Former GOP Senator speaks out.

[Rex Kickass]

Standing alone, each of these initiatives has its advocates, within the Republican Party and beyond. But the distinct elements do not stand alone. Rather they are parts of a larger package, an agenda of positions common to conservative Christians and the dominant wing of the Republican Party.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/30/opinion/30danforth.html?

 

Senator Danforth is an Epsicopal minister, prayed with Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, served in the Bush administration last year and was an 18 year Senator representing Missouri as a Republican.

[YASNY]

Good for the Republican Party. I'm glad someone is representing the Christian values in our government.

[mmmmmbeeer]

I'm tellin' ya, this religious brand of neo-conservatism will spell the death of the GOP. It's amazing the way that this party has changed in just a few short years. I was a pretty proud republican when GW was elected and now I'm embarrassed to even associate myself with that party, for many of the same reasons as Danforth discussed.

 

At times I feel as if some folks have been brainwashed by this administration. There's a dude at work, falls right in line with anything and everything this administration/FOX news says. We were discussing a couple of issues and this guy started labeling me a leftist, I DESPISE the left. A proud neo-con calling an old conservative liberal. I could do nothing but shake my head in awe.

[TheBigHurt35]

I'm tellin' ya, this religious brand of neo-conservatism will spell the death of the GOP.  It's amazing the way that this party has changed in just a few short years. 

 

I don't think it's changed that much at all. People were making the same comments about GOP being too closely aligned with the Christian Right when Bush lost to Clinton in '92. Two years later, Republicans gained control of Congress and haven't looked back since. Reagan was a very devout Christian as well and used the same moralist ("Evil Empire") rhetoric when discussing the Soviet Union that Bush uses in reference to Iran and North Korea. Had the Constitution allowed, he almost certainly would've been elected to a third term. Death of the GOP, my ass.

 

This "neoconservatism" label is just something that liberal, anti-Christian media outlets like the NY Times use to drag conservatives through the mud. They're scared stiff because a major media outlet (Fox News) is pushing a conservative agenda to counter their liberal agenda... and it's working very well.

Edited March 31, 2005 by TheBigHurt35

[mmmmmbeeer]

I don't think it's changed that much at all.  People were making the same comments about GOP being too closely aligned with the Christian Right when Bush lost to Clinton in '92.  Two years later, Republicans gained control of Congress and haven't looked back since.  Reagan was a very devout Christian as well and used the same moralist ("Evil Empire") rhetoric when discussing the Soviet Union that Bush uses in reference to Iran and North Korea.  Had the Constitution allowed, he almost certainly would've been elected to a third term.  Death of the GOP, my ass.

 

This "neoconservatism" label is just something that liberal, anti-Christian media outlets like the NY Times use to drag conservatives through the mud.  They're scared stiff because a major media outlet (Fox News) is pushing a conservative agenda to counter their liberal agenda... and it's working very well.

 

 

FNC is not pushing a conservative agenda, they're pushing the GOP agenda. There's a BIG difference. NeoConservatism is MUCH more than just a buzzword, it's a REAL ideology. PNAC wasn't planted by the DNC, the neocon family tree is rather easy to follow. There are plenty of republicans who are not part of that tree. Take Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchanan, they have no problem admitting that there is a neocon agenda. Are you implying that those two are leftists in disguise??? Newt and his "Contract With America" earned the GOP their stranglehold in congress back in '94, not the christian coalition.

 

And please don't ever try to draw another parallel between GWB and Ron Reagan, Reagan would be absolutely disgusted by the Patriot Act, GOP fiscal irresponsibility, and big government tactics. I don't deny that Reagan was a man of strong faith, but he didn't use faith as a means to expand government. Just because Bush used Reagan's "Evil Empire" phrase sure as f*** doesn't mean anything more than Bush used his phrase.

[Pale Hose Jon]

I don't think it's changed that much at all.  People were making the same comments about GOP being too closely aligned with the Christian Right when Bush lost to Clinton in '92.  Two years later, Republicans gained control of Congress and haven't looked back since.  Reagan was a very devout Christian as well and used the same moralist ("Evil Empire") rhetoric when discussing the Soviet Union that Bush uses in reference to Iran and North Korea.  Had the Constitution allowed, he almost certainly would've been elected to a third term.  Death of the GOP, my ass.

 

This "neoconservatism" label is just something that liberal, anti-Christian media outlets like the NY Times use to drag conservatives through the mud.  They're scared stiff because a major media outlet (Fox News) is pushing a conservative agenda to counter their liberal agenda... and it's working very well.

 

They used to call the first bush rubberz, on capital hill, becuase he wanted to put a condom machine in every bathroom in the Capital Building. Can you even think about that happening these days.

 

If you want to see a great film on how neo conservatism and the chrisitian right developed watch the Power of Nightmares. Yes the movie is biased (made by the BBC) but you can clearly see how neo conservatism developed, and how they used christians to rise to power

[KipWellsFan]

You can download it streaming or bittorrent here.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm

[Pale Hose Jon]

They also do a really good job of describing how anti american terrorism began

[TheBigHurt35]

NeoConservatism is MUCH more than just a buzzword, it's a REAL ideology.  PNAC wasn't planted by the DNC, the neocon family tree is rather easy to follow.   There are plenty of republicans who are not part of that tree.

 

Um, no, it is an ill-defined buzzword that is often used as a derogatory term. Most independent sources will tell you that (link)

 

Neoconservatism is a controversial term whose meaning is widely disputed. The term is used more often by those who oppose "neoconservative" politics than those who subscribe to them; indeed, many to whom the label is applied reject it. The term is sometimes used pejoratively, especially by the self-described paleoconservatives

 

FNC is not pushing a conservative agenda, they're pushing the GOP agenda.  There's a BIG difference.  

 

FNC is more or less pushing the Bush administration's agenda. With the exception of a few issues such as border security, people like O'Reilly and Hannity agenerally agree with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the other "neocons" you're talking about. At the same time, O'Reilly is featuring Newt Gingrich on his show and agreeing with most of what he says. I don't see the "big difference" that you're speaking of.

 

While I agree that Newt and Pat Buchanan are politically different in some ways than Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, they all base policy on moralist grounds. And I don't see any of them showing tolerance towards the welfare state, which is supposedly an aspect of neoconservatism.

 

And please don't ever try to draw another parallel between GWB and Ron Reagan, Reagan would be absolutely disgusted by the Patriot Act, GOP fiscal irresponsibility, and big government tactics.

 

Reagan: Attacked Libya after terrorists tied to Qaddafi murdered Americans

Bush: Attacked Afghanistan after terrorists tied to bin Laden murderd Americans

 

Reagan: Fiscal conservative who staunchly opposed spending on social programs

Bush: Supposed "neocon" who staunchly opposed socialized healthcare, proposed significant cuts to Medicaid, and proposed the privitization of Social Security

 

Agreed that Reagan was much more libertarian than Bush. Then again, Reagan didn't watch 3,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack.

 

I don't deny that Reagan was a man of strong faith, but he didn't use faith as a means to expand government.    Just because Bush used Reagan's "Evil Empire" phrase sure as f*** doesn't mean anything more than Bush used his phrase.

 

Reagan "sure as f***" spent an absolute ton of taxpayer money on the arms race, escalating the Cold War against the godless Communists of the Evil Empire. And if he would've had his way, even more would've been spent on Star Wars. And you're telling me that he didn't use faith to expand government? Wrong.

Edited March 31, 2005 by TheBigHurt35