreme views simply make any party look like a bunch of radicals and that is not well tolerated in the USA. We are, as a whole, a country of moderates...like a classic bell curve...some extreme liberals, some extreme conservatives...mostly moderates. If any party wants to gain and remain in power, they MUST aim to that center. That's what Obama claimed to be...which is why he was so popular...sadly he seem to be far more extreme than he portrayed himself to be. That's been the problem with both the republicans and democrats...they gain some power then move to the extreme and end up losing the support of the moderates and end up losing the power they've gained. Both tend to be greedy with power. They take winning a few elections to mean that their extreme POVs are sup[ported, which simply isn't the case on either side. You get too liberal or too conservative and you are almost guaranteed to get thrown out on your ass...and deservedly so.

[stormchaser]

The problem Republicans have is really simple. They're not conservatives regardless of what they call themselves. Most of the names the piece refers to as standard bearers like McCain and George W are "moderates" which is just a lefty code word for liberal. The main reason the party is failing is that they're turning into democrats. And let's face it if I wanted a democrat I'd vote for a democrat, not a RINO.

Please don't tell me you didn't find Junior to be conservative enough for you? I could see you calling McCain a RINO, but Junior? I hope you are joking. As far as McCain being RINO is concerned...he was CLOSE to being the next POTUS...but was found to be too CONSERVATIVE by the MAJORITY of Americans. if the Republicans go further conservative, well, I dount the outcome will be what they hope for.

[stormchaser]

Second, I'm still waiting for a definition of conservative vs. neocon from you. You seem to make a distiction, then lump them together.

To me a neocon is one who supports using military force to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes especially when it comes to to trying to spread democracy and do the job of nation building.
For me, "main characteristics of neoconservatism" are:

* a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
* low tolerance for diplomacy
* readiness to use military force
* emphasis on US unilateral action
* disdain for multilateral organizations
* focus on the Middle East

[Avenger]

Please don't tell me you didn't find Junior to be conservative enough for you? I could see you calling McCain a RINO, but Junior? I hope you are joking. As far as McCain being RINO is concerned...he was CLOSE to being the next POTUS...but was found to be too CONSERVATIVE by the MAJORITY of Americans. if the Republicans go further conservative, well, I dount the outcome will be what they hope for.

Sorry, I meant H.W.

W certainly could have been a lot more fiscally conservative.

Just one guy's opinion, but McCain had two major problems. One, the media hack job done on Bush and the Obama campaign's strategy to lump McCain together with him. Two, McCain's own lack of conservatism. When bank failure loomed he about fell all overhimself to dip into the public trough to bail them out. A solidly liberal/democrat/socialist solution. IMHO he and the Rebulican party have failed to differentiate themselves by practicing true conservative policy. Of course we'll never be able to prove it, but I think things would have been very different if McCain had opposed the bailouts.

To me a neocon is one who supports using military force to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes especially when it comes to to trying to spread democracy and do the job of nation building.
For me, "main characteristics of neoconservatism" are:

* a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
* low tolerance for diplomacy
* readiness to use military force
* emphasis on US unilateral action
* disdain for multilateral organizations
* focus on the Middle East

Okay, at least now I know what your semantics mean. So, neoconservatives are hawks that are a step to the left on social and economic policy.

Most of what you are referring to here sprang up after Sept 11. Yes, after that there was more emphasis on military action and the Middle East. Would you have preferred strongly worded letter demanding an apology?

[stormchaser]

Sorry, I meant H.W.

W certainly could have been a lot more fiscally conservative.

Just one guy's opinion, but McCain had two major problems. One, the media hack job done on Bush and the Obama campaign's strategy to lump McCain together with him. Two, McCain's own lack of conservatism. When bank failure loomed he about fell all over himself to dip into the public trough to bail them out. A solidly liberal/democrat/socialist solution. IMHO he and the Rebulican party have failed to differentiate themselves by practicing true conservative policy. Of course we'll never be able to prove it, but I think things would have been very different if McCain had opposed the bailouts.

Okay, at least now I know what your semantics mean. So, neoconservatives are hawks that are a step to the left on social and economic policy.

Most of what you are referring to here sprang up after Sept 11. Yes, after that there was more emphasis on military action and the Middle East. Would you have preferred strongly worded letter demanding an apology?

Senior did a pretty good job, I think he deserves praise, that we can agree on.

Not that not ALL liberals support the bailouts and yes, supporting the bailouts was a HUGE mistake for McCain....I think they are a TERRIBLE idea...talk about the fleecing of the American public. At least if we're going to give them bailouts, we should OWN them. Maybe the gov't should fully take over the banks and automotive sectors? I don't know...but I know giving my money away to them pisses me off. At least with the gov't owning the means of production, there can be wealth to share with all Americans during the good times. If the Gov't owned the major means of production rather than shareholders...then you and I wouldn't have to give so much of our money away in the forms of welfare...it would be self sustaining...the means of production would pay for the welfare.

Yes, i agree, most of what I find objectionable about the current group of 'Republicans" (quotes sued on purpose as I don't think they are real republicans) cropped up after 911. The war against terrorism was needed but very poorly managed by the neocons...there was no need to go into Iraq...our enemies were not there.

We needed to go after the right people and hit them HARD...MUCH harder than we did. I might have even supported the use of nuclear weapons. Yes, I was and AM a flag flying proud of our military American. I wanted to bomb the crap out of the terrorists...kill them all and let god sort it out. Sure, the in ital fight was good and I fully supported it...but then we got distracted and bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq. Hugest mistake the USA has made in a military since since the Vietnam war. Something that Junior did for all the wrong reasons and he destroyed our reputation while doing it. We went from the world's heros to the worlds laughing stock because of a President who would not listen to his experts and only did what he pleased. Anyone who can still to this day claim they think good things about Junior is either...well, I'm not going to call anyone names, but lets just say I have nothing good to day about anyone who still supports him, so I will say nothing at all.

[stormchaser]

Okay, at least now I know what your semantics mean. So, neoconservatives are hawks that are a step to the left on social and economic policy.

I don't consider virtually any of my definition of neocon to be liberal. Things like forced nation building, supporting using military force to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory...and especially my main points:

* a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
* low tolerance for diplomacy
* readiness to use military force
* emphasis on US unilateral action
* disdain for multilateral organizations
* focus on the Middle East

Definitely NOT liberal...just WRONG...

[mobilemn1]

this Richard Noggin would probably find some crap online and quote it to Osoma,,,,and then debate him til his head was cut off while being videoed

[Sparky1]

this Richard Noggin would probably find some crap online and quote it to Osoma,,,,and then debate him til his head was cut off while being videoed

You said Richard Noggin.

[mobilemn1]

Riflmao

[Avenger]

Senior did a pretty good job, I think he deserves praise, that we can agree on.

Some yes, some no. He'd have been a two term president if he hadn't made a left and raised taxes.

Maybe the gov't should fully take over the banks and automotive sectors? I don't know...but I know giving my money away to them pisses me off. At least with the gov't owning the means of production, there can be wealth to share with all Americans during the good times. If the Gov't owned the major means of production rather than shareholders...then you and I wouldn't have to give so much of our money away in the forms of welfare...it would be self sustaining...the means of production would pay for the welfare.

The problem with the government owning the capital is that there's not a politician in the world that can keep their hands out of the till. This is where socialist/communist ideaology fails. It always ignores human nature.

Yes, i agree, most of what I find objectionable about the current group of 'Republicans" (quotes sued on purpose as I don't think they are real republicans) cropped up after 911. The war against terrorism was needed but very poorly managed by the neocons...there was no need to go into Iraq...our enemies were not there.

We needed to go after the right people and hit them HARD...MUCH harder than we did. I might have even supported the use of nuclear weapons. Yes, I was and AM a flag flying proud of our military American. I wanted to bomb the crap out of the terrorists...kill them all and let god sort it out. Sure, the in ital fight was good and I fully supported it...but then we got distracted and bogged down in the quagmire that is Iraq. Hugest mistake the USA has made in a military since since the Vietnam war. Something that Junior did for all the wrong reasons and he destroyed our reputation while doing it. We went from the world's heros to the worlds laughing stock because of a President who would not listen to his experts and only did what he pleased. Anyone who can still to this day claim they think good things about Junior is either...well, I'm not going to call anyone names, but lets just say I have nothing good to day about anyone who still supports him, so I will say nothing at all.

I can't disagree about letting Allah sort them out.

The actual failure of the Iraq situation is the failure of intelligence and the media's biased coverage which made the entire effort appear to be a failure. Remember, most of the world gets its news about the U.S. from our own news media. And our news media is pretty anti-american.

I don't consider virtually any of my definition of neocon to be liberal. Things like forced nation building, supporting using military force to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory...and especially my main points:

* a tendency to see the world in binary good/evil terms
* low tolerance for diplomacy
* readiness to use military force
* emphasis on US unilateral action
* disdain for multilateral organizations
* focus on the Middle East

Definitely NOT liberal...just WRONG...

If you'll recall, there was attempted diplomacy about WMD's. 'Ol Saddam could still have a job if he'd allowed weapons inspectors.

So we marched into Iraq and toppled a dictator. Admittedly on faulty intelligence, but now we have a country with no government, what do you do? No nation building? Just let anarchy rule? Let the Taliban fill the void?

IF (yes, I know. biggest word in the English language) we can get past our flashbulb-like attention span and actually get these people to self-govern and develop a viable economy the middle east and the world will view it differently. Compared side by side freedom always looks better than oppression. Ask any former East German.

It's way too soon, with too much spin to decide W's legacy. Certainly not perfect, but nowhere's near as bad as you think either.