[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

My point was that at one time (before Schiavo) Frist was talked about as the party's candidate in 2008. MB222 acted like I had made this up and I presented the first of a long list of evidences that he had been considered. [/quote]

Come on now, I never suggested you "made it up", what I objected to was your suggestion that he was "The Man". 

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=joedabrkr]come on guys, start with the colors…for old times sake… [/quote]

You're welcome.

Based on my observations today, Senator Frist is a highly viable Presidential candidate. His intelligence, competence, judgment and reliability cannot be questioned. His views are compatible with those of the Republican base across a broad range of issues

Frist will be forever linked to the Terry Schaivo debacle, which by the way was not supported by the majority of Republicans.  Frist has a snowballs chance to be a viable candidate.

Agreed, and to whom's original point, he never was any sort of presumptive favorite or, as he said it, "the man".

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party. 

I don't think that's fair. While he misinterprets my comments on his judgements as about him personally, and while I do think he takes an outsiders POV (unknowingly) it's only fair to mention that he really hasn't talked about the GOP as a monolith.

MikeB and I disagree on McCain, yet I get the sense that we are pretty much on the same page politically.  I think McCain will never be able to shake the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold legislation from his back.  His age and physical health are also going to be big issues. 

The former issue (McCain/Feingold  anti-1st Amendment stuff) makes me cringe, I disagree about the latter.

And while I could give a rip about Guiliani's personal life and his peccadilloes, it will be a big issue with the religious conservatives.  

I think people will be surprised how the rank and file religious right types don't care, even if the "leaders" of that crowd make an issue of Rudy's past.

I know some have said it will be an issue because he has "free" publicity from his media (Law and Order, Paul Harvey) pursuits, but I think not.  The can just not air the few episodes he was in on the television show. 

I don't know that they have to even have to do that sort of thing.

I don't want to over Wiki the issue but:

"Frist had been widely seen as a potential presidential candidate for the Republican party in 2008, much in the same tradition as Bob Dole, a previous holder of the Senate Majority Leader position. On November 28, 2006, however, he announced that he had decided not to run, and would return to the field of medicine.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist#Political_Future

This is why I say that the Republican slate is more remarkable for the people who aren't running.

To say that this guy's candidacy was never touted as the front runner is to say that you know nothing of the inside game of politics.

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party. 

I don't think that's fair. While he misinterprets my comments on his judgements as about him personally, and while I do think he takes an outsiders POV (unknowingly) it's only fair to mention that he really hasn't talked about the GOP as a monolith.

Dibs on Green:  You're right.  I take it back.  I don't want to be unfair

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

To say that this guy's candidacy was never touted as the front runner is to say that you know nothing of the inside game of politics.

[/quote]

Again you move the goal posts. You said "The man" and now th best you can do is "front runner" of a race year years away....long before most candidates even had exploritory committees. McCain, btw, the the "front runner" then, as earned by his #2 spot in the prior contested nomination.

please, if we're going to try to be objective here, don't pretend to know anything out the "inside game" of the GOP.

Addition to above; Frist’s chances ended with the Schiavo affair, the announcement in Nov 2006 was just the period to the sentence.

[quote=babbling looney]

Once again, you are looking at the Republican party from the outside and seem think that it is a monolithic party. 

I don't think that's fair. While he misinterprets my comments on his judgements as about him personally, and while I do think he takes an outsiders POV (unknowingly) it's only fair to mention that he really hasn't talked about the GOP as a monolith.

Dibs on Green:  You're right.  I take it back.  I don't want to be unfair

[/quote]

Speaking of religious right "leaders", what they have to say and Rudy and Thompson;

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070328/28dobson.h tm

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

I think Dobson's about to find out how little influence he really has with people he considers to be his "flock".

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

I think Dobson's about to find out how little influence he really has with people he considers to be his "flock".

Amen.

In fact, “neo-con” wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen in the heady days of the “Arkansas Project”.

Got anything to back that "fact" up with?

How about if I show you evidence of the Neo Con ideology, pre Arkansas project, will that get you to admit that you are wrong?

As to non Neo Con Republicans, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins. Not that they are the only ones, but you wanted one, I gave you two. This proves another of your strawman points to be invalid.  

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

In fact, “neo-con” wasn’t even a blip on the radar screen in the heady days of the “Arkansas Project”.

Got anything to back that "fact" up with?

How about if I show you evidence of the Neo Con ideology, pre <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Arkansas project, will that get you to admit that you are wrong? [/quote]

I'm still waiting for proof that Coors and Scaife were "neo-cons", as you know as well as I do that your site, Brock, doesn't cover that subject.

"Neo-con" came into its own when Bush adopted the pov of some neo-con advisors that US foreign policy could serve the GWOT by spreading democracy (not always with force, btw) because, as the theory goes, free democratic nations don’t engage each other in war and aren’t breeding grounds for terrorism.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As to non Neo Con Republicans, Olympia Snow, Susan Collins. Not that they are the only ones, but you wanted one, I gave you two. This proves another of your strawman points to be invalid.  

[/quote]

Snow and Collins are social moderates who voted for the war in Iraq, tax cuts, and against the ban on partial birth abortions (if memory severs), etc.. 

Frankly all you proved here is that voting for the war in Iraq isn't the qualifying mark to be a "neo-con", but being a social conservative is, which, imho, is the opposite of reality.

Just out of curiosity, was Reagan a neo-con?

For those of you keeping score at home;

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp? idArticle=3000&R=785F27881

Irving Kristol, the "godfather" of neo-con thought on what it is.

More, and from the wikipedia article we've been discussing;

"Critics take issue with neoconservatives' support for aggressive foreign policy; critics from the left especially take issue with what they characterize as unilateralism and lack of concern with international consensus through organizations such as the United Nations.[6][7][8] Neoconservatives respond by describing their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention. This is a departure from the traditional conservative tendency to support friendly regimes in matters of trade and anti-communism even at the expense of undermining existing democratic systems. Author Paul Berman in his book Terror and Liberalism describes it as, "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for freedom for others."

The underlining and red is mine as it captures my point about where classic conservatism and neo-con thought diverge. In every other area of conservitism the two are very much together.

Thought you might find this interesting, who is a "neo-con" according to this source;

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives /list

Notables include;

Nice links.

Thompson's not on the list. Well he can catch up on the foreign policy terrorist control. Just install Newt in the cabinet.

I'm sticking with Looney on this one -

If Thompson does run, get ready for the "waaaahhh it isn't fair" whining from the Dems because he has face recognition.

Let's keep it simple, leverage what we got, get to work on his behalf so the liberals don't try to put a chicken in every pot and screw up the economy.

Er, one more. The above source lists Scaife as a "neo-con", yet doesn't mention an explanation for that tag in its bio on him. To me that’s just more proof that “neo-con” means nothing more than “right wing” and/or in the case of non-right wingers like Zbiggy or Martin Pertez, “supports Israel:.

BTW, even this long and curious list fails to mention Coors as a neo-con.

Richard Mellon Scaife is a billionaire contributor to the Republican Party and right-wing think tanks, one of the most influential men behind the right wing today. Scaife has helped establish their biggest institutions and supported some of their most radical ideas.

Mr. Scaife was a primary source of money used to fund attacks against Bill Clinton during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky eras of his presidency. He has also been known to purchase mass quantities of conservative books (especially those published by Regnery Press) to push them up the bestseller lists.

Among the right-wing organizations substantially funded by Mr. Scaife are the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, Judicial Watch, Cato Institute and a working group within his American Spectator publication called the "Arkansas Project," whose specific aim was to locate and create dirt on the Clintons in order to smear them, in hopes of removing Clinton from office.

People for the American Way estimates that the Scaife Foundations have channeled in excess of $340 million to right-wing groups over the last thirty years, more than any other individual.

Scaife has a long history of supporting attacks on organizations and institutions which refuse to kowtow to right-wing interests. For example in 1985 Scaife reportedly financed most of retired Gen. William Westmoreland's libel suit against CBS over a documentary, "The Uncounted Enemy". This documentary claimed that he deliberately underestimated enemy troop strength in Vietnam (Morning Call, (Allentown, PA), March 1, 1985, Westmoreland Suit backed by Mellon Heir, Associated Press).

Scaife has been criticized by sections in the media for attempting to corrupt the practice of journalism and dilute it with a very specific agenda. [1] [2] [3]

"I'm still waiting for proof that Coors and Scaife were "neo-cons", as you know as well as I do that your site, Brock, doesn't cover that subject."

No. I know better than you because I actually read the book that I cited and he does in fact name Scaife and Coors as the driving force of what Hillary described as "the vast right wing conspiracy."

"'Neo-con' came into its own..."

Oh and who is moving the goal posts now? Before it catagorically didn't exist, then it existed later, in the meantime it was the boogeyman of the liberal imagination and now it "Came into its own..." at such and such a time.

"Frankly all you proved here is that voting for the war in <?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 />Iraq isn't the qualifying mark to be a 'neo-con', but being a social conservative is, which, imho, is the opposite of reality."

Frankly, you're boring me with your insistance that words only mean what you think they mean regardless of the facts refuting your "thinking." Voting for the war (and/or voting for the approval of giving the president the authority to threaten war) does not a Neo Con make. I never asserted that it did, only you have built that strawman.

Its a notion that can be dismissed out of hand! If the powers vote makes one a neo con then there would have been such a super majority on conservatives that the deliniation would be moot.

You're just being silly.

As to Reagan being a Neo Con. No he could not have been a Neo Con because he was a Cold Warrior. The Neo Con movement grew out of the absence of the traditional enemy of Conservatives, the Communists. See? It all makes sense now doesn't it? There had to be a Neo (new) Conservative objective because the old raison d' etre had disappeared.

This is a big part of why Bill Kristol put out the memo outlining the strategy to defeat the Democrats and why they had to defeat Hillary's Health Care initiative (which we're paying for now) because, without the commie threat, Conservatives were cut loose and could very well attach themselves to the Democratic party for generations to come if the Dems delivered on Health Care.

These are not facts that need to be proved again. All parties have admitted culpability when presented with the documantation. Its embarassing for me to have to explain this to you. You should know this by now.

Just like you should know that Paul Wolfowitz wrote the whole Pre-emptive war doctrine while in the employ of George H Bush's administration. So the evidence is clear that Neo Conservatism was alive before the Arkansas Governor's name was widely known.

Yeah, I said that I think Newt can win, which ought to set another of your strawman arguments ablaze. All you need to do is admit you're wrong.

I'll comment on Irving Kristol's aticle separately. 

Ok.... So we start the article by saying that Neoconservatism is a chimera, it only seems to have existed when seen historically.

"...what we call neoconservatism has been one of those intellectual undercurrents that surface only intermittently."

"... called a "persuasion," one that manifests itself over time, but erratically, and one whose meaning we clearly glimpse only in retrospect. "

And then the guy who blushes that he has been called the "godfather" of Neoconservatism goes on at some length to tell us the concrete changes that the new neoconservatism hath wraught!

One sided doesn't even begin to describe this love letter to self which Mikebutler222 proudly links in evidence of there never having been such a thing as neocon!

Written in 2003, the author has the luxury of hindsight when he's defending the actions he wishes to discuss.

Here is what makes Mikebutler222's use of this link without a major "Gee I guess I really didn't know what the eff I was talking about after all!" mea culpa attached... remember how Mike keeps saying that Neo Conism is about foreign policy....

"AND THEN, of course, there is foreign policy, the area of American politics where neoconservatism has recently been the focus of media attention. This is surprising since there is no set of neoconservative beliefs concerning foreign policy, only a set of attitudes derived from historical experience."

But but but... Mikebutler222 says that you are defined by your foreign policy mr. Kristol! Surely he knows better than you, he "thinks" thing mean what he "thinks" they mean and you have no right thinking it means something different! 

"These attitudes can be summarized in the following "theses" (as a Marxist would say): First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. "

Gee, I wonder where they stand on mom and apple pie! Babies are good!

"Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. "

Wow, that's deep man!

"Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the history of the Cold War revealed. The number of intelligent men who could not count the Soviet Union as an enemy, even though this was its own self-definition, was absolutely astonishing."

I left in the part about the Commies so you could see how it related to the post above where I talk about the Neo Cons and the end of the Cold War.

"Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation."

You gotta love how he included the Kyoto Accord in there! This is what I was saying about having the hindsight to adjust definitions to include what he wanted and omit what he didn't.

"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II."

Excuse me, aside from the "Godwins Law" of this "logic", The author is using the second sentence as evidence of the first and at the same time using the first sentence to justify the second.

 I don't have a problem with us helping England and France in WWII but he uses "feel obligated" and then asserts as fact  that feeling obligated was why defending Britain and France was in our National Interest! That is absolute garbage!

"That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. "

Apparently written when the Raison D' Jour for the invasion of Iraq was to protect Israel! Ah being topical is hell!

Anyway Mikebutler222, this link only proves that you don't know diddly squat about Neocons.

Now can we move on?

[quote=babbling looney]Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

I think Dobson's about to find out how little influence he really has with people he considers to be his "flock".

Amen.[/quote]

I'll agree with you on the primary...there's not enough differentiation between the candidates to mobilize evangelicals, BUT...in a general R vs. D (ie, "Good vs. Evil") election, I think he could exert considerable influence, assuming the candidates are sufficiently separated on issues important to evangelicals.  Where he won't is when the two candidates are close enough together ideologically that evangelicals are unable to muster sufficient righteous indignation.

Case in point was the last congressional election...my district's Republican incumbent (in a Republican-leaning district) was clobbered by a gun-toting, family-man, aborting-hating Blue-Dog Demo.  There just wasn't enough differentiation to mobilize significant evangelical support for a tired Republican incumbent.  Dobson couldn't make a difference there, but I'm convinced he did in Bush vs. Kerry.

I'll go on record right now, and I think it's stating the obvious...Republicans would absolutely LOVE to run against Hillary.  When the votes are tallied, I don't think she'd win even against a mediocre Republican candidate.  I honestly don't think the country is that stupid...(sorry...couldn't help myself...)

You are looking at the wrong Coors, You're looking at Coors Light!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Coors

This is the guy, and he ain't on the list of the living members of anything!