PDA

View Full Version : Kristol disappointed




itshappening
02-05-2010, 08:47 PM
Neocon Kristol disappointed with Palin for endorsing Rand Paul. from the New York times:


-
Her scheduled appearance in Nashville on Saturday incited cries of “sellout” from other Tea Party factions that objected to the high cost of tickets to the weekend event ($549). Many of her “establishment” supporters were confounded by her decision to endorse Mr. Paul, who is facing Secretary of State Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Senate primary and who is the son of Ron Paul, the former presidential candidate of libertarian bent.

“I’m disappointed by her endorsement of Paul,” said William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard and one of the conservatives credited with “discovering” Ms. Palin in 2007. “But they always disappoint you.”
-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/politics/06palin.html

it does make you wonder how it came about because the NYT also says her advisers are 'foreign policy hawks' so they can't have liked Rand much

torchbearer
02-05-2010, 08:49 PM
he may need to tighten her leash a lil' more.

MRoCkEd
02-05-2010, 08:51 PM
hahahahahhahaha

LibertyMage
02-05-2010, 08:52 PM
Lets hope his despair drives him to jump off a cliff.

Nate-ForLiberty
02-05-2010, 08:54 PM
Lets hope his despair drives him to jump off a cliff.

or maybe he'll read The Revolution: A Manifesto :D

Dreamofunity
02-05-2010, 08:58 PM
hahahahahhahaha

:)

sofia
02-05-2010, 09:17 PM
Neocon Kristol disappointed with Palin for endorsing Rand Paul. from the New York times:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/politics/06palin.html

it does make you wonder how it came about because the NYT also says her advisers are 'foreign policy hawks' so they can't have liked Rand much

This is a strategic gem. Kristol tells Palin to endorse Rand. Smart move because Rand is gonna win anyway.

After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans. By feigning "disappointment"...Kristol makes the ruse work even better.

"Kristol is pissed off with Palin. Maybe she's OK afterall."...the libertarians say.

Don't buy this bullshit folks. Sarah is OWNED by Kristol.

Matt Collins
02-05-2010, 09:38 PM
I would like him to expand on that quote. Why is he dissapointed"?

SWATH
02-05-2010, 09:46 PM
I would like him to expand on that quote. Why is he dissapointed"?

Kristol: "I am a neocon shitbag of the highest order and thus am profoundy disappointed in my neocon protege endorsing a non-neocon."

low preference guy
02-05-2010, 09:49 PM
“I’m disappointed by her endorsement of Paul”

awwwwwwwwwwwww. :sniff:

Isaac Bickerstaff
02-05-2010, 09:52 PM
This is a strategic gem. Kristol tells Palin to endorse Rand. Smart move because Rand is gonna win anyway.

After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans. By feigning "disappointment"...Kristol makes the ruse work even better.

"Kristol is pissed off with Palin. Maybe she's OK afterall."...the libertarians say.

Don't buy this bullshit folks. Sarah is OWNED by Kristol.

Could not be more correct.:)

Cowlesy
02-05-2010, 09:57 PM
I found a picture of Bill!

http://www.fishingfury.com/ff-content/jpn-parasite5.jpg

LibertyMage
02-05-2010, 09:59 PM
I found a picture of Bill!

http://www.fishingfury.com/ff-content/jpn-parasite5.jpg

OMFG...WTF is that thing?

Cowlesy
02-05-2010, 10:00 PM
OMFG...WTF is that thing?

It's a parasite (on the idea of conservatism)

Danke
02-05-2010, 10:08 PM
It's a parasite (on the idea of conservatism)

Candiru (English and Portuguese) or candirú (Spanish), also known as canero or toothpick fish, are a number of genera of parasitic freshwater catfish in the family Trichomycteridae; all are native to the Amazon River. Although some candiru species have been known to grow to a size of 6 inches (~15 cm) in length, others are considerably smaller. These smaller species are known for an alleged tendency to invade and parasitize the human urethra (your penis); however, despite ethnological reports dating back to the late 19th century,[1] the first documented case of a candiru parasitizing a human did not occur until 1997.

http://hyke.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/candiru1.jpg

Matt Collins
02-05-2010, 10:17 PM
Kristol: "I am a neocon shitbag of the highest order and thus am profoundy disappointed in my neocon protege endorsing a non-neocon."
Obviously that is true. But I would like to see him expand on why he thinks that about Palin.

Endgame
02-05-2010, 10:30 PM
Obviously that is true. But I would like to see him expand on why he thinks that about Palin.

Obvious ruse if he doesn't. Then we'd know why Palin endorsed Rand. He's got it in the bag, so they don't lose anything and they can try to pull this shit. Palin is going to have to do a lot more to be redeemable in my eyes. Either way, we should be sure to let conservatives know that Palin endorsed Rand. Could backfire on them completely. Most "conservatives" aren't committed neocons. They only are because the GOP and pundits they're following are.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 08:58 AM
This is a strategic gem. Kristol tells Palin to endorse Rand. Smart move because Rand is gonna win anyway.

After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans. By feigning "disappointment"...Kristol makes the ruse work even better.

"Kristol is pissed off with Palin. Maybe she's OK afterall."...the libertarians say.

Don't buy this bullshit folks. Sarah is OWNED by Kristol.

This. He's playing chess not checkers.

ctiger2
02-06-2010, 10:35 AM
This is a good sign. Kristol is pure scum.

sofia
02-06-2010, 10:41 AM
This is a good sign. Kristol is pure scum.

See...this is exactly what I just posted about!

pacelli
02-06-2010, 10:41 AM
I'm just wondering if she expects a similar endorsement from Rand if SHE decides to run for president in 2012. Kristol needs to watch some re-runs of his appearances on FoxNews circa 2005 for nostalgic purposes & then move on with his life.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 11:17 AM
See...this is exactly what I just posted about!

Yep and it appears to have worked for him. Now she can appear more palatable to the 'tea partiers'.

Kristol 1
Tea Party 0

Its called posturing folks!

sofia
02-06-2010, 11:23 AM
Yep and it appears to have worked for him. Now she can appear more palatable to the 'tea partiers'.

Kristol 1
Tea Party 0

Its called posturing folks!

The elites must really laugh their asses off at us when they pull these transparent stunts like this.....

my kids had more questions about the Santa Claus myth than some our fellow conservatives have about what's fed to them..

very sad

johnrocks
02-06-2010, 11:29 AM
Anything that pisses off that douche makes my day!

sofia
02-06-2010, 11:32 AM
Anything that pisses off that douche makes my day!

we have another one Romulus!!!

(johnrocks....see my previous post about how this scam works)

Romulus
02-06-2010, 12:22 PM
Anything that pisses off that douche makes my day!

lol hook line sinker!

He's not pissed off... rather the opposite.

I wish people would read the whole thread before posting a knee jerk comment.

johnrocks
02-06-2010, 12:26 PM
we have another one Romulus!!!

(johnrocks....see my previous post about how this scam works)

You have a valid point, did not think of this.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 12:28 PM
This is a strategic gem. Kristol tells Palin to endorse Rand. Smart move because Rand is gonna win anyway.

After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans. By feigning "disappointment"...Kristol makes the ruse work even better.

"Kristol is pissed off with Palin. Maybe she's OK afterall."...the libertarians say.

Don't buy this bullshit folks. Sarah is OWNED by Kristol.

Worth posting again.

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 12:44 PM
Guys, I don't buy all this talk that Kristol and Palin are disingenuous about the endorsement. Palin endorsed Paul, Kristol opposed, and now he is disappointed. That's all there is to is.

Palin could be doing one of this moves to assert her independence. After all, Kristol and others are only advisers and work for her. Doing this kind of thing shows them she is the boss. The stakes are just too high to be playing with a Palin endorsement, probably the most important endorsement any Republican can get. Do you think Kristol will enhance Rand Paul's changes of winning just to play little mind games which at the end probably won't work? Not a chance.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 12:52 PM
Guys, I don't buy all this talk that Kristol and Palin are disingenuous about the endorsement. Palin endorsed Paul, Kristol opposed, and now he is disappointed. That's all there is to is.

Palin could be doing one of this moves to assert her independence. After all, Kristol and others are only advisers and work for her. Doing this kind of thing shows them she is the boss. The stakes are just too high to be playing with a Palin endorsement, probably the most important endorsement any Republican can get. Do you think Kristol will enhance Rand Paul's changes of winning just to play little mind games which at the end probably won't work? Not a chance.

I disagree.. politics is psych warfare. In this case, either way, Kristol wins. Palin endorsed Rand because he's a winner.. Palin needs Tea Partiers.. and so does Kristol, in order to get Palin more support and momentum.

Kristol is a neocon and tea partiers know it.. of course he has to give the perception that he's NOT in control and distant from her, and that she really is rogue. Its all about perception and Kristol is working it.

thread title needs to say "Kristol is playing Possum"

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 12:56 PM
I disagree.. politics is psych warfare. In this case, either way, Kristol wins. Palin endorsed Rand because he's a winner.. Palin needs Tea Partiers.. and so does Kristol, in order to get Palin more support and momentum.

Kristol is a neocon and tea partiers know it.. of course he has to give the perception that he's NOT in control and distant from her, and that she really is rogue. Its all about perception and Kristol is working it.

Kristol observed politics for a very long time to know that an election isn't won until the votes are cast. A Rand victory will send shockwaves through the Republican party and potentially break the stranglehold the neocons have on the party. Whatever Kristol can do to decrease the changes of Rand winning, he'll do it. But the Palin endorsement enforces Rand's chances to win.

One thing you should remember about Palin: She doesn't have a consistent political philosophy, like Kristol does. She shoots from the hip a lot. Please recall that she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party. She is not an intellectually consistent neocon, Kristol is. I'd say she doesn't have the mental capacity (at least at this point) to be an intellectually consistent neocon.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 01:11 PM
still no mater how you cut it - advantage Kristol.

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 01:14 PM
still no mater how you cut it - advantage Kristol.

Right, threatening to break the neocon stranglehold in the Republican Party more significantly that in the last 10 years: Advantage Kristol, of course.

Flash
02-06-2010, 01:14 PM
Rand Paul talked to Sarah Palin on the phone about an hour ago according to David Adam's Twitter.

I'm glad Kristol is throwing a fit over this, actually I kind of expected it and was wondering if he would comment on this at all. I would love to hear Buchanan's take on the situation and am surprised he is quiet.

Malachi
02-06-2010, 01:32 PM
neocon kristol disappointed with palin for endorsing rand paul. From the new york times:


good!

brandon
02-06-2010, 02:19 PM
This is a strategic gem. Kristol tells Palin to endorse Rand. Smart move because Rand is gonna win anyway.

After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans. By feigning "disappointment"...Kristol makes the ruse work even better.

"Kristol is pissed off with Palin. Maybe she's OK afterall."...the libertarians say.

Don't buy this bullshit folks. Sarah is OWNED by Kristol.

This is exactly what I thought.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 02:28 PM
Right, threatening to break the neocon stranglehold in the Republican Party more significantly that in the last 10 years: Advantage Kristol, of course.

Are you saying Palin's not a neocon?

She co-opting the movement of course. She's driving down Tea Party lane, picking up up new voters then heading right back to Kristol's house and to Bush politics.

Kristol can whore out Sarah all he wants because he know she's coming back to him at the end of the night! He's playing possum to sell her out even more!

I'd be glad IF he really WAS pissed.. acting like he is gives her appeal to Tea Partiers!

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 02:33 PM
Romulus, the important question is, which is more important for Kristol:

Stopping Rand from getting into the Senate? or
Gaining a few supporters from gullible people?

I'd say it is most important to stop Rand from getting into the Senate, because that could be the beginning for breaking the stranglehold the neocons have on the party. Even if Rand's win is close to certainty, Kristol would still do anything he can to prevent that from happening, even if he can only decrease his changes by very little, because the risk to the neocons of him winning is too high. The Palin endorsement does obviously the opposite.

Slutter McGee
02-06-2010, 02:35 PM
I am amazed. For once the word neo-con isn't being used to insult anyone people here disagree with, but is being used to describe an actual neo-con. Bout time guys.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 02:40 PM
Are you saying Palin's not a neocon?

Not a consistent one. A neocon doesn't endorse Rand Paul, praise Ron Paul, join the Alaska Independence Party, or blame the Fed for the financial crisis, which he did in a speech she gave in Hong Kong a few months ago.

All that does not mean she is a libertarian, it just means that she is not a consistent neocon.

RM918
02-06-2010, 02:42 PM
I am amazed. For once the word neo-con isn't being used to insult anyone people here disagree with, but is being used to describe an actual neo-con. Bout time guys.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I've never heard someone called a neocon unless they were a pro-war Republican, which nails down the terminology pretty effectively.

RM918
02-06-2010, 02:46 PM
Not a consistent one. A neocon doesn't endorse Rand Paul, praise Ron Paul , join the Alaska Independence Party, or blame the Fed for the financial crisis, which he did in a speech she gave in Hong Kong a few months ago.

All that does not mean she is a libertarian, it just means that she is not a consistent neocon.

She said he was 'cool'. ONCE! You're fishing, which is what you'd need to do if you want to see Palin as anything other than your standard power-hungry politician. She talked up the Fed once. Why isn't she out there campaigning for 1207? Why isn't she publicly hammering the organization except for token appearances for her 'street cred'? Because there's no glory in it.

If her bumbling about benefits us, I'm all for it. But I won't trust her until I see some concrete evidence and consistency.

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 02:53 PM
RM918, I'm not fishing. A consistent neocon does not praise Ron Paul without qualifications, not even once.

Those 4 facts support my statement that she is not a consistent neocon. That's all I wanted to do. I'd further argue that she still doesn't know what should her political philosophy should be. She is still confused about that.


You're fishing, which is what you'd need to do if you want to see Palin as anything other than your standard power-hungry politician.

I never said she isn't a "standard power-hungry politician". I just answered one simple question. The question was: Is she a neocon? I answered: not a consistent one. Don't pretend I said something else.

someperson
02-06-2010, 02:58 PM
In theatre, which is what politics has devolved into, evoking a response from the audience is key. Love or hate, it's all the same and keeps the show going. A reaction is the health of the play. However, a silent audience is death. The best way to deal with individuals like Mr. Kristol or Ms. Palin is simply that: silence. Allow them to be forgotten by time.


All that does not mean she is a libertarian, it just means that she is not a consistent neocon.
It would be wise to be wary of such individuals. Those without principles cannot and should not be relied upon to maintain any given position. Bush wasn't always an interventionist... at least, that's what he said. I'm sure I'm just preaching to the choir here, though lol

Malachi
02-06-2010, 03:00 PM
I've never heard someone called a neocon unless they were a pro-war Republican, which nails down the terminology pretty effectively.

Neocon = War hungry republican, but a liberal on economic issues.

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:03 PM
RM918, I'm not fishing. A consistent neocon does not praise Ron Paul without qualifications, not even once.

Those 4 facts support my statement that she is not a consistent neocon. That's all I wanted to do. I'd further argue that she still doesn't know what should her political philosophy should be. She is still confused about that.

I never said she isn't a "standard power-hungry politician". I just answered one simple question. The question was: Is she a neocon? I answered: not a consistent one. Don't pretend I said something else.

She consistently supports the war, so she's about as consistent a neocon as I can expect. Exactly the same as them? They snipe over little inconsequential things. I don't see any substantial differences, but I don't see many substantial differences between Kristol and Obama either. I don't think she's as innocent and naive as people like to play off.

She's in a 'transformational' period, not knowing 'who she is'. This sounds more like a plot from a cheap novel rather than an honest consideration of a real life politician. It's the same thing people say about Beck, but it just seems like a 'want' to believe in them rather than to take in the whole of the situation for what it is.

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:07 PM
Neocon = War hungry republican, but a liberal on economic issues.

I don't think the two can be separated. You can't be a conservative on economics and not only support America's Empire, but support expanding it. Anyone who claims themselves fiscally conservative yet treats the empire like the elephant in the room, is not truly fiscally conservative.

someperson
02-06-2010, 03:10 PM
I don't think the two can be separated. You can't be a conservative on economics and not only support America's Empire, but support expanding it. Anyone who claims themselves fiscally conservative yet treats the empire like the elephant in the room, is not truly fiscally conservative.
+1 Well said.

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 03:11 PM
RM918, was Goldwater then a neocon?

There were Republicans during the time who were antiwar. This makes sense, because if capitalism is truly superior to communism, you don't need to directly attack it but just let it collapse.

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:15 PM
RM918, was Goldwater then a neocon?

There were Republicans during the time who were antiwar. This makes sense, because if capitalism is truly superior to communism, you don't need to directly attack it but just let it collapse.

I don't know how bad war spending was back then, but if he supported what's currently in place - bases in well over a hundred countries, spending trillions of dollars without any sort of limit or clear goal, AND saber-rattling at countries who've done us no harm and would never actually be able to attack us directly nor try with no end in sight - then yes, he'd be a neocon.

Malachi
02-06-2010, 03:19 PM
I don't think the two can be separated. You can't be a conservative on economics and not only support America's Empire, but support expanding it. Anyone who claims themselves fiscally conservative yet treats the empire like the elephant in the room, is not truly fiscally conservative.

Just saying a prowar republican is the only thing needed to be considered a neocon doesn't work either in my eyes. You can't pigeon hole that easily and if you do -- you are naive.

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:20 PM
Just saying a prowar republican is a neocon doesn't work either in my eyes.

How can someone who supports this ridiculous waste of money, life and resources possibly be a 'conservative' on economics?

Malachi
02-06-2010, 03:24 PM
How can someone who supports this ridiculous waste of money, life and resources possibly be a 'conservative' on economics?

By your definition of a neocon (sort of) our Founding Fathers are neocons!

They borrowed money to fight a war!

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:29 PM
By your definition of a neocon (sort of) our Founding Fathers are neocons!

They borrowed money to fight a war!

The term 'pro-war' was meant to mean pro-the current various wars we are embroiled in, and the military expenditures we're blowing off all over the world. I don't think the founding fathers were in nearly as deep as a hole economically as we are now. Supporting the current incarnation of the military-industrial complex. There was no such thing in the late 18th century.

Romulus
02-06-2010, 03:29 PM
Romulus, the important question is, which is more important for Kristol:

Stopping Rand from getting into the Senate? or
Gaining a few supporters from gullible people?

I'd say it is most important to stop Rand from getting into the Senate, because that could be the beginning for breaking the stranglehold the neocons have on the party. Even if Rand's win is close to certainty, Kristol would still do anything he can to prevent that from happening, even if he can only decrease his changes by very little, because the risk to the neocons of him winning is too high. The Palin endorsement does obviously the opposite.

Rands victory is not the death kiss for Kristol or Neocons.

The people who make up the tea party are not a "few supporters" of "gullible people" as you say. It's a force and its being pulled, pushed and shaped. Perception is key, and if you cant see how Palins endorsement for Rand is not a win-win for both her and Kristol then I cant explain it to you.

Lastly lets not trivialize a neocon. Palin is pro-war pro Neocon foreign policy. That seals it. Just because you pay lip service to ending the Fed in Hong Kong or say Ron Pauls a 'cool guy' does not make you anything else. You are taking things for face value and buying into the charade of campaigning.

It's a stagecraft.. and she'll say/do anything to broaden her base, even play good cop/bad cop with Kristol.

Malachi
02-06-2010, 03:35 PM
The term 'pro-war' was meant to mean pro-the current various wars we are embroiled in, and the military expenditures we're blowing off all over the world. I don't think the founding fathers were in nearly as deep as a hole economically as we are now. Supporting the current incarnation of the military-industrial complex. There was no such thing in the late 18th century.

They were more "pro-war" than anti-war..... it appears to me. :o

But, you are more/less saying if we can't afford it and we ignore it and support the current wars.... the neocon tag is used.

We really don't know what we can afford or not. We'll have to check back in 20 years or so to see how it all works out.

The Founding Fathers gambled by borrowing money to fight a war or two.

I see no difference if you don't have the money you don't have the money.

Sorry but I have trouble agreeing with your logic.

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:45 PM
They were more "pro-war" than anti-war..... it appears to me. :o

But, you are more/less saying if we can't afford it and we ignore it and support the current wars.... the neocon tag is used.

We really don't know what we can afford or not. We'll have to check back in 20 years or so to see how it all works out.

The Founding Fathers gambled by borrowing money to fight a war or two.

I see no difference if you don't have the money you don't have the money.

Sorry but I have trouble agreeing with your logic.

If you are really equating trillions of dollars down the toilet for vague scary noises about 'turrurism', killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and having bases in well-over 100 countries for absolutely no justifiable reason with the revolutionary war and the whiskey rebellions, you're the one who's logic I can't agree with.

Like I said, the term 'pro-war' I'm using here doesn't mean ANY war, ever, it means the CURRENT wars. The CURRENT expenditures. The CURRENT saber-rattling. If the founding fathers supported what was going on NOW, they would be neocons without question.

George Washington didn't launch the Tenth Crusade. Thomas Jefferson didn't leave 30,000 troops in Japan over 60 years after World War II ended. James Madison didn't see an over 10-trillion dollar deficit and decide to INCREASE war spending. John Adams didn't give billions of dollars in foreign aide to dozens of countries every year.

Malachi
02-06-2010, 03:48 PM
If you are really equating trillions of dollars down the toilet for vague scary noises about 'turrurism', killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and having bases in well-over 100 countries for absolutely no justifiable reason with the revolutionary war and the whiskey rebellions, you're the one who's logic I can't agree with.

Like I said, the term 'pro-war' I'm using here doesn't mean ANY war, ever, it means the CURRENT wars. The CURRENT expenditures. The CURRENT saber-rattling. If the founding fathers supported what was going on NOW, they would be neocons without question.

George Washington didn't launch the Tenth Crusade. Thomas Jefferson didn't leave 30,000 troops in Japan over 60 years after World War II ended. James Madison didn't see an over 10-trillion dollar deficit and decide to INCREASE war spending. John Adams didn't give billions of dollars in foreign aide to dozens of countries every year.

We can make a lot of straw mans and pick apart each others posts.

A neocon has to have more of a definition than pro-war republican (even in the context you are defining the word).

I do agree we need to scale back our foreign wars and occupations!

RM918
02-06-2010, 03:56 PM
We can make a lot of straw mans and pick apart each others posts.

A neocon has to have more of a definition than pro-war republican (even in the context you are defining the word).

I do agree we need to scale back our foreign wars and occupations!

In your definition of a neocon being 'pro-war (Current spending)' and 'Liberal in economics', the expenditures going on right now are beyond the imaginations of the founders, and none of it is even going to directly protecting this country. For someone to be for the current spending, to be for the flimsy reasoning of today's fighting, and somehow be considered economically responsible given our current straits is no economic conservative, which according to your own qualifiers is pretty damn close to neocon to the point of having no significant differences.

To the point of my first post, while it could be (though rather pointlessly in my view) academically argued about whether the current incarnation of pro-war republican is exactly a neocon, someone who would call someone like that a neocon is certainly not doing so flagrantly or without just cause. The label is not being applied recklessly to suggest that 'the vast majority of calls about neocon are simply against people other people don't like' is the truth of the matter if that person is a pro-war republican.

anaconda
02-06-2010, 04:00 PM
Kristol: "I am a neocon shitbag of the highest order and thus am profoundy disappointed in my neocon protege endorsing a non-neocon."


This made me laugh out loud. I find Kristol fascinating because he seems (on TV interviews) like this really nice guy. Which is weird because his policies bring massive quantities of death, destruction, and tyranny throughout the globe, rob from the middle class and enrich a select few cabal members.

someperson
02-06-2010, 04:02 PM
Pro-war, in this context, is the position that advocates empire and intervention. I believe RM918's point is clear: an individual who promotes empire building cannot be considered fiscally conservative. The founders did not promote empire building. Even if they did, appeals to authority do not discount the underlying point. Please discard personalities and focus on policy.

An individual who labels themselves "Republican" and adopts said pro-war position cannot be fiscally conservative. Whether the label "neocon" is applicable or not isn't as important as understanding that this is an abominable position to promote. Ms. Palin promotes this position. Mr. Kristol promotes this position.

Malachi
02-06-2010, 04:08 PM
I believe RM918's point is clear: an individual who promotes empire building cannot be considered fiscally conservative.

That's not entirely true, there was a time when Rome made money from their excursions. True they crumbled in the end, but they all do sooner or later.

So, you can build empires and turn a profit possibly (not suggesting that). .... Hence prowar and fiscal conservative.... lol

RM918
02-06-2010, 04:14 PM
That's not entirely true, there was a time when Rome made money from their excursions. True they crumbled in the end, but they all do sooner or later.

So, you can build empires and turn a profit possibly (not suggesting that). .... Hence prowar and fiscal conservative.... lol

Yeah. Nothing to do with this conversation, however, since I don't think anyone is going to call Emperor Augustus a neocon. The point stands.

someperson
02-06-2010, 04:15 PM
"Rome," the state, stole resources from its inhabitants to go adventuring around the globe. That is not fiscally conservative policy; the outcome for the MIC of the time is irrelevant.

sofia
02-06-2010, 04:36 PM
She co-opting the movement of course. She's driving down Tea Party lane, picking up up new voters then heading right back to Kristol's house and to Bush politics.

Kristol can whore out Sarah all he wants because he know she's coming back to him at the end of the night!

rolf...


that's fucking poetry man!

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 04:38 PM
Rands victory is not the death kiss for Kristol or Neocons.


Just wait and see.

At the very least, Rand's victory has the potential to encourage other non neocons to take important positions from the neocon Republicans. That's all it takes to kick them out.

sofia
02-06-2010, 04:42 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Palin-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html

Neoconservatives plan Project Sarah Palin to shape future American foreign policy

Comments by the governor of Alaska in her first television interview, in which she said Nato may have to go to war with Russia and took a tough line on Iran's nuclear programme, were the result of two weeks of briefings by neoconservatives.

Sources in the McCain camp, the Republican Party and Washington think tanks say Mrs Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007. That was when the annual summer cruise organised by the right-of-centre Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, the Alaskan state capital, and the pundits on board took tea with Governor Palin.

Her case as John McCain's running mate was later advanced vociferously by William Kristol, the magazine's editor, who is widely seen as one of the founding fathers of American neoconservative thought - including the robust approach to foreign policy which spurred American intervention in Iraq.

In 1988, Mr Kristol became a leading adviser of another inexperienced Republican vice presidential pick, Dan Quayle, tutoring him in foreign affairs. Last week he praised Mrs Palin as "a spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism" that "is haunting the liberal elites".

Now many believe that the "neocons", whose standard bearer in government, Vice President Dick Cheney, lost out in Washington power struggles to the more moderate defence secretary Robert Gates and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, last year are seeking to mould Mrs Palin to renew their influence.

A former Republican White House official, who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, admitted: "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."

Asked if he sees her as a "project", the former official said: "Your word, not mine, but I wouldn't disagree with the sentiment."

Pat Buchanan, the former Republican presidential candidate and a foreign policy isolationist, who opposes the war in Iraq, the project most closely associated with the neocons, said: "Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has.

"Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit." The AEI, or American Enterprise Institute, is a free-market think-tank with many neo-cons among its members.

In the two weeks since she was named as Mr McCain's running mate that is just what has happened. While Mr McCain was publicly distancing himself from the policies and personalities of the Bush administration, Mrs Palin was sequestered with a series of former aides to George W. Bush.

Mr McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, an influential neoconservative, wasted no time in briefing Mrs Palin. He quickly made Steve Biegun, a former number three on the National Security Council, her chief foreign policy adviser.

Steven Clemons, of the New American Foundation think tank in Washington, a chronicler of the ebb and flow of neocon power in the White House, bemoaned the appointment, saying Mr Biegun "will turn her into an advocate of Cheneyism and Cheney's view of national-security issues."

Eyebrows were also raised when, on the Tuesday after her selection, Mrs Palin was ushered into the company of AIPAC, the pro-Israeli lobby group in Washington.
In her first television interview, she was on message, agreeing with Mr McCain that Israel has the right to take military action against Iran if necessary. "I don't think that we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security," she said.

Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, said the interview was "further evidence that she has soaked up the neocon view of the world." He was particularly alarmed by her suggestion that war with Russia is "perhaps" a possibility.

"The neocons surrounded Dan Quayle, with William Kristol becoming his main tutor. Now both McCain and Palin are being closely advised by neocons. Far from being chastened by the Iraq debacle, the neocons are now poised for their moment of greatest influence." Mr Buchanan has predicted Mrs Palin will become a major player for years to come.

"In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history," he said. "Should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base, wholly independent of President McCain."

Romulus
02-06-2010, 07:29 PM
YouTube - Bill Kristol Gets What's Coming To Him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDEoLJGyCAo)

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 07:31 PM
Wow! Bill must have paid someone to throw that cake to his face! His enemies will believe his security is weak, but it is not, so when they try to attack Bill again, we will catch them!

Romulus
02-06-2010, 07:51 PM
Oh damn, you're right. Sarah's gone rogue. It says so right on the front of her book! She showed Kristol that she's no Neocon. She even said End the Fed in Hong Kong once! Money bomb for Palin!

Matt Collins
02-06-2010, 08:07 PM
YouTube - Bill Kristol Gets What's Coming To Him (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDEoLJGyCAo)
Although I do not advocate violence he deserves much more than that :o



.

Peace&Freedom
02-06-2010, 08:09 PM
The truth is Kristol is indeed trying to play the tea partiers, BUT, Palin is also playing Kristol. I think she is trying to co-opt both the tea party movement, and the neo-cons. She is playing the role of Kristol's protege, just as she played the role of McCain's ally. When the barracuda had sucked the launching pad Mac gave her dry for all it was worth, she got going pushing her own drive for the White House. She knows she can't unify the strands of the GOP without making concrete gestures to the Paulites and the Kristols alike, so she has proceeded to do both.

Bill Kristol is being given far, far more kudos as a 'controller' than he is competent to deserve. Ask Quayle how marvelous Kristol was, for example, in managing his drive to become President. It is Kristol who has demonstrated more incompetence on things Presidential than anything Palin has done---thus far, her moves have paced her well ahead of Romney, Gingrich, or other 2012 contenders in the pack who have far sounder neocon credentials. It is Palin who is running this triangulation show using Kristol as HER foil, to make herself look more like the true Leader to the tea partiers.

Matt Collins
02-06-2010, 08:09 PM
She is not an intellectually consistent neocon, Kristol is. I'd say she doesn't have the mental capacity (at least at this point) to be an intellectually consistent neocon.
YouTube - Sarah Palin on Ron Paul and Republican partisanship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YglP4clX0A)

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 08:48 PM
Oh damn, you're right. Sarah's gone rogue. It says so right on the front of her book! She showed Kristol that she's no Neocon. She even said End the Fed in Hong Kong once! Money bomb for Palin!

No money bomb -not necessary-. Getting her support for Rand is all we need from her, and we've got it.

sofia
02-06-2010, 08:58 PM
No money bomb -not necessary-. Getting her support for Rand is all we need from her, and we've got it.

rand already had it clinched before she "gave her support"

Malachi
02-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Hear her for yourself:
YouTube - Sarah Palin Keynote Speech at Tea Party Convention Part 1 of 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtBP4tOy27E)

YouTube - Sarah Palin Keynote Speech at Tea Party Convention Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI3hzf4Rvs4)

itshappening
02-06-2010, 09:03 PM
rand already had it clinched before she "gave her support"

No max, it's a long way out and not clinched. we're fighting an organized McConnell Machine, we still have a long way to go. Palin will help no question.

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 09:04 PM
rand already had it clinched before she "gave her support"

Rand doesn't have it clinched even now. If that were true, he would've stopped David Adams from working on her endorsement.

Elections are rarely won 4 months in advance. Especially in this extremely fluid political climate.

Also, consider this: Would the primary have been harder if she, for some act of God, endorsed Bill Johnson? I think there would have been a small chance of making it a little harder. I'd say it's better to not take any risk and just have Sarah Palin support Rand.

TheConstitutionLives
02-06-2010, 09:38 PM
This is a strategic gem. Kristol tells Palin to endorse Rand. Smart move because Rand is gonna win anyway.

After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans. By feigning "disappointment"...Kristol makes the ruse work even better.

"Kristol is pissed off with Palin. Maybe she's OK afterall."...the libertarians say.

Don't buy this bullshit folks. Sarah is OWNED by Kristol.


It's the aliens running everything, max. :rolleyes: You need to get some sunshine, dude.

TheConstitutionLives
02-06-2010, 09:40 PM
Rand doesn't have it clinched even now. If that were true, he would've stopped David Adams from working on her endorsement.

Elections are rarely won 4 months in advance. Especially in this extremely fluid political climate.

Also, consider this: Would the primary have been harder if she, for some act of God, endorsed Bill Johnson? I think there would have been a small chance of making it a little harder. I'd say it's better to not take any risk and just have Sarah Palin support Rand.


Don't pay any attention to Sofia. The dude spouts off whatever kooky thing comes to his head all the time. To say he's "clinched" it is idiotic.

FrankRep
02-06-2010, 09:40 PM
It's the aliens running everything, max. :rolleyes: You need to get some sunshine, dude.
What's your damage TCL?

TheConstitutionLives
02-06-2010, 09:40 PM
rand already had it clinched before she "gave her support"

No, he didn't.

AParadigmShift
02-06-2010, 09:41 PM
After endorsing Rand, Sarah endears herself to many Ron Paul fans.

I can only hope that old right, trueconservative types of a Paulian persuasion are not in any way endeared to Her Rogueness beyond what her endorsement may garner for Rand with a certain segment of the electorate. Past that immediate and pressing purpose, she's proven herself to be unprincipled and therefore completely disposable.

As for the Kristol Kabal, let's just say that those scions of Trotskyites are masters of political theater.

*shudder*

TheConstitutionLives
02-06-2010, 09:42 PM
What's your damage TCL?

He's a paranoid schizophrenic.

FrankRep
02-06-2010, 09:48 PM
He's a paranoid schizophrenic.
Most of us, including Ron Paul, don't trust Neo-Conservatives.

Anti Federalist
02-06-2010, 09:53 PM
He's a paranoid schizophrenic.

Forum pyschologist is diagnosing...

//facepalm//

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 10:18 PM
Don't pay any attention to Sofia. The dude spouts off whatever kooky thing comes to his head all the time. To say he's "clinched" it is idiotic.

Don't be so harsh on Max. He does tons of good things, calls radio shows for Schiff, designs cards, etc. We can disagree without calling him names.

TheConstitutionLives
02-06-2010, 10:25 PM
Don't be so harsh on Max. He does tons of good things, calls radio shows for Schiff, designs cards, etc. We can disagree without calling him names.

I didn't call him a name in the sense that I'm saying he's something he isn't. I didn't call him a dog or a punk or a bitch, etc... I called him what he very evidently is. Like calling a white guy a "white guy". There are numerous examples. For instance,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=223412&highlight=obama+fly+sofia


.

low preference guy
02-06-2010, 10:37 PM
Damn TCL for providing that link. My throat hurts from laughing. Hopefully max was really bored when he started that thread.

cindy25
02-07-2010, 12:12 AM
it could play out this way:

Paul delegates switch to Palin in 2012 convention, Rand picked for VP

Palin unable to complete term. Rand becomes president.

the Progressives won the presidency that way; TR never would have been nominated for president.

sofia
02-07-2010, 12:14 AM
it could play out this way:

Paul delegates switch to Palin in 2012 convention, Rand picked for VP

Palin unable to complete term. Rand becomes president.

the Progressives won the presidency that way; TR never would have been nominated for president.

TR had the benefit of his neo-con handlers murdering McKinley for him...and probably poisoned Vice President Hobart as well.

Hobart gets killed....TR is installed as VP...

Then McKinley gets killed.....and pyscho TR steps in.

cindy25
02-07-2010, 12:22 AM
another example would be Garfield Arthur ticket.

anaconda
02-08-2010, 01:17 AM
it could play out this way:

Paul delegates switch to Palin in 2012 convention, Rand picked for VP

Palin unable to complete term. Rand becomes president.

the Progressives won the presidency that way; TR never would have been nominated for president.


She has not educated herself in the last year and she keeps trying to sound smart and it is not going to work for her. She will continually lose her base from doing idiotic things. Plus no moderates will vote for her. The independents that are deserting Obama are unlikely to vote for her. Plus I think she would have to "shore up" a deal with the neocon GOP to get that far in the general election, and therefore would not be allowed to select Rand. By that time Rand could probably fare much better on his own. After all, Obama was only in the Senate for a partial first term. Why not Rand?

Slutter McGee
02-08-2010, 09:47 AM
I've never heard someone called a neocon unless they were a pro-war Republican, which nails down the terminology pretty effectively.

Not really. Neo-conservative is far more than support of the war. You have to take into account the reasons for that support.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

tron paul
02-08-2010, 06:37 PM
Guys, I don't buy all this talk that Kristol and Palin are disingenuous about the endorsement. Palin endorsed Paul, Kristol opposed, and now he is disappointed. That's all there is to is.

Palin could be doing one of this moves to assert her independence. After all, Kristol and others are only advisers and work for her. Doing this kind of thing shows them she is the boss. The stakes are just too high to be playing with a Palin endorsement, probably the most important endorsement any Republican can get. Do you think Kristol will enhance Rand Paul's changes of winning just to play little mind games which at the end probably won't work? Not a chance.

Thank you for the voice of sanity. It is most welcome and needed, because....


The (Neocon) puppet master crowd isn't going to win any votes for Rand with their insulting, paranoid fantasies. In fact, they hurt Rand by making his base look like tinfoil hat wearing kooks.

The (attractive women must be dumb and get by on looks) crowd isn't going to win any votes for Rand with their insulting, misogynistic fantasies. In fact, they hurt Rand by making his base look like they are not comfortable with powerful women unless they are as ugly and old as Hillary.

The (Rand Paul has practically been sworn in and doesn't need Palin endorsements) crowd isn't going to win any votes for Rand with their hopey-dreamy, political novice fantasies. In fact, they hurt Rand by making his base look like they are overconfident braggarts, trying to hide from the fact that Palin's 2nd Gen, Townhaller-filled Tea Party is 100 times the size of our original neo-patriotic R3VOLution.

Kristol isn't the only neocon puppeteeer behind Palin that's upset about her endorsing Rand:

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/02/08/the-author-of-going-rogue-would-never-have-endorsed-rand-paul/

*starts new thread*

Dianne
02-08-2010, 07:12 PM
I wonder who is behind the hijacking of the tea party movement in order to further a GOP platform... more wars, more killing sprees; but no more money for Americans... sorry gotta tuck in the belt on that one.

Anyone have an idea who masterminded the tea party hijacking?

tron paul
02-08-2010, 07:45 PM
I wonder who is behind the hijacking of the tea party movement in order to further a GOP platform... more wars, more killing sprees; but no more money for Americans... sorry gotta tuck in the belt on that one.

Anyone have an idea who masterminded the tea party hijacking?

The Tea Party at large seems about evenly divided on whether to scrap the GOP and build a new party, or take it over and return it to conservative principles.

I say we can do both. Hit the RINOs from within and without, internally and externally.

Drain the NeoCon's energy by opening more fronts; attack them from every direction at once!

Others should start taking over the Democrat party, under the genuine progressive banners of Kucinich and Gravel.