All of you self-proclaimed "conservatives" and RWers are neo-cons.
If you supported Bush twice, that means you.
If you sat silently by during his regime, this means you.
If you get upset everytime someone brings up Bush's litany of failures, this means you.
As long as you defend Bush, you're a neo-con.
Most to all the self-proclaimed "conservatives" on this site fit this description.
Wear your Neo-Con tag with pride....you've earned it.
I couldn't Vote for Bush neither in '00 or '04.
Sat Silently? No, I despised his Expansion of Government.
Nope not really, there are alot of failures in every Admin, and of course there are Accomplishments. But i can turn the table here and point out Accomplishments of Bush you guys cry and cry and go into Denial.
I defend Bush on his Accomplishment of keeping America safe for 7 years, and his involvement against Malaria and Poverty in Africa.
You're just another Self-Righteous Liberal, that's all.
Well said!
And neither of those two have yet to come up with an applicable definition of "neocon". They initiate a thread they actually know nothing about.
Bush had his positives - helping to keep us safe after 9-11 being one of them - though the Patriot Act had its faults. The tax cuts were good - the massive increases in spending were not.
What Obama appears intent on doing is taking the faults of Bush and doubling down on them - particularly in the areas of the debt and expansion of the federal government.
Conservatives began backing off from Bush around 2004. If the Democrats had nominated a more moderate candidate than neocon John Kerry, Bush would likely have lost re-election. When the Bush White House released figures showing the Medicare Drug Benefit package was going to cost nearly double the estimates - over 1 trillion dollar for 10 years, I myself was immersed at the state level in creating opposition to the Bush administration's domestic programs. The state Republicans were split at that point, which mirrored what was going on country wide and ultimately represented in the 2006 midterm elections that saw Democrats running as the party of "not them".
Now these roles have been reversed yet again heading into 2010. Many who voted for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 are returning to conservatism - to the benefit of the GOP which is trying to send a more cohesive message that while having lost their way for a decade, they are willing to return to the conservative principles that they once stood for. Again at my own state level I see much more unity than just one year ago when the party remained split and many would-be voters sitting out the 2008 elections in protest of not having a candidate they felt represented true American conservatism. That dissatisfaction is lessening - though we still await a unifying national figure. (that figure is emerging soon I believe)
As for the "neocons", they, being the opportunists they have always been, are immersed in the Democrat Party (see: DLC) - and an ideological battle is now being waged by the far-left "progressives" and the big government - military interventionist neocons. At present, it appears the neocons are running the show within the White House. (It is speculated White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is himself a neocon adherent)
