Third Party & Independents Archives

Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Kerry!

“In the long run, he understands that extremists can be defeated by freedom and democracy and prosperity and better education”…President Bush said of Pakistan’s president, General Pervez Musharraf on occasion of his visit to the dictator’s, yes dictator’s homeland. Yes, our president continues his trip down Quaalude lane while the world in its fascination and amazement laughs aloud.

Is our ever dimwitted President unaware that Musharraf is a dictator, a man who came to power October 12, 1999 after a coup d'état—with the full backing of the military—and assumed the title of president of Pakistan on June 2001. Ever since then he has promised to hold elections but somehow that always falls through. Oh, but he has promised to try again next year.

So Bush's claim that Musharraf “understands that extremists can be defeated by freedom and democracy and prosperity and better education,” all the things the people of Pakistan lack, is hysterical and sad bordering on the ridiculous. And it invites the question: does Bush ever, ever, ever, live in the same world as the rest of us? Is it possible to be this divorced from reality and not be on some sort of mind altering drug? And yes this is a serious question, not one designed to poke fun of our somewhat intellectually hobbled head of state.

And it begs another question: if Bush and his Neo-con infested Administration are so keen on bringing democracy to the down-trodden masses of the Asia and the Middle East, why not Pakistan a place where most able-bodied terrorists are hatched? Is it that Musharraf is seeking a small measure of legitimacy for his illegitimate regime by helping the U.S. whose power, prestige, and influence slips a little more everyday Bush is in office? Any halfwit who has been paying even the slightest attention to the world knows that Musharraf is taking only baby steps toward stamping out the terrorist assembly-line now turning out aspirant Muslim extremists at an alarming pace. But not Bush.

“Only hours before Bush's appearance, the Pakistani government cracked down on political leaders and others planning to protest the president's visit. In the city of Rawalpindi, about 10 miles from Islamabad, police arrested about 20 members of Tehrik-e-Insaaf, a small political party, as they staged a noisy but peaceful demonstration, beating some of them with bamboo sticks as foreign journalists and camera crews recorded the scene.” Sounds like democracy to me…

Whenever Bush embarrasses our country before the world—and lets face it, it’s every time he opens his mouth—I used to find solace in the fact that my votes were not cast his way in either election. But as the time wears on and our country sheds it principles one-by-one and loses its moral center, I no longer find comfort in the words: “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Kerry!”

Posted by V. Edward Martin at March 5, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #131445

this is something that has been bothering me for a long time. We have a completely hypocritical stance on democracy, essentially amounting to “be our friend and you can do whatever you want.”

But this isnt new, look at kuwait. We liberated them from Saddam, but the people there are under a dictator.

The UAE allows human trafficking and slavery, Pakistan is a military dictatorship, Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchy, etc.

The only democracy in the middle east that is our allie is Israel.

Posted by: iandanger at March 5, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #131448
The only democracy in the middle east that is our allie is Israel.
Unless of course you happen to be a Palestinian living in Israel.

Good article, V Edward. Let’s be honest. The Bush Administration talks a lot about spreading democracy, but they aren’t really interested in spreading democracy. What they’re REALLY trying to spread is capitalism, which is not at all the same thing.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 5, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #131452

Pakstan is just one bullet away from becoming the world’s first nuclear armed fundamentalist Muslim state. One would think that the US would be taking extraordinary measures and exerting extraordinary influence in the world to prepare for Musharraf’s assasination or demise by other means.

But, as Mr. Martin points out, the short sighted Bush administration looks for trade and anti-terrorist cooperation from this dictator who has accomplished virtually nothing to prevent the Fundamentalist Taliban and al-Queda supporting populace from taking over upon his departure from his role as military dictator. And our President has sent this man and his country 10’s if not 100’s of millions of U.S. tax payer dollars. What have we received in return for all that money?

A military dicatator who has befriended our President. Aside from an occasional half hearted and small token cooperative efforts along the Afghan/Pakistan border, that’s it. That is all we have received for our money. And Pakistan looms as a far, far greater threat to America’s future than Iraq ever did in this century.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 5, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #131456

Do you honestly think John Kerry would be cracking down on all the dictatorships allied with us right now? Clinton sure did, or wait, wasn’t he the one who sold our military technology to China for campaign cash? Talk about being in bed with dictatorships. And one last thing, this section of the site shouldn’t be called “Third Party and Independents” it should be called “Democrats and Liberals who are Afraid to Admit they’re Democrats and Liberals”. All I have ever seen in this section is classic knee-jerk, cool-aid drinking liberal mantras and no independent thought at all.

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #131457

So you guys would advocate what in relation to Pakistan?

Kerry perhaps would have broken relations with Pakistan?

The policy Kerry advocated throughout the election was nothing but Bush lite. He never advocated any real departures, so we need to assume that you would have a similar problem with his policy.

Posted by: Jack at March 5, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #131460


Funny, whenever anyone even hints that Bush may not be the second coming of Regan, the Republicans go back six year and somehow drag Clinton into the fray; how sad, you seem to have nothing more to say. After all Bushes actions are quite indefensible.

And if you bother to take a look back at my posts over the years you will find that my opinion vis-à-vis the Bush Administration have been, oh, somewhat consistent. And I do so tire of those who support Bush labeling those who don’t liberals and Democrats; I assure you sir, I am neither. And I hate kool-aid!


First of all, who is “you guys?” Second, I think the Bush Administration if it had had any vision and leadership ability what-so-ever should have made it clear to Pakistan from the outset that half measures would not be tolerated, and that it would be well advised to get rid of its terrorist Universities or we’ll do it for them.

The real War or Terror would have found Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad at the top of the target list and Syria, and Iran called to account. What happened? Please don’t try and claim that Bush has been effect in this unending war on terror…

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 5, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #131463


Your saying that Kerry would have done the same is just plain wrong. No one in any other administration ever even contemplated helping India build nuclear weapons without signing the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan wants to meet with Bush, because now it’s possible for any country to get this deal as long as they scratch our backs.

The bottom line is Bush made it easier for all countries to have nukes for the short term tactical benefit of having an ally in that geopolitical area armed for short nuclear strikes. This is either a very bold and brilliant move or very stupid. Either way, its too risky. Obviously failure after failure does nothing to make this man pause at gambling away our future.

And Kerry would never say that Musharraf “understands that extremists can be defeated by freedom and democracy and prosperity and better education.” It takes a special man to lie that baldfacedly.

Posted by: Max at March 5, 2006 8:43 PM
Comment #131466

As time goes on it seems America is declining faster and faster. Who knows, maybe in a decade or two we’ll be a third-world country. Our leaders are either stupid or corrupt, most Americans are too dumb to care, and most real problems facing us like the national debt and energy dependence are ignored. Unfortunately unless there is a massive change, our once great country will collapse, it’s just a matter of when.

Posted by: John at March 5, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #131471


this section of the site shouldn’t be called “Third Party and Independents” it should be called “Democrats and Liberals who are Afraid to Admit they’re Democrats and Liberals”. All I have ever seen in this section is classic knee-jerk, cool-aid drinking liberal mantras and no independent thought at all.
Thanks for attacking the message and not the messenger.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 5, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #131473

We don’t know what Kerry would have done. He gave little indication of any new ideas, so I really don’t think it would be better.

Handling Pakistan differently would probably be a mistake. So Kerry would have demanded that Pakistan engage in civil war and hold an election in the middle. And you guys think Iraq is a mess. I am sure glad Kerry didn’t win if that was his plan. Of course, my guess is he would not be as stupid as you think.

And yes, I think the war on terror is going well, although it is impossible to say at this time with certainty. No terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. Maybe you think that the terrorists are just holding off for the past five years. That did not seem to be their plan.

I have notes I took on 9/11. I was pessimistic. I felt we would be hit again and that our economy would go to hell. I worried that this was an event like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand and the world would be turned upside down.

Of course you can say that you were full of optimism. On the evening of 9/11 you thought that in five years we would not be hit again and that they economy would be doing great. Those of you who don’t keep journals can even convince yourselves.

Yes, you are pushing the idea that a 4.7% unemployment rate is the end of the world and that a 3.5% growth rate sucks. No terrorist attacks in five years means nothing. Good relations with the world’s biggest democracy is a sign of failure for you all.

If your man thinks like you do, I am sure glad Kerry isn’t making the decisions for our country.

Posted by: Jack at March 5, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #131487

I certainly did not vote for either Kerry or Bush. I no longer vote for the lesser of two evils.

I voted for badnarik; I thought he was a weak candidate; but, he was clearly the best of the three choices I had in Indiana.

Posted by: LP Mike Sylvester at March 5, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #131489


Right on as usual. India will replace China as the most populated nation on earth perhaps within a decade and it would be in our interests to have a good relationship with them. I agree that the war on terror has gone well so far, but mistakes have been made just like in any other war. If Al Gore had won in 2000, would he have run a perfect war on terror? Would Kerry have been able to predict every problem we would face in this war? Bush has made some mistakes, but the things he has done right overshadow them. The only man who has never made a mistake is the man who has never done anything. “Don’t blame me, I voted for Kerry”? Don’t blame you for 4.7% unemployment, for 3.5% economic growth, for no terror attacks in five years? That’s okay, I’ll take the fall for that one.

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #131490

LP Mike,

A Libertarian, eh. I happened to like Badnarik as well, but I don’t believe in wasting my vote. I believe we need more than the pathetic two party system if we want any real change in this country, but I have no idea how we can get a viable third party going.

Posted by: Duano at March 5, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #131500


You gotta start local. the only way effective third parties arise is by building a following.

either that or some major players have to defect, ala Israel today, but the republicans and democrats have even survived that (bull moose party, dixiecrats).

We are dealing with entrenched power that does not back down easily. There isnt really a reasonable way to take them down. thats why you have to start small. run for local office as an independent or a populist or a libertarian or a green. look into your local third parties, etc, support their candidates. you have to build movements, and in time the internet and other resources may give us the ammuntion we need to take down the big elephant/donkey.

like the title of the book “an army of davids.” blogging and the net in general are changing our society, if we do this right, we can change things for the better.

also, the best way to help get 3rd parties elected in the USA system is to support instant runoff voting, which gets rid of the concept of throwing your vote away. I recomend all of you check out instant runoff voting, it helps a lot.

In other matters, giving India nuclear technology while they are not part of the nonproliferation treaty is hypocritical to our stance with Iran, and more importantly, is going to make their situation with pakistan more stressed, since they will be capable of further nuclear buildup. I personally dont want to see that region nuked to hell, but on the plus side that would help with the overpopulation issues we’re having on a planetary scale. And the point of the post isnt dont blame me, I voted for Kerry, It is that saying I voted for Kerry isnt enough, too much has gone wrong just to be oppositional

Posted by: iandanger at March 6, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #131507

iandanger, 3rd parties working up from local is a pipe dream. They have been trying that tactic for decades and gotten very little for the effort. What good does it do to win a county seat, if the rest of the state and nation will only recognize Republocrats? What good does it do to try to move up when the rules of the game are all stacked against independents and 3rd parties.

No, that doesn’t work. What has a potential of working is Independent voters, and 3rd parties joining forces to elect each other’s candidates to defeat Republocrats at the State level, where they can change the election laws to level the playing field. That is the only hope for independent and 3rd party candidates. But, someone must lead them to work together. That is the missing quantity, to date.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 6, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #131509

not sure the neocons got the memo;
top neocon theorist Francis Fukuyama proclaims,

Neoconservativism is Dead

one of many declarations of the obvious (google it).

(move over communism)- throw it on history’s junkpile of discredited ideologies. amen.

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #131516


You don’t seem to get it about conservatism. We believe in markets and power of liberty much the way we know water flows downhill. Most other things are commentary. You can’t really attack based on our “definition” because we don’t care about them. If the things we try don’t work, we will try some others and if people don’t like the name, you can call it something else.

So okay, we are dead. But tomorrow we will be back.

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #131520

I have never been a fan of “neo” anything. I’m more of an old school conservative, some would call me an isolationist. We are running the risk of stretching our military to the breaking point with all of these campaigns. I was a huge supporter of Bush in 2000 in large part because of his opposition to “nation building”, which he now seems to be so enamored with. I don’t believe in “cutting and running” from Iraq right now, but when we do eventually step down our forces there, we need to take a breath and reevaluate our situation. We should think about using more air forces and less ground troops, and also use the old tactic of supporting rebellions rather than going on all out invasions.

Posted by: Duano at March 6, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #131532

Regardless of the Spin the Republicans are desperately trying to make, there is no denying that terrorism has grown under the Bush Administration. The United States is second only to Iran in Most Dangerous Country in the World according to most Polls. Amnesty International has once again cited the torture this White House commits in the name of Freedom.

… And nobody in the Red Column who is eligible for Service has posted his Name and EMail. How sad.

Posted by: Aldous at March 6, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #131534

A 3.5% growth in the Economy might of been good say in the 1960’s; however, the 80’s & 90’s have cranked up that number to about 7-8% annual growth and Employment right around 97-98% with zero inflation. Yet, I understand that most Republicans can’t keep up with that pace even though they claim to want to make Profit. Nevertheless, the Homeland Sercurity, our Ports, and Katrina still have not cause the growth in our Economy. Why? Is it to much work for this Adminstration?

One major factor that factor that seems to be making headway is the Demo-Publicans that have closed ranks to block the “Lack of Imagination” and “Incompetence” of the Bush’s Adminastration.
Hopefully, they will not waste this 90%+ of Americans motivation to do something about the mess that we find ourselve in.

A third party could/should take on the Repuclians directly on the issues. With a Politically Unalienable Correct Agenda that is based on what is Right & True about being an American, the Leaders can move America and Humanity past this War on Terror. Seeing that the Democrats and Republicans have been learning how to be PC for 25 years, the leap to PUCing the World should be a walk in the park. Besides, PUC the World is a good street solgan.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 6, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #131546


“No terror attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.”

No terror attacks in the US from the 1993 WTC attacks to 9/11/2001. So no attacks from 3 weeks into Clinton’s first term (Feb 93) to relatively early in Bush’s term.

Hm. I’m obviously not as smart as you are, ‘cause to me it looks like whatever Clinton was doing worked great.

Just like he was great on the economy, welfare reform, crime, abortion, and, oh, just about everything else.

“Gore also would not have prosecuted a perfect war on terror.”

I don’t remember who wrote that, and can’t bear to waste 30 seconds of my life looking, but let me say this:

Gore would not have prosecuted a war on terror, and we would, every single one of us in the US, be better off for it. President Gore would have overthrown the Taliban and then “stayed the course.” Hopefully, there’d be more than a Mayor of Kabul to show for it.

And now, were we 14 months into a Kerry presidency, I firmly believe we’d have far more troops in Iraq, a true multinational force.

I think cognitive dissonance is setting in on much of the right, and their flailing and shrillness is testament to it.

Posted by: Arr-squared at March 6, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #131547

You Independents are even more nuttier than WingNuts if you think a Third Party will ever win.

How much does an Advertisement costs? How about Hotels? The Elections are a major Corporate Money-Maker. A Money-Maker dependent on having ONLY two players.

Its all about money.

Posted by: Aldous at March 6, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #131553


I agree with your assessment of our future unless something is done and a new crop of “real” leader rise to the fore, and have the courage, vision, and stamina to take America boldly into the remainder of the century.

I would run, but I lack the funds!

Jack & Duano

It seems to me that your only measure of the success of the War on Terror is that the American homeland has not bee attacked sine 9/11. That to me is not the only measurement we should take. Have the hearts and minds of those who hate us been changed? And if not are we really winning the war, or just forestalling and eventual attack that will be far worse than 9/11? What will you say then, how then will you measure the War’s success?

A true War on Terror will come at the problem on several different fronts, and treat all identified terrorist groups the same, no matter where they lay their heads. No, by my measure we are losing the War on Terror, because we have failed to turn of the faucet of hatred that breeds the warriors of terror that would attack us; witness the carnage that is Iraq.

Instead of concentrating on what might have been, you need to start concentrating on what is…

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 6, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #131562


Which years was economic growth 7-8% and which years was unemployment below 4.7%, and which years was there zero inflation?

You have good quarters or spikes, but the current growth rates and unemployment are very good by standards even of the 1990s. They are not the best, but they are good.

V Edward

We really don’t know how well the war on terror is going. We have destroyed Al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan, but not killed off terror. All we can say now is that there still has been no attack on our homeland. We have seriously impacted terrorist fundraising and logistics. So far it looks good.

I admit that we will not know for a long time the extent to which we have succeeded. It is too early to claim we won, but it is also much too early to claim we lost. It is a work in progress. The only “proof” will be if we are NOT attacked (or if we prevent the worst). So far we have succeeded. The future is unknown.

The hearts and mind thing is much harder to measure anyway. In India our approval rating has risen from about 50% to about 70%. What does that mean? Our approval rate in Indonesia goes up and down.

When the WTC towers went down, crowds in Palestine cheered. That was before Iraq. How much more hate do you need to see?

Posted by: Jack at March 6, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #131571

“No, that doesn’t work. What has a potential of working is Independent voters, and 3rd parties joining forces to elect each other’s candidates to defeat Republocrats at the State level, where they can change the election laws to level the playing field.”

I absolutely agree, and I meant state when I said local. And joining forces is essential.

Guess what we are doing in Maryland, Kevin Zeese is running for senate as a Populist/Libertarian/Green. He probably isnt going to win because he’s running against ben cardin, who is an amazing politician, and a good guy to boot, but this is a trend i believe will grow in this area, so long as the election goes well.

This is going to be an ugly year for Maryland politics though. Our governor (who has done very very little while in office) is back up for reelection, and this time the Mayor of Baltimore is running against him. and Guess who is running all the republican campaigns, Bo Harmon himself.

If you dont remember him, look up why max cleland lost his last reelection campaign.

Posted by: iandanger at March 6, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #131588


It’s not the hearts and minds of the Indian people who are overwhelmingly Hindu that concerns me, it’s the Muslim community that we have to worry about; you know countries like Pakistan…

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 6, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #131589

From reading the initial post here, it seems like we should be at war with Pakistan, too. Actually, it seems like we should be at war with all countries that are not democracies. But wait, there are far more countries in the world that are despotisms rather than democracy. Should we be at war with all of them? Or perhaps we should simply refuse to deal with any of them? Or maybe we should deal with them and just turn a blind eye to the atrocities they commit?

Or maybe, just maybe, we should deal with the ones that want to deal with us, and do our best to defend ourselves from the ones that hate and despise us and would threaten our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness and the American way. We can pray that in doing that, our example will show others a better way, and they will eventually, in future years, follow our lead. Because let’s face it, we can’t change the whole world at once, and the people out there that hate us, are going to do so no matter what we do. Because they hate what we represent… and what we represent is change. And changing the whole bloody world is going to take time, and probably some blood, sweat and tears.

We didn’t invite them to attack us on Sept. 11, 2001. We didn’t invite them to attack us in 1993. But staying out of their affairs didn’t stop them from coming after us anyway. And staying out of their affairs now isn’t going to make them go away. We are involved in world affairs whether we like it or not. We are a leader in world affairs whether we like it or not. We cannot isolate, and we cannot ignore. And when good people fear to act, then evil flourishes. And that goes for the home front, as well as abroad. I welcome open discussion of our political world (no matter how misguided the opposing viewpoint …wink, wink, nudge, nudge) because the free-flowing exchange of ideas is the single greatest expression of the freedoms we are privileged to in the U.S., and the single greatest threat to the people and countries that fear and hate us.

Posted by: Lee at March 6, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #131591

Some math for those people arguing about domestic growth rates:
The US GDP is appx $12 T
The US deficit is appx $ 1 T
====================8 %
So, 8% of our economy is based on deficit spending by the US government. And our growth was about 4.4% (subtract 2.5% for inflation anyone?). Make your own conclusions. Don’t forget that the same applies to job growth.

We have seriously impacted terrorist fundraising and logistics. Posted by Jack at March 6, 2006 10:49 AM
Says who?

We can pray that in doing that, our example will show others a better way, and they will eventually, in future years, follow our lead.
Posted by Lee at March 6, 2006 12:18 PM
By examples you mean warantless domestic surveillance, Gitmo, and abu Grahib?

Posted by: Dave at March 6, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #131596

Youre making serious assumptions when you say we didnt invite them to attack us and they did.

They attacked us because we became involved in the arab world during the gulf war. We had troops in Saudi Arabia, near the holiest of holies to Muslims.

Now we moved troops to Iraq, home of some of the other Holy Lands that are almost as important.

Playing world cop is causing us major problems.

But this is my issue with your post:
“Or maybe, just maybe, we should deal with the ones that want to deal with us, and do our best to defend ourselves from the ones that hate and despise us and would threaten our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness and the American way.”

What about Iraq? They were not a threat to US, but we invaded, so was that a mistake? What about the fact that we were involved in selling them weapons in the first place? Or how we funded the Islamist movement to help fight the Soviets, only to have them turn on us when we got too close to their Holy sites.

My point is that we have already involved ourselves far too much in influencing outcomes. Most of what we are dealing with now is blowback of some kind of another, so what are we to do? can we really expect to be able to take the straight and narrow course after 50 years of getting our hands in things we didnt belong in?

This is all reaction to reactions to reactions. Never assume there isnt a reason, even if it is an unreasonable one.

Posted by: iandanger at March 6, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #131602


I do not advocate war with Pakistan, or any country for that matter, but we were attacked on Sept 11th and we needed to respond in a manner that left no room for question about the level of our commitment or our resolve to see terrorism crushed no matter where it lay its evil head. And yet we continued the same practice of dealing with dictators on a level playing field; mistake. We had the world’s support in our effort to see and end to terrorism in the month after 9/11 but Bush lack foresight, and even a modicum of common sense and intelligence fumbled the play and badly.

If we had stationed sufficient numbers of troops (U.S. and NATO) in the waning days of 2001, Pakistan would have little choice but the close the Terrorist Universities within its borders, or suffer the same fate as Afghanistan, or so the President could have bluffed.

And as I alluded to in an earlier comment, American leadership in the world is one the wane, as is America’s reputation and standing as a moral nation. I blame Bush and his myopic view of the word and our place in it for that set of circumstances…

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 6, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #131608

this administration’s “war on terror”, as i have long said, is a misnomer. you cannot have a war on a method - thus you can’t have a war on terror any more than you can have a war on guerilla warfare. it would at least be more accurate to say that they are waging a war on our constitutional rights - and the offending reprobates comprise our government.

none of the freedoms they have suppressed have made any impact whatsoever on terrorism, except perhaps to amplify it. the policies of this administration concurrently aggravate and proliferate terror - we are playing right into the terrorists’ hands.

if you are still miraculously under the misconception that we are effectively combating terror, i would point you to the latest terrorist attack A JIHADIST IN NORTH CAROLINA

some are claiming that this man acted alone - as if that claim precluded the descriptor ‘terrorist’ from applying. in the end, it really doesn’t matter. call it what you will, such actions are a product of our actions, and are likely continue…

…but maybe if we were to squelch just a few *more* of our constitutional liberties… only temporarily, of course… just for the next century or so….

don’t blame me, i am proud to say that i voted for kerry !

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #131614


“We believe in markets and power of liberty much the way we know water flows downhill.”

so long as you realize that the methods you promote in order to facilitate these ideals are flawed, and have been denounced by one of your own theorists, believe as you will.

“You canⴠreally attack based on our “definition” because we don’t care about them.”

…yah, i think that is part of the problem - neocons believe in these ‘words’ without question, but since these words have no definition, no *meaning* if you will, then the beliefs are empty and unfounded.

“If the things we try don’t work, we will try some others and if people don’t like the name, you can call it something else. ”

…that’s pretty much the way things work. yes, the policies which this administration (and neocons) have been promulgating have failed - time to get a new administration (let’s impeach - why wait?) and a new ideology; i’m sure we’ll call it something else.

“So okay, we are dead. But tomorrow we will be back.”

neoconservativism is dead. neocons won’t be back any more than communists will. ex-neocons, i feel certain, will find a new way to manipulate the truth in pursuit of their goals.

“You don’t seem to get it about conservatism.”

- conservativism i most definitely ‘get’. i think it is you who has trouble understanding the concept. what i don’t ‘get’ is how neocons ever managed to weasel their way into the conservative crowd - but then, they are masters of deceit.

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #131641


You should check this cartoon out

Posted by: Dave at March 6, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #131642

*sigh* my point, and I seem to find myself saying all too often, is that liberals will blame Bush for anything and everything, whether it has anything to with him or not… whereas everything that went wrong or comes out in the negative about previous liberal leaders (Billary Clinton…), you’re perfectly willing to rationalize away and/or sweep under the rug. It’s political expediency, and nothing else. If you could find a way to blame George W. Bush for cancer, you’d do it.

Contrary to what I’m sure you believe about me, I’m not a Bushie. There are plenty of things about his political ideaology that I don’t agree with. However, I’m an individual with the capability to make up my own mind and not buy every piece of crap the left-wing mainstream media feeds me. I believe he does what he thinks is right, not what is politically expedient or what will get him the most votes. And I’ll take a man who acts upon his conscience over a say-what-I-need-to-say-to-get-elected politician like Kerry 365 days of the year.

You say that we invited an attack upon our country because we involved ourselves in Middle Eastern affairs during the first Gulf War… but most people that I know, left-wing and right-wing, agree that the first Gulf War was handled properly and was a necessity. We came to the aid of a defenseless ally against an aggressor. And yet, because we defended that ally (an Islamic ally) against an aggressor (an Islamic aggressor), we somehow deserved to have our innocent citizens slaughtered by the thousands. Yes, we invited that upon ourselves. We’re the evil Americans, and we should be hated by everyone because we try so hard to help everyone that asks for it. We provide humanitarian aid to millions of people in this world, but we are the Great Satan of the world, and we should all die in flames because… because, I don’t know why.

How about those weapons (F-16s) that the Clinton Administration sold to the UAE in 1999? and who was it that sold weapons to Iraq?… it certainly wasn’t the Bush Administration.

We had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia because they are an ally of us sharing a border with a previous and dangerous aggressor. We were there because we were asked to be. And that apparently invited an attack upon us, at least, it did according to your reasoning.

To my recollection, we have never initiated a single aggressive act against a single Middle Eastern country. We have RESPONDED to their acts of aggression, but we have never been the first aggressor. But we invite acts of terrorism because we interfere in the way they want the world to be. We invite attacks upon us by our very existence. You think I’m exaggerating?! I’m not. THAT’S WHAT THE EXTREMISTS WHO ATTACK US BELIEVE!!

We didn’t invite squat! They came at us anyway. And they will again, whether we leave Iraq today, tomorrow or a year from now. So don’t tell me we invited it upon ourselves because we had troops near their Holy Lands. Those lands are holy to us, too. That’s why we haven’t blown the people and the land there back into the Stone Age. This is just another incarnation of the Crusades, only we (the West) didn’t invade them this time.

As far as playing “world cop” goes, we’ve been doing that since LONG before Bush the Younger. I believe the first attempts at playing “world cop” came under Kennedy and LBJ… and what a disaster those turned out to be. Clinton tried it too, but you forget that, too… (Kosovo, Macedonia, etc…) We make attempts at playing “world cop” because there IS nobody else to do it, and because we have ability and the will to attempt it. As I said, when good men fail to act, evil flourishes. We cannot simply stand to the side and watch the world go up in flames.

And please stop feeding me the stuff about “Iraq was no threat to us.” I’ve already had that discussion numerous times. Just because Iraq didn’t sail across the ocean to invade us through our borders somehow, doesn’t mean that Saddam wasn’t a threat. He was a threat to us (terrorist sponsor), and he was a threat to our allies (HE INVADED THEM, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!). sheesh…

I didn’t criticize Clinton, Jimmy Carter or any of your (i.e., liberal Democrat) leaders when they made their attempts at “world cop.” But as I said before… the left-wing cult will jump on any possible reason, justified or not, to attack those a mindset that doesn’t match their own. It’s easier to point a finger than be a part of the solution.

THAT, more than anything else, is why I don’t care for the liberal mindset. It is petty, and small, and doesn’t welcome any thought-processes or opinions other than the ones it espouses. It doesn’t require intelligence, only a willingness to believe what your leaders tell you to believe. It is about control, abot telling others what to think, what to believe, how to act or react. It is about uselessly enlarging government to do everything for the people so that the people will be completely dependent on the goverment, and by extension, the liberals in control of it. It is about socialism, not political socialism, but ideaological socialism.

I apologize to everyone for going off on the tangent, but it just makes me ill sometimes to see so much baseless media rhetoric relayed to the public as gospel.


Posted by: Lee at March 6, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #131655


As soon as you mentioned the words “Liberal” and “Clinton” you lost me; you should be able to make a forceful argument without drudging up those old Republican puching bags.

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 6, 2006 3:38 PM
Comment #131675

What you dont realize yet is that I cant stand Clinton, so dont use him as a club against me. That asshole had an extremely heavy handed foreign policy. Selling weapons to countries is a great business, but the profit is negated by the fact that they are often used against us.

Carter was the most realist of all the contemporary presidents, and he was part of the policy of backing the Islamists against the Soviet Union, so I have issues with him as well.

“You say that we invited an attack upon our country because we involved ourselves in Middle Eastern affairs during the first Gulf War… but most people that I know, left-wing and right-wing, agree that the first Gulf War was handled properly and was a necessity.”
That is not what I said, I said we did offend these people by stationing troops in the Holy Land. Kuwait isnt a country club, it is a dictatorship that happened to be friendly to us. I dont care which ideology we use in foreign policy, liberal (like bush II, clinton, bush I, regan, etc), or realist (more like pre WWII america) as long as we understand the effects of our actions. Instead we blindly influence outcomes and attempt to change things for our favor. This backfires constantly.

and to respond to one more thing:
“He was a threat to us (terrorist sponsor), and he was a threat to our allies (HE INVADED THEM, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!).”

Go here:

now read.

read all of it, I did when it first came out, and it specifically states that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government made no attempts to harm the United States under any circumstances. Even if they got weapons of mass destruction, they never sought to use them against the USA in any way, instead it was all about the power strugle with Iran.

The first Gulf War was going to happen because of the United Nations, but putting troops in Saudi Arabia is what started this, and if you think terrorists are fighting us because we are free, because of liberty, you really havent looked at any of their own rhetoric. They want us out of Arab affairs. I happen to agree with that, in that our power games are hurting us in the long run. My point is simply this, there is a reason we were attacked, it has to do with a flaw in foreign policy present in both parties that involves excessive United States involvement around the world. I don’t like Republicans or Democrats, they are different versions of the same animal, and I’ve long been weary of their infighting. Real changes need to happen, and neither has a plan addressing this.

Posted by: iandanger at March 6, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #131696


excellent cartoon.

Posted by: diogenes at March 6, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #131719

hey boys, only if you act like world war two guys can you win, actions is life and death, if you what to win you must be the extremists for freedom and kill the pigs by the millions thats how world war two was a win,win,win, one of our guys got killed 50 of the enemies of freedom died like dogs. my father unit killed 180.000 japs, 6000 to 0ne. the only good enemy is a dead one, big ones and little ones, if you know what i mean.

Posted by: Fred Dawes at March 6, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #131755

Dave proved my point (thanks Dave). If America is goning to spend the money than our economy must be willing to step up to the plate and make the money. No excuses, if need be than the Ceo’s and Management can get another Job like they tell all the Working Americans to do. So please take the little 3.5% GDP and triple it if you want to say that President Bush’s policies are really adding positvely to thr growth of America.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at March 6, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #131774

Just a random thought. I suspect that if George W. Bush discovered a cure for AIDS in the intestines of ducks the liberals would attack him relentlessly for the senseless slaughter of innocent ducks.

Posted by: Duano at March 6, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #131778

and i suspect that if bush found a market for the organs of small children, neocons would relentlessly defend him.

Posted by: diogenes at March 7, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #131794

Diogenes Wrong. I criticize GW all the time on a host of issues, I just don’t agree that he is behind every horrible tragedy that takes place on planet earth. Your blind hatred of Bush overrides any kind of rational thought you might have. Instead of pointing out what could be done to fix Bush’s mistakes, you guys just want to figure out how to destroy Bush.

Posted by: Duano at March 7, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #131875


You posted an excellent rebuttal to my statements. Thank you. I will read what you posted if the link works, which so far on this blogsite, none of the links I have tried HAVE workd, but I will try to read it. With that being said, however, it will take a hell of a lot to convince me that Saddam was not a threat or, even more, that the Islamic terorists would lay off of us if we pulled every single troop out of the Middle East. It’s their rhetoric, as you stated, and rhetoric is generally a ploy, by any and all who use it. After all, even if we don’t have a single soldier over there, we’ll still be buying their oil, and that puts us in the uncomfortable position of indirectly being involved in their affairs. And Middle Eastern affairs have been a bloody, murky, messy pool since long before you and I were around.

I appreciate the reasoning in your post, though, and I agree with a lot of it, especially the part about both parties being flip sides of the same animal coin. Bush makes mistakes, and I don’t agree with every ideaology he carries… I just get sick of seeing him painted with the number 666 on his forehead by every left-wing nut case out there.

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2006 11:32 AM
Comment #131876


I don’t think anyone, including myself, hates G.W. Bush; I abhor what he and his crooked, secretive, arrogant cronies have done to my country, here and abroad. I remember when he was first put up to run for the Office of President and his lack of intellect was brought up then, and the Republican’s dismissed saying that as long as he had good advisors (handlers/puppeteers) around him he would be okay. And I remember think to myself, why would I want a president that needed to be told what to think?

Leaders need intellect, they need wisdom, vision, and humility, all qualities G.W. Bush lacks.

Yes there is a place for other voices, but in the end the President must make the fatal, final decisions, and excuse me, but I would like my president to come from a position of thoughtful reflection and not unabashed arrogance, informed by stupefying ignorance.

I don’t blame Bush for all the ills of the world, just the ones he is responsible for which at this point is a considerable amount. And if I may kick this discussion up a notch: Blind loyalty and obedience to a man and not a nation and it people led to WWII and over 20 million dead. It was supposed to be a mistake we were not supposed to repeat and yet, history is indeed in danger of repeating itself once more, only this time the national colors are red, white, and blue!

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 7, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #131889


Thanks for the link. It actually worked!!

Having read large portions now of the motivations of Saddam, I see your point about Iraq not being a direct threat to the U.S., but I don’t agree totally. He did consider the U.S. to be a threat (largely because his efforts to improve relations with the U.S. gov’t went ignored during the mid-to-late 90’s… hmmm, who was president then? but I digress…); however, he didn’t see the U.S. as his GREATEST threat. Iran and Israel (ding, ding, ding) were his greatest threats in his mind.

And the report also shows me that Saddam never had any real intention of cooperating with the spirit of the U.N. decisions and resolutions to keep his hands off of WMD. He was all about subterfuge and when and how he could restore his capabilities to build and wield WMD. He considered it his God-given right to develop and utilize those weapons should he decide the need was there for them. He considered them his greatest asset in expanding Iraqi power on the Middle Eastern and world stage. His subordinates, who did everything by his command and/or fiat, also had managed to hide some WMD, primarily chemical warfare types, following Desert Storm and the CIA believed they were still present in Iraq into the late 90’s.

So, while it turned out that Saddam did not, in fact, have WMD capability at the time we invaded… there hasn’t been much yet in that report to encourage me to believe that Saddam wasn’t working toward a return to WMD capability for himself and his military.

The real regret that I can see at this point is that the current instability in Iraq has opened the stage for Iran to become a greater threat, with their even more advanced state of progress for WMD. As long as Iran and Iraq were more frightened of each other, we had a little less to worry about. Of course, the leadership of both of those countries are insane zealots, and I don’t trust any of them, regardless of who they think they’re biggest threat is. The only difference was that Saddam was a political nutball, and Iran is led by a religious nutball. Which one scares you more?

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #131891

V. Edward,

You stated earlier that my bringing up of Clinton and past issues tuned you out… well, by comparing Bush to Hitler and the U.S.A to Nazi Germany, you just lost ALL credibility in my book.

Go smoke some more of whatever it is you’ve got in that pipe of yours. That purple hue you’ve got floating around your head, coloring your world view, must be pretty.

Posted by: Lee at March 7, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #131900

OK. Blame me.
I voted for Bush in 2004 (not in 2000), and that was a mistake.
I also used to be Republican. No more.
So, I made a mistake.

But, the mistake is deeper than just a choice between Bush or Kerry, because they are both corrupt, fiscally irresponsible, and grow government ever larger to nightmare proportions.

The problem is voting for anyone that supports the status quo.

This is unlikely to ever happen, but if the voters finally got fed-up enough now (rather than always waiting until things are bad enough to cause them pain), and started doing what they were supposed to be doing all along, and vote out irresponsible incumbents, always … then you’d probably see a lot of problems getting resolved fast, and many badly-needed, common-sense reforms getting passed finally.

Perhaps we should rename voters to tombstoners,
since they ignore government until their neglect finally results in pain to themselves (i.e. until someone dies)?

So, regardless of who most of you voted for (59M: Kerry, 62M: Bush), it was a mistake. Also, how many voted straight ticket (i.e. all Republican or all Democratic)?

That’s the problem, and this is the solution.

Stop being seduced into the circular pattern of thought and behavior that lets the bought-and-paid-for incumbents continue to use and abuse you.

Stop empowering the irresponsible incubments, that always outnumber newcomers, that won’t let newcomers pass reforms, to perpetuate the status quo, that hurst you (not them).

While we are all culpable (voters and government), is is now up to the voters to do their part, because the incumbents will never reform themselves. Only the voters can do that. They can do it peacefully too. Just vote out (or recall) irresponsible incumbents, always. And then sit back in wonderment at all the long-existing problems suddenly start to be addressed and resolved. Or, let history repeat itself again, and keep doing it the hard way, over and over.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #131906


I personally don’t see any parallels between the Bush and Clinton Administrations; if there are any verifiable and creditable connections, clue a citizen in. And just because you refuse to see the connection between the modern-day American government with its one-party rule, near lock-step loyalty to the president, and it penchant for secrecy at the cost of openness and accountability to the people, doesn’t make it go away.


Okay I blame you! But seriously, thanks for coming clean and admitting that the Republican Party has lost its way. I have another (ex) Republican friend who feels as you do, and has given up on the Party. Tom Delay’s primary election is today; it will be interesting to see if the voters in Texas have had enough of The Hammer and nail him! My prediction: probably not, but I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

V. Edward

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 7, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #131907

i was making a point, perhaps poorly (but then no more so than you did, with the post to which i was responding to). whereas you choose to reprimand liberals for their hostile feelings towards bush, i choose to blame those currently in power for the horrible mistakes and crimes they have committed. i am focused on the problem, you are focused on attacking those who recognize the problem.

i feel strongly that a great many of those currently in power belong in prison, not in office; so yes, in a sense, i wish to at least destroy their *efforts* - as i feel that everything they have done, and all that they intend to do, is in the absolute worst interest of this country.

i am not particularly against liberals, as i believe they have good intentions. i am certainly not opposed to true conservatives, as i feel that they better represent the way i believe government should be run - however, i am thoroughly against everything that neocons stand for. i do not for one second believe that they have anyone’s interest but their own in mind.

that said, i do believe that their are some liberals who would hate bush no matter what he did. i also believe that their are a great many neocons, or bushies if you will, who would support a hostile take over, if bush were the perpetrator.

personally, i hold bush to his actions, not to theoretical scenarios in which he might actually be a good person - so when he discovers the cure for aids in a duck’s intestines, get back to me. it isn’t that i think him incapable of good, but rather, i think him egotistical, unintelligent, uninspired, and unconcerned.


i do not blame those who elected bush for a mistake which they recognize and regret. i blame bush for having lied to his constituents about his true intentions.

Posted by: diogenes at March 7, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #131909

It’s the Patriotic thing to do.

Posted by: diogenes at March 7, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #131914

I really do like to see dictators taken out of power, but the problems in Iraq make the world a less safe place than it was in 2003. Invading countries to take their leaders out of power is not the way to build democracy if youre going to dismantel and destroy their infrastructure, create massive unemployment, and then wind up having the major financial investments get embezelled and gouged out of you by contractors. Our approach in Iraq is proof, as Fukuyama says, that the only way to spread democracy is to provide an example and NOT push liberal democracy on people.
I do not believe we should pull out of Iraq immeadiately, but I do think we need to change our approach NOW. By handling it as a war (we are occupiers treating the citizens as enemies) and not an occupation we wind up spending far too much time leveling villages and attempting to control the population. But there are 20 million people in Iraq, we cannot beat them the way we are trying. We should be focusing on rebuilding, and employing Iraqis in doing so, but instead we give the contracts to American companies and they use outside labor and supplies, which is usually more expensive.

Essentially the occupation is a mess, and as such we have no exit strategy, and no way of getting to the point where we can hand things off to the Iraqi government. Meanwhile, theyre having trouble putting together a secular government, and we’re threatening to pull out money and troops. We warn them we wont continue to invest our resources there if they dont follow our model, but we tell Americans that we are there for the durration.

There is too much miscommunication, double talk, and other forms of deceit.

In refference to the CIA report, I see how Saddam’s attempts to undermine Oil for Food and other programs, and to subvert the sanctions were a major problem, but he also was not going to develop any banned weapons until the sanctions were lifted. This means that, while they werent preventing him from getting money, we knew he didnt have the weapons, and he wasnt trying to get them as long as he was under sanctions.

His blanket threat against Israel is a standard accross the Arab world, and has been a staple of all the leaders who, in the long term, wanted to unify Arabia. He never actually exhibited any hostility toward Israel, and since he considered Iran the gravest threat Iraq faced (Id say thats still a major problem, since a religious Shiite Iraq is basically a new Iran), it seems extraordinarily unlikely Saddam would attack Israel itself. Essentially he was mostly concerned with keeping his own power, and while I believe in freedom, it is not within the power of one sovereign nation to remove another sovereign power if it is not under threat. Thusly, our invasion was unreasonable, or we have to start knocking over dictatorships accross the Middle East and worldwide.

Posted by: iandanger at March 7, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #131931
d.a.n. I do not blame those who elected bush for a mistake which they recognize and regret. i blame bush for having lied to his constituents about his true intentions.
Thanks, diogenes, but I messed up. I’m 48, and just now finally discovered what the problem is. It’s not parties, or money, or Democrats, or Republicans.

It is all of us.

But it is mostly crooked government. Voters allow it though. That is, until voters get fed-up, and vote out some bums. But voters never do the job correctly, or continue what they started, to remove all of the irresponsible incumbents, always … which is why we keep revisiting this same problem over and over.

D.A.N. Okay I blame you! But seriously, thanks for coming clean and admitting that the Republican Party has lost its way. I have another (ex) Republican friend who feels as you do, and has given up on the Party.

And you should blame me for not seeing the truth sooner. But, it is all becoming crystal clear now.

Parties are not the problem or the solution. So, a replacemet party is not the solution either (i.e. flee from the Republican party to the Democratic party).

No, from now on, I’m voting non-incumbent, because most (if not all) incumbents are corrupt, irresponsible, and look the other way.

Too many voters have been fooled (me too at one time) into thinking parties represent them, when most (if not all) incumbents only care about gettin’ theirs, self-gain, and securing their power and incumbency. The proof of their arrogance and irresponsibility would fill untold volumes. And, when the $#!+ hits the fan, they don’t care…they all have golden parachutes. The average voter (85%) will feel the pain, and they will have themselves, also, to blame for it, for not doing something sooner.

There is a simple solution, but people won’t do it until it is probably too late. Why must voters keep doing it the hard way? Thus, education is part of the solution. Most people, when they see and understand their mistake, stop doing that thing that keeps causing them pain. They stop when it starts to make sense. But, as it is now, voters don’t seems to care until there is sufficient pain and hardship to motivate them to think about it, and corrupt incumbents are doing their best to make their incumbency more and more secure. Even when voters finally do get fed-up, and vote-out some bums, voters fail to carry through, and continue to do it, always. So, things quickly begin to revert right back toward more and more corrupt government.

And, that corruption is not confined to government. The more prevalent it is in government, the more prevalent it is in many other areas of society. That’s just the way it is. Change is inevitable, but will the consequences of our negligence and corruption of the last several decades be felt soon or much later? The way things are shaping up now, the consequences may not be that far away.

After all, consider the fact that recessions occur 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years.
That means the next recession could occur somewhere between 2002 and 2013.

But, yes, unless it is my imagination, it seems the corruption in government for the last few years is worse than usual. Take Randy Cunningham for instance. The degree of corruption is amazing. There is no doubt others are doing something similar, but haven’t been caught, and probably never will be caught. And, even if they get caught, they might get a pardon (like the 140 felons, including Dan Rostenkowski, that Clinton set free).

So, unless voters do something new and different, there is no reason to expect the decline of the U.S. to end.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #131945


you’re preaching to the choir - informative links though.

Posted by: diogenes at March 7, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #131950


Like those links? They’re mine.
Preachin’ to the choir ?
Maybe (in your case).
But, you never know about others here.

: )

After all, look at the partisan warfare.

But, there might be someone, just like me, just now, that is finally figuring it out too?

But, how many do you think that would completely disagree with the same conclusion?
That is, how many think the problem is mostly those evil Republicans? That may be true, but only by virtue of their temporary turn at being the “In-Party”. Democrats are about to get their turn at being the “In-Party”, and it will start all over. Maybe Democrats won’t be as corrupt? Maybe they’ll be worse? History shows ample instances of both.
To me (and you perhaps), it doesn’t matter which party incumbents are from, if most (if not all) are bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, and irresponsible. But, I’d bet there are many hundreds (seduced into the petty partisan warfare) on this blog-site that will ferociously argue that the other party is more corrupt.

I’m sick of both of them, but understand all too well how the cheaters fool or distract enough people to keep a majority from ever existing that realize what is going on, much less vote them out.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 7, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #132039

Diogenes said

Neoconservatism is Dead, one of many declarations of the obvious(google it)
Well, I did google that phrase and I got 452,000 hits! Then just for kicks I googled “liberalism is dead” and got 5,650,000 declarations of the obvious.

Posted by: Duano at March 8, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #132138

Well Delay won his primary fight and handily. We do indeed get the government we deserve! And it just goes to prove my contention that we are as much a Christian nation as China is a Democratic Republic. Morals mean very little in this nation any more unless you are trying to foist yours off on someone else. As a nation of principles and high standards we have very little future left; the shinning city on the hill has dimmed considerably!

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at March 8, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #132248

well, duano,

the major difference is that most of these claims of liberalism being dead stem from hate filled republicans. big surprise. i just googled “conservatism is dead” and received 4,960,000 hits - this claim stems from hate filled democrats, of course.

do i believe either of them? no.
what you have failed to notice is that it is one of the prominent neocon thinkers who has decried neoconservatism as dead, and belonging on the junkpile of history’s failed ideologies. god i love that phrasing. dissention in the ranks - more than dissention, genuine desertion - this is a new experience for the zombified spin machine that is neoconservatism.

when a major conservative theorist denounces conservatism, or a top liberal condemns liberalism, then you’ll have a comparable analogy.

besides, correct me if i’m wrong, but you seem to take a bit of offense to the notion that neoconservatism is dead - and i thought you were a true conservative?

ps - as i’m tired of being slapped with liberal/democrat and conservative/republican labels (depending on who it is that disagrees with me), i have amended my tag to reflect my independent status.

Posted by: diogenes (i) at March 8, 2006 7:34 PM
Post a comment