Jim DeMint endorses Christine O'Donnell in DE and Ovide Lamontagne in NH

[MRoCkEd]

I'm not too fond of either of these candidates, but they are better than their opponents.
O'Donnell is facing RINO Mike Castle. Ovide is facing Mitch McConnell's girl Kelly Ayotte.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Opinions on this?

[forsmant]

We should not support Rinos of any flavor. Abstain.

[TheTyke]

We should not support Rinos of any flavor. Abstain.

I agree with this statement, though I don't know enough about the race to make a judgment. Based on what I heard on these boards, I'd be glad enough if Castle lost, but wouldn't compromise myself by working for his opponent.... hopefully DeMint and others will get the job done, while we focus on REAL liberty candidates like Rand^^

[down_south]

I'm not really a huge fan of Jim DeMint, not sure who the other two people are. Jim is right on some issues but I strongly disagree with him on policing the world.

[erowe1]

We should not support Rinos of any flavor. Abstain.

Ron Paul is the biggest RINO of all. Isn't he?

[TCE]

If O'Donnell wins, then Coons (D) wins. Best to stay out of that race. In New Hampshire, the race has already been decided for Ayotte anyway, best to avoid that one, too.

[MRoCkEd]

If O'Donnell wins, then Coons (D) wins. Best to stay out of that race. In New Hampshire, the race has already been decided for Ayotte anyway, best to avoid that one, too.

That argument only makes sense if you are interested in the D vs. R numbers game. I for one don't care about the parties, but support the candidates most sympathetic towards liberty. O'Donnell winning might throw the election to the D, but I don't see how Castle is much different than a D anyway.

[forsmant]

Ron Paul is the biggest RINO of all. Isn't he?

I suppose you can claim that. But neither candidate is like Ron Paul. So Ron Paul in name only.

[TCE]

That argument only makes sense if you are interested in the D vs. R numbers game. I for one don't care about the parties, but support the candidates most sympathetic towards liberty. O'Donnell winning might throw the election to the D, but I don't see how Castle is much different than a D anyway.

I think about it as how can we get a liberty candidate in come 2016. Coons and Castle are both terrible, but look at it from this perspective: Castle will not run for re-election and Coons will. Coons will have this seat for as long as he pleases. I would rather run a Democratic liberty candidate in 2016 in an open seat contest instead of running a liberty Republican against Coons.

Castle will vote against everything anyway for two years, so we only have to deal with four years of anti-liberty votes. O'Donnell isn't that much different from Castle. I'm not cheering for anyone, but strategically, Castle>Coons. But yes, we lose in 2010 in Delaware no matter which of the three candidates wins.

[South Park Fan]

I think we ought to obey higher standards that being the candidate running against an establishment politician. I can accept Paul, Lee, Angle, Buck, and Miller to different extents, mostly because they actually seem concerned with the deficit and are agnostic at best toward foreign interventionism. However, O'Donnell and Lamontagne seem like washed-up neocon political hacks.

[MRoCkEd]

I think we ought to obey higher standards that being the candidate running against an establishment politician. I can accept Paul, Lee, Angle, Buck, and Miller to different extents, mostly because they actually seem concerned with the deficit and are agnostic at best toward foreign interventionism. However, O'Donnell and Lamontagne seem like washed-up neocon political hacks.
I know. They are lesser of evils for sure. I would not vote for them. But I would prefer them to win than the greater of evils.

[Agorism]

Maybe it just comes down to being a throw the bums out election. If you don't especially like either one, you just go with throw them out.

[parocks]

Castle is the RINO, Christine is the conservative.



We should not support Rinos of any flavor. Abstain.

[parocks]

Christine is more similar to Ron Paul. Christine is a limited government constitutional conservative. The tea party candidate. Rand, Angle, Lee, Buck, Miller and O'Donnell would be added to the list of Rand Paul's potential allies in the Senate.

If you support Rand Paul, and some here might not, you would be interested in having allies for him. Rand will most likely be part of DeMint's coalition, or wing, or whatnot, and so would O'Donnell, Miller, Angle, Buck and Lee.




I suppose you can claim that. But neither candidate is like Ron Paul. So Ron Paul in name only.

[parocks]

Do you know anything about Christine O'Donnell?

Washed up? She's 41

Political hack? Never been in office

neocon? she's in favor of limited government. Neocons support more government.

She's the tea party candidate in this race running against Mike Castle who sits between Snowe (more liberal) and Collins (more conservative)


I think we ought to obey higher standards that being the candidate running against an establishment politician. I can accept Paul, Lee, Angle, Buck, and Miller to different extents, mostly because they actually seem concerned with the deficit and are agnostic at best toward foreign interventionism. However, O'Donnell and Lamontagne seem like washed-up neocon political hacks.

[parocks]

The plan was for Castle to beat Coons, Castle to not run in 2014, and Biden would take the seat. If Coons wins, it stifles Biden, which is a good result I think.


I think about it as how can we get a liberty candidate in come 2016. Coons and Castle are both terrible, but look at it from this perspective: Castle will not run for re-election and Coons will. Coons will have this seat for as long as he pleases. I would rather run a Democratic liberty candidate in 2016 in an open seat contest instead of running a liberty Republican against Coons.

Castle will vote against everything anyway for two years, so we only have to deal with four years of anti-liberty votes. O'Donnell isn't that much different from Castle. I'm not cheering for anyone, but strategically, Castle>Coons. But yes, we lose in 2010 in Delaware no matter which of the three candidates wins.

[TCE]

The plan was for Castle to beat Coons, Castle to not run in 2014, and Biden would take the seat. If Coons wins, it stifles Biden, which is a good result I think.

Coons will vote exactly like Biden would have anyway. Just like I can't think of too many different votes O'Donnell and Castle would take if they're elected. Oh, and 2016, by the way.

[parocks]

Here is THE biggie.

Cap & Trade.

Castle voted for it already in the House.

O'Donnell is against it.

And Delaware seats in the lame duck.



Coons will vote exactly like Biden would have anyway. Just like I can't think of too many different votes O'Donnell and Castle would take if they're elected. Oh, and 2016, by the way.

[Imperial]

She still hasn't even paid off her 2008 campaign workers. She has 11k outstanding taxes from 2005 to be paid to the IRS.

Her foreign policy appears sucktacular. Sne was pro Iraq War and wanted to strike Iran in 2006.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Christine_O%60Donnell.htm

[Bergie Bergeron]

Maybe she's seen the light like most of us?

[FSP-Rebel]

I really don't have a horse in the NH Senate race at this moment. But, I went to a Senate debate a few months back and seen the 4 candidates in action. Ayotte seemed like the typical politician while Binnie appeared to be buying his seat while just talking the conservative lingo. Bender or Ovide would be an improvement over either of the former and likely better than out-going Senator Gregg. The latter two seemed more sincere in their beliefs and would likely be more in touch with the conservative grassroots than Ayotte or Binnie. Also, it seems the NH Tea Parties are aligned behind Ovide.

[South Park Fan]

Do you know anything about Christine O'Donnell?

Washed up? She's 41

Political hack? Never been in office

neocon? she's in favor of limited government. Neocons support more government.

She's the tea party candidate in this race running against Mike Castle who sits between Snowe (more liberal) and Collins (more conservative)

She's already ran for Senate twice and lost miserably both times. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over again and expecting different results? And I would consider these quotes on her website to be indicative of a neocon:

"[Christine O'Donnell] Believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights."

"September 11, 2010, is the 9th anniversary of the attack on America. A nation that had grown complacent toward enemies abroad, and the possibility of enemies within, was reminded that evil still exists."

As Ron Paul could tell you, rights are natural and not granted by the Constitution, and the U.S. was anything but "complacent" toward imagined enemies when they bombed Iraq for ten years. I'm not suggesting that Castle is any better or that O'Donnell wouldn't vote better than Castle, but I believe that we ought to hold ourselves to better standards that just endorsing the candidate who isn't a liberal. Then we might as well back all Republican candidates.

[South Park Fan]

I really don't have a horse in the NH Senate race at this moment. But, I went to a Senate debate a few months back and seen the 4 candidates in action. Ayotte seemed like the typical politician while Binnie appeared to be buying his seat while just talking the conservative lingo. Bender or Ovide would be an improvement over either of the former and likely better than out-going Senator Gregg. The latter two seemed more sincere in their beliefs and would likely be more in touch with the conservative grassroots than Ayotte or Binnie. Also, it seems the NH Tea Parties are aligned behind Ovide.

http://tomalciere.us/

[erowe1]

She's already ran for Senate twice and lost miserably both times. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over again and expecting different results? And I would consider these quotes on her website to be indicative of a neocon:

"[Christine O'Donnell] Believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights."

"September 11, 2010, is the 9th anniversary of the attack on America. A nation that had grown complacent toward enemies abroad, and the possibility of enemies within, was reminded that evil still exists."

As Ron Paul could tell you, rights are natural and not granted by the Constitution, and the U.S. was anything but "complacent" toward imagined enemies when they bombed Iraq for ten years. I'm not suggesting that Castle is any better or that O'Donnell wouldn't vote better than Castle, but I believe that we ought to hold ourselves to better standards that just endorsing the candidate who isn't a liberal. Then we might as well back all Republican candidates.

I don't know anything about her, so I can't say I'm a supporter. But those quotes don't make someone a neocon. They are things a neocon would say, but they don't say enough to make it clear that she definitely is one.

And not all rights are natural. Some are mere legal constructs. The right not to be punished for a crime you didn't commit is natural. The right to a jury trial is not a natural right, but it is constitutional. Some other rights, such as the right to a Miranda warning or the right not to have illegally obtained evidence used against you in trial, are neither natural nor constitutional, but are the result of activist judges.

Or do you think that even the right to a trial by jury is a natural right?

[Ethek]

A friend inside Rands campaign supports Ovide. I don't know him personally but he could be an asset to the movement.

[lester1/2jr]

rachael maddow makes fun of her every night. apparently at one point she got so into abstinence she wrote something saying masturbation was evil or something

[camnc79]

Friends in liberty -

I am a proud supporter of Ovide Lamontagne. Just to give insight into his views, he is very strong on the 10th Amendment. He talks about the Constitution during every speech and every debate. Furthermore, he understands it.

What really differentiates him from every other Republican candidate in the race is that he says he would have opposed going into Iraq given what he knows today. Would he have opposed it to begin with? I don't know the answer to that, but at least he is not a Neocon apologist like others who say they would have gone in regardless.

I believe Ovide will work well with individuals like Rand Paul and I hope that if you're in New Hampshire and are Undeclared or a Republican that you'll cast your vote this Tuesday for Ovide.

Thank you!

Cam DeJong
Manchester, NH

[AlexMerced]

rachael maddow makes fun of her every night. apparently at one point she got so into abstinence she wrote something saying masturbation was evil or something

I was gonna write this as a response to the abstain comment in the first page of this thread


Well, I get messages about her like everyday on facebook, like other races I'm pretty ambivalent

I really main care about Paul, Bradley, Didier, Lawson, and Dennis

[MRoCkEd]

Friends in liberty -

I am a proud supporter of Ovide Lamontagne. Just to give insight into his views, he is very strong on the 10th Amendment. He talks about the Constitution during every speech and every debate. Furthermore, he understands it.

What really differentiates him from every other Republican candidate in the race is that he says he would have opposed going into Iraq given what he knows today. Would he have opposed it to begin with? I don't know the answer to that, but at least he is not a Neocon apologist like others who say they would have gone in regardless.

I believe Ovide will work well with individuals like Rand Paul and I hope that if you're in New Hampshire and are Undeclared or a Republican that you'll cast your vote this Tuesday for Ovide.

Thank you!

Cam DeJong
Manchester, NH
Thanks for the info. I hope he wins then!

[parocks]

2008 is not 2010. Democrats were popular in 2008, Republicans are popular in 2010.

Biden is not Coons. Biden is extremely well known and was extremely popular in Delaware in 2008. Coons is nowhere near as well known and well liked as Biden was in 2008.

When the conditions are the same, it's crazy to think the result would be different.
The conditions are vastly different in 2010.

Many Ron Paul supporters believe, like you, that any Republican who holds a terrorism policy similar to Christine's is a neocon.

Neocons believe in bigger Federal Government at home as well as abroad.
The Neocon foreign policy is pretty much the standard Republican Foreign Policy at this time. All Republicans that have any mainstream popularity have some version of that foreign policy.

But neocon is more than foreign policy. Neocon is big government up and down the line. Christine is for limited Constitutional government, neocons are not.




She's already ran for Senate twice and lost miserably both times. Isn't insanity doing the same thing over again and expecting different results? And I would consider these quotes on her website to be indicative of a neocon:

"[Christine O'Donnell] Believes terrorism is an act of war requiring the full force of our intelligence and military resources rather than granting terrorists precious Constitutional rights."

"September 11, 2010, is the 9th anniversary of the attack on America. A nation that had grown complacent toward enemies abroad, and the possibility of enemies within, was reminded that evil still exists."

As Ron Paul could tell you, rights are natural and not granted by the Constitution, and the U.S. was anything but "complacent" toward imagined enemies when they bombed Iraq for ten years. I'm not suggesting that Castle is any better or that O'Donnell wouldn't vote better than Castle, but I believe that we ought to hold ourselves to better standards that just endorsing the candidate who isn't a liberal. Then we might as well back all Republican candidates.

[parocks]

How could you possibly know what Rachael Maddow is saying every night?


rachael maddow makes fun of her every night. apparently at one point she got so into abstinence she wrote something saying masturbation was evil or something

[forsmant]

The warfare state is bankrupting America just as much as the welfare state.

[erowe1]

Neocons believe in bigger Federal Government at home as well as abroad.
The Neocon foreign policy is pretty much the standard Republican Foreign Policy at this time. All Republicans that have any mainstream popularity have some version of that foreign policy.


Neoconservatism is all about foreign policy. It's true that neocons tend to be moderate or liberal on domestic issues. But that's not what makes them neocons. If someone has a neoconservative foreign policy, then they're a neoconservative.

What are some of the things you like about her domestic policy?

[parocks]

You're in error.

Neocon is both foreign and domestic. Big Government in both. Neocons are ex Trotskyites. Ex Democrats.

Christine believes in Limited Constitutional Government.

She would vote against Obama and the Democrats. Castle votes with Obama and the Democrats more than half the time.

Key is Cap and Trade. Christine is against it. Castle has voted for it.


Neoconservatism is all about foreign policy. It's true that neocons tend to be moderate or liberal on domestic issues. But that's not what makes them neocons. If someone has a neoconservative foreign policy, then they're a neoconservative.

What are some of the things you like about her domestic policy?

[lester1/2jr]

parocks- I watch her most nights? not the whole show usually.

[erowe1]

Neocon is both foreign and domestic. Big Government in both. Neocons are ex Trotskyites. Ex Democrats.

Where'd you get that? From a JBS article?

Some neoconservatives are that, others aren't.

The only defining aspect of neoconservatism is its foreign policy, mainly advocacy of promoting, installing, and protecting democratic regimes abroad. There may be more to it than that. But domestic policy isn't part of it.

[low preference guy]

The only defining aspect of neoconservatism is its foreign policy, mainly advocacy of promoting, installing, and protecting democratic regimes abroad. There may be more to it than that. But domestic policy isn't part of it.

Aren't neocons OK with protecting foreign dictators when it helps their interests?

[erowe1]

Christine believes in Limited Constitutional Government.
When you put it in abstract terms like that, everyone is for limited constitutional government, including Obama.



She would vote against Obama and the Democrats.
So would pretty much every Republican when they're the minority party.

But here's the question. What's going to happen when the Republicans are in the majority? When they propose their own expansions of government, will she vote the right way (i.e. will she do the exact opposite of what you said she would do and break ranks from her party and vote no along with the Democrats)?



Key is Cap and Trade. Christine is against it. Castle has voted for it.

So cap and trade is the main difference. Better than nothing.

[erowe1]

Aren't neocons OK with protecting foreign dictators when it helps their interests?

No. That's not neoconservatism. Unless, by "their interests" you mean somehow promoting democracy so that they support some dictator in some short-term way to help some other democracy, like allying with Saudi Arabia to take advantage of assistance from them in deposing Saddam Hussein.

Reagan, for example, was not a neoconservative.

[wormyguy]

http://tomalciere.us/

Dennis Lamare (http://www.lamareforussenate.com/) is another liberty candidate who appears a slight bit saner, judging by the quality and content of the website.

[parocks]

You just don't know what neoconservativism is.

You're confusing today's standard Republican foreign policy with neoconservativism.
There is an economic part.

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

In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[4]

Let's not argue about the validity of wikipedia.



Where'd you get that? From a JBS article?

Some neoconservatives are that, others aren't.

The only defining aspect of neoconservatism is its foreign policy, mainly advocacy of promoting, installing, and protecting democratic regimes abroad. There may be more to it than that. But domestic policy isn't part of it.

[wormyguy]

Both George Bushes are neocons; Richard Nixon was something of a "proto-neocon" if that makes sense.

[low preference guy]

No. That's not neoconservatism. Unless, by "their interests" you mean somehow promoting democracy so that they support some dictator in some short-term way to help some other democracy, like allying with Saudi Arabia to take advantage of assistance from them in deposing Saddam Hussein.

So how would you describe Kissinger and those who supported Pinochet in Chile? They're not neocons?

The concept of a "noble lie" is important among neocons. I think they use "promoting democracy abroad" as a cover, but what they want is a sense of "American Greatness", which they feel whenever the country unites to blow up people abroad, for whatever reason.

[parocks]

Castle voted with the Dems more than half the time.

Christine will be a solid Republican, voting with the DeMint coalition, along with Rand Paul.

Castle is more conservative than Snowe, more liberal than Collins, over the last 6 years.

There are bigger policy differences between O'Donnell and Castle than there are between Coons and Castle.

Castle is more a Democrat than a Republican.



When you put it in abstract terms like that, everyone is for limited constitutional government, including Obama.


So would pretty much every Republican when they're the minority party.

But here's the question. What's going to happen when the Republicans are in the majority? When they propose their own expansions of government, will she vote the right way (i.e. will she do the exact opposite of what you said she would do and break ranks from her party and vote no along with the Democrats)?



So cap and trade is the main difference. Better than nothing.

[erowe1]

You just don't know what neoconservativism is.

You're confusing today's standard Republican foreign policy with neoconservativism.
There is an economic part.

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

In economics, unlike paleoconservatives and libertarians, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a welfare state; and, while rhetorically supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.[4]

Let's not argue about the validity of wikipedia.

The definition of "neoconservatism" provided in that link is as follows:

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, which supports using modern American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

Your quote about what they "generally support" is just that, a generalization, and not a defining feature. So, based on your own source, what I said about neoconservatism is accurate. Someone with a neoconservative foreign policy is a neoconservative regardless of their domestic policies.

[cindy25]

Ron Paul is the biggest RINO of all. Isn't he?

No, Ron Paul is the real Republican. anti-war, anti-intervention, low tax.
the neo-cons are not real Republicans, and neither are the religious nutcases

[erowe1]

So how would you describe Kissinger and those who supported Pinochet in Chile? They're not neocons?


No, they're not.

Neoconservatism is not the same as interventionism.

[erowe1]

No, Ron Paul is the real Republican. anti-war, anti-intervention, low tax.


I wish I could go back to the innocent bliss of thinking that there existed a major political party that was anti-war, anti-intervention, and low tax. But what you just described is the opposite of a Republican. Any member of the party with a platform like that is truly a Republican in name only.

[cindy25]

Nixon really wanted to end the Vietnam war, and by ending the draft forever limited the war making policy of future presidents.

Carter would not have done it (he brought back registration)
Reagan would not have done it (he wouldn't even end registration as he promised)
Bush, while anti-draft as a congressman , was too involved in the gulf
Clinton - the DLC wants national service

so we do owe Nixon.

[parocks]

No, the part about generally support is actually important.

You can't just say that it isn't important.

I'm not arguing that neocons don't want a big foreign policy, just that they generally do support big goverment at home as well. Yes, generally, they do.

And there's the mention of Trotsky from the wikipedia.

The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.

The Dems have always been in favor of big foreign adventures and big government. Now, with the neocons, the Republicans have some in favor of both as well.


The definition of "neoconservatism" provided in that link is as follows:


Your quote about what they "generally support" is just that, a generalization, and not a defining feature. So, based on your own source, what I said about neoconservatism is accurate. Someone with a neoconservative foreign policy is a neoconservative regardless of their domestic policies.

[erowe1]

Christine will be a solid Republican.

That's a bad thing, especially when the Republicans are in the majority.

[erowe1]

No, the part about generally support is actually important.

You can't just say that it isn't important.

I didn't say it's not important. But it's not part of the definition. It's a generalization, just as your own source says it is.

If most neoconservatives are fiscal liberals on domestic issues, but some aren't then that means that they "generally support" those things. But the ones who don't are still neoconservatives. What makes them neoconservatives? Their foreign policy, just as your own source claims.

Notice, even in your own words:


The forerunners of neoconservatism were most often socialists or sometimes liberals who strongly supported the Allied cause in World War II, and who were influenced by the Great Depression-era ideas of the New Deal, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, particularly those who followed the political ideas of Max Shachtman.

But what about the ones who aren't socialists, aren't influenced by New Deal ideas, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, and don't follow Shachtman? Are they still neocons? Yes, they are.

[ItsTime]

Ovide has no chance. Bennie is a democrat in a business suite who thinks the FED is part of the government. We dont have much choice this year. I might end up voting for Ayotte.

If Bennie wins I wont be voting for him in the general.

[South Park Fan]

Dennis Lamare (http://www.lamareforussenate.com/) is another liberty candidate who appears a slight bit saner, judging by the quality and content of the website.

Thank you for the correction. Also, in case anyone here supports Lamontagne, I give you this:
"We have engaged our troops in Afghanistan as a matter of necessity to eradicate terrorists and the havens from which they masterminded the 9-11 attacks on America. We now need to finish our work there to protect our homeland against further attack, and I fully support our efforts. This is a difficult conflict, and I have confidence that Gen. Petraeus will successfully execute and complete our mission there, allowing us to bring our troops home as soon as possible." http://ovide2010.com/?page_id=1641

[parocks]

Playing around with the bold might be fun for you, but it doesn't help you convince that there isn't an orthodox neocon policy of big government at home.

It is part of the definition. Neocons are for bigger government. But not in every case. Almost like a Democrat, but not quite. But not at all for Limited Constitutional Government, like a typical teaparty conservative like O'Donnell.

Most of the founders were Trotskyites. Just talking about the foundations of neocon, that's all. Yeah, some weren't. I said there were a lot of communists. I don't think that I said that every single neocon was a card carrying member of the communist party. But a heck of a lot of them were Trotskyites, and when there's a notable number of Trotskyites, it's extremely suspicious.

Some people have been paying attention to politics for a long time, and know that neocons and typical conservative"strong on national defense" Republicans aren't the same at all.


I didn't say it's not important. But it's not part of the definition. It's a generalization, just as your own source says it is.

If most neoconservatives are fiscal liberals on domestic issues, but some aren't then that means that they "generally support" those things. But the ones who don't are still neoconservatives. What makes them neoconservatives? Their foreign policy, just as your own source claims.

Notice, even in your own words:

But what about the ones who aren't socialists, aren't influenced by New Deal ideas, trade unionism, and Trotskyism, and don't follow Shachtman? Are they still neocons? Yes, they are.

[parocks]

Oh, you're one of the antiwar Dems who make the Republican voters dislike RP so much.


That's a bad thing, especially when the Republicans are in the majority.

[forsmant]

I'd say hes anti government in general, not a dem.

[Rothbardian Girl]

Nixon really wanted to end the Vietnam war, and by ending the draft forever limited the war making policy of future presidents.


You may be half right, but I don't think bombing Cambodia was Nixon really wanting to end the Vietnam War. I don't buy it.

I will try to stop using my terminology "neoconservative" and switch to "pro-interventionist" because I think that is a more accurate description of these people. I feel like they would be ultimately detrimental to the goal that the liberty movement is trying to accomplish, and I don't think we should put up with yet more infiltration like what has happened with the Tea Party. I don't know how these pro-interventionist guys do it, but they find a way to worm into everything, and it really is annoying. :/

I find both neoconservatives and typical conservatives to be just plain wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think they will ever go away. They seem to be fond of co-opting legitimate liberty movements.

[erowe1]

Playing around with the bold might be fun for you, but it doesn't help you convince that there isn't an orthodox neocon policy of big government at home.

I never said there is an orthodox neocon policy of big government at home (in fact, isn't that what you were saying, not me?). There is no such thing as an orthodox neocon policy of any kind of government at home. As your own source indicates, different neocons have different domestic policies. But what makes them neocons is their foreign policy. A neoconservative who opposes the welfare state is still a neoconservative. If they happen to be in the minority of neoconservatives on that point it doesn't change that, since they hold to neoconservative ideology in the foreign policy issues that define it.

On the other hand, proponents of the welfare state who oppose democracy building are not neoconservatives, because, regardless of their domestic policy, they do not meet the definition of a neoconservative, which is all about foreign policy.

Just read that wikipedia article that you linked. It looks pretty good to me. The definition of "neoconservative" is right in the first sentence.


It is part of the definition.
No it isn't. As your own source says, and as you have already admitted, in the parts I bolded in my previous comment, and again in what you say below.



Most of the founders were Trotskyites. Just talking about the foundations of neocon, that's all. Yeah, some weren't. I said there were a lot of communists. I don't think that I said that every single neocon was a card carrying member of the communist party. But a heck of a lot of them were Trotskyites, and when there's a notable number of Trotskyites, it's extremely suspicious.
Right. So in other words, those things aren't part of the definition of a neoconservative. You can be a neoconservative and not be any of those things. The defining feature of neoconservatism is its foreign policy.

So, since, as you correctly say, some neoconservatives are not marxists, trotskyites, social liberals, trade unionists, or any other thing related to domestic policy, you can't say that any given person is disqualified from being a neoconservative on those grounds. This brings us back to the question of O'Donnell. Is she a neoconservative? I don't know if she is. I certain never accused her of being one. But since it's possible for someone with her domestic policies still to be a neoconservative, it can't be those that disqualify her from having the label attached to her. Does she have a neoconservative foreign policy? I don't know. You seem to have implied that she does. And if she does, then she's a neoconservative.

To put it another way. Some neoconservatives are not liberal on domestic policy. But what about foreign policy? Are there some neoconservatives who don't support foreign intervention to support democratic regimes? No, there are no neoconservatives who don't support that, because that is the defining feature of a neoconservative.


Some people have been paying attention to politics for a long time, and know that neocons and typical conservative"strong on national defense" Republicans aren't the same at all.

People who think that clearly don't know what neoconservatism is. Neoconservatism has nothing to do with a strong national defense. It has everything to do with a particular kind of non-defensive, interventionist, use of the military that actually makes us less safe. Strong defense Republicans like Pat Buchanan and John Hostettler are the opposite of neoconservatives, precisely because of that foreign policy difference.

[erowe1]

Oh, you're one of the antiwar Dems who make the Republican voters dislike RP so much.

No, I'm probably closer to a paleo-conservative who gave up pretending the GOP was my friend.

I like Ron Paul's approach of standing up against his own party. Partisan shills who only oppose big government when the Democrats are for it, but vote for big government when the Republicans support it (which is what Republicans do when they're in the majority), instead of voting "no" along with the Democrats on those votes, like Ron Paul does, don't excite me.

So yeah, since I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I think that someone who can be counted on as a solid Republican vote, especially when the Republicans are in the majority, is a bad thing. We need to reform the party. And more McCains, McConnells, and O'Donnells (if your characterization of her as a reliable party-line Republican is correct), aren't going to do that.

[parocks]

You didn't read my post close enough.

You are in error yet again.

It doesn't say different neocons have different domestic policies.

The article states what the typical neocon economic position is.

If there wasn't a typical neocon postion, (big government) it wouldn't be in the article. So there is a typical neocon position in favor of big government.

Any Conservative republican talking about limited Constitutional Government is not a neocon.

And stop pretending they are.

Antiwar is a fringe minority in the Republican Party. Ron Paul if he wanted to get votes from Conservative Republicans in a primary in 2012 is going to have to stop talking so much about antiwar. Ron Paul has the limited Constitutional Government track record. There are a lot of areas of agreement between him and typical teaparty conservatives. O'Donnell is just one of them, and I will admit that someone like Miller is closer to Ron Paul than O'Donnell is.

But they're both for less government, and neocons are for more government (typically).


I never said there is an orthodox neocon policy of big government at home (in fact, isn't that what you were saying, not me?). There is no such thing as an orthodox neocon policy of any kind of government at home. As your own source indicates, different neocons have different domestic policies. But what makes them neocons is their foreign policy. A neoconservative who opposes the welfare state is still a neoconservative. If they happen to be in the minority of neoconservatives on that point it doesn't change that, since they hold to neoconservative ideology in the foreign policy issues that define it.

On the other hand, proponents of the welfare state who oppose democracy building are not neoconservatives, because, regardless of their domestic policy, they do not meet the definition of a neoconservative, which is all about foreign policy.

Just read that wikipedia article that you linked. It looks pretty good to me. The definition of "neoconservative" is right in the first sentence.


No it isn't. As your own source says, and as you have already admitted, in the parts I bolded in my previous comment, and again in what you say below.


Right. So in other words, those things aren't part of the definition of a neoconservative. You can be a neoconservative and not be any of those things. The defining feature of neoconservatism is its foreign policy.

So, since, as you correctly say, some neoconservatives are not marxists, trotskyites, social liberals, trade unionists, or any other thing related to domestic policy, you can't say that any given person is disqualified from being a neoconservative on those grounds. This brings us back to the question of O'Donnell. Is she a neoconservative? I don't know if she is. I certain never accused her of being one. But since it's possible for someone with her domestic policies still to be a neoconservative, it can't be those that disqualify her from having the label attached to her. Does she have a neoconservative foreign policy? I don't know. You seem to have implied that she does. And if she does, then she's a neoconservative.

To put it another way. Some neoconservatives are not liberal on domestic policy. But what about foreign policy? Are there some neoconservatives who don't support foreign intervention to support democratic regimes? No, there are no neoconservatives who don't support that, because that is the defining feature of a neoconservative.



People who think that clearly don't know what neoconservatism is. Neoconservatism has nothing to do with a strong national defense. It has everything to do with a particular kind of non-defensive, interventionist, use of the military that actually makes us less safe. Strong defense Republicans like Pat Buchanan and John Hostettler are the opposite of neoconservatives, precisely because of that foreign policy difference.

[parocks]

Christines would vote for DeMint over McConnell. She's in the group with Rand, Miller, Angle, Buck and Lee. She's the tea party candidate in that race.

I will say that it does remain to be seen how the tea party candidates will vote in the long run. Hopefully they are large in number, and can build alliances with each other, so as to form a voting block against any possible big government Republicanism.

Remember, this is what Rand Paul is doing. Miller is almost certain to be an ally. I don't know enough about Lee Angle and Buck, but I'd guess that they'd share ideas with Rand. And I think O'Donnell will be in that group as well.

You haven't been following this race closely. The NRSC was in there, in a primary, without an incumbent in the race, running against her. She's a Constitutional Conservative. Ron Paul's people should be supporting her, but I do know there are some social conservative positions she has will keep some from supporting her, as well as not being antiwar.


No, I'm probably closer to a paleo-conservative who gave up pretending the GOP was my friend.

I like Ron Paul's approach of standing up against his own party. Partisan shills who only oppose big government when the Democrats are for it, but vote for big government when the Republicans support it (which is what Republicans do when they're in the majority), instead of voting "no" along with the Democrats on those votes, like Ron Paul does, don't excite me.

So yeah, since I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I think that someone who can be counted on as a solid Republican vote, especially when the Republicans are in the majority, is a bad thing. We need to reform the party. And more McCains, McConnells, and O'Donnells (if your characterization of her as a reliable party-line Republican is correct), aren't going to do that.

[specsaregood]

so we do owe Nixon.

Nixon was hand picked by the bankers to run for congress and replace a man they described as: the most dangerous man in D.C. who wished to abolish the federal reserve and end our nations debt. Nixon ended up winning, eventually becoming president and taking us off the gold standard which resulted in a comlete runaway growth in government. Yes, we "owe Nixon", but it isn't praise we owe him.

[erowe1]

You didn't read my post close enough.

You are in error yet again.

It doesn't say different neocons have different domestic policies.

Yes it did:



Most of the founders were Trotskyites. Just talking about the foundations of neocon, that's all. Yeah, some weren't. I said there were a lot of communists. I don't think that I said that every single neocon was a card carrying member of the communist party.


But if that's not what you meant, and if you meant that all neoconservatives have the same domestic policies, then you're mistaken, they don't. Neoconsevatism is defined by foreign policy. Different neoconservatives have different domestic policies.

[parocks]

No, you're wrong. Again.

You might want to look again at the meaning of the word typical.

Anyway, I see that you have a profound misunderstanding of what a neocon is.

I suggest you read this, to prevent yourself from spreading a gross misunderstanding of what you think neocons are.

The standard Republican is not a neocon. The neocons are the ones who actively push for new wars. The standard Republican is for a strong national defense, whatever that might mean at the time. The neocons are the ones pushing the standard Republicans to adopt their position. But standard Republicans typically don't have the background of a neocon, they've never pushed for more wars, didn't create a philosophy of spreading democracy. They're simply adopting the standard, mainstream strong national defense philosophy of the moment. If Ron Paul's position became popular, standard Republicans could easily just switch positons. They could not vote for a new war as easy as they might've voted for an old war.

Here's the link An Introduction to Neoconservatism -by Gary North - who used to work for Ron Paul.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

After you read that, we can discuss it.






Yes it did:




But if that's not what you meant, and if you meant that all neoconservatives have the same domestic policies, then you're mistaken, they don't. Neoconsevatism is defined by foreign policy. Different neoconservatives have different domestic policies.

[erowe1]

No, you're wrong. Again.

You might want to look again at the meaning of the word typical.
Why is that? Has there been some point in this discussion where our difference hinged on the meaning of the word "typical"?




Anyway, I see that you have a profound misunderstanding of what a neocon is.

I suggest you read this, to prevent yourself from spreading a gross misunderstanding of what you think neocons are.

The standard Republican is not a neocon. The neocons are the ones who actively push for new wars. The standard Republican is for a strong national defense, whatever that might mean at the time. The neocons are the ones pushing the standard Republicans to adopt their position. But standard Republicans typically don't have the background of a neocon, they've never pushed for more wars, didn't create a philosophy of spreading democracy. They're simply adopting the standard, mainstream strong national defense philosophy of the moment. If Ron Paul's position became popular, standard Republicans could easily just switch positons. They could not vote for a new war as easy as they might've voted for an old war.
How does any of this relate to our discussion?

I have never brought up whether or not most Republicans hold to a neoconservative foreign policy. Whether they do or not is beside the point. But if they do, then that makes them neoconservative in the only possible sense that matters.

Furthermore, if it is the case that supporting the welfare state is a defining feature of neoconservativism, then you can't use that criteria to exclude "standard Republicans" anyway, since unwavering support of the welfare state is clearly the "standard Repubican" position. So if the neoconservative foreign policy of democracy building is the "standard Republican" foreign policy (as you said above in posts 31 and 42 that it is), and if the only thing remaining in order to qualify one as a neoconservative is support for New Deal policies, and so on, then the only possible conclusion is that, indeed, "standard Republicans" (i.e. people who support both a neoconservative foreign policy and ever bigger government in domestic policy) are neoconservatives.

But regardless of what a standard Republican is, there's a definition of what a neoconservative is, and it's all about foreign policy, as you saw in that wikipedia article. The most that can be said about neoconservatives' domestic policies is that neoconservatives generally (or most neoconservatives) hold to this or that policy, where the ones that don't are still neoconservatives.



Here's the link An Introduction to Neoconservatism -by Gary North - who used to work for Ron Paul.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north180.html

After you read that, we can discuss it.
That's a good overview of the history of the movement and its key figures. But it doesn't define what neoconservativism is as an ideology, and not a movement, such that any given politician (as opposed to the intellectuals North talks about) can be said to have or not to have a neoconservative platform. Nowhere does he present what positions define when any given politician is advocating a neoconservative policy, as that wikipedia article does.

What's wrong with that wikipedia article anyway? I see that, although you were the one to introduce it into this discussion, you have since that time decided to rather stubbornly resist accepting the definition that article provides for what neoconservativism is. If you think it's possible to hold to a neoconservative foreign policy and still not be a neoconservative solely because of some domestic policy position, then the definition of "neoconservative" you're using is definitely not the one that article presents. Have you decided that it's not so good after all?

Also, going back through the discussion, I noticed above that you said that I thought anyone with O'Donnell's policy regarding terrorism is a neoconservative (post 31). I don't know how you could get that from anything I said. I certainly don't think that is a defining feature of neoconservativism. Nothing I have said in this thread comes anywhere close to implying that. In fact, I said the exact opposite very clearly in post #25.

[MozoVote]

Christines would vote for DeMint over McConnell. She's in the group with Rand, Miller, Angle, Buck and Lee.

Side note: Rand has indicated lately that he will vote for McConnell. But I think that's just an acknowledgement, that the incoming freshmen senators are not going to be a large enough bloc to move the leadership vote.

FWIW, if I was a Delaware voter, I probably would have been leaning initially to Castle based on the "electability" question. But looking at the lengths that "the party" is going to, in order to discredit O'Donnell is appalling. I'd be considering voting for her now just to spite the party bigwigs. :mad:

[lester1/2jr]

there a really two facets of neconservatism, the one most associated with the term are mainly the pro israel think tank guys but the pentagon has a less discussed philosphy that is a strong component of it. it's basically the idea of never showing weakness as a way of staying on top. Of course it's not a good way of staying on top it's a good way of going bankrupt but this is the philosophy.

[MRoCkEd]

Interesting discussion...

Anyway, there's a real possibility Christine O'Donnell ousts Mike Castle in the primary.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/too-close-to-call-in-delaware.html


It looks like there’s a real possibility of a major upset in the Delaware Senate primary on Tuesday night, with insurgent conservative Christine O’Donnell leading longtime Congressman and Governor Mike Castle 47-44. That 3 point lead is well within the poll’s margin of error.

[South Park Fan]

Obviously I'm no fan of O'Donnell, but I can't say that I'm not elated at the possibility of Mike Castle losing his primary. This would send a great message to the Bidens and liberal Republicans.

[camnc79]

Some question PPP's results, but I have seen outliers from all organizations.

PPP shows Ovide now 7 points behind and suggests that either he or Ayotte would defeat Hodes in the fall.

The PPP results for the NH Senate race are at http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_NH_912907.pdf

New Hampshire has an opportunity to elect a number of liberty minded individuals this year. I am a member of the FSP running for State Rep and have not been as excited about the potential for constitutional candidate victory since I've been a voter. I look forward to a great Tuesday primary!

Cam DeJong

[FSP-Rebel]

http://tomalciere.us/
Ole Tom was in the state house for like a term until he got thrown out for favoring cop killing. Fact

[South Park Fan]

Ole Tom was in the state house for like a term until he got thrown out for favoring cop killing. Fact

I have been informed that Dennis LaMare is a liberty candidate with fewer personal flaws.

[gls]

They just released a new poll showing Lamontagne only four points behind Ayote, practically within the margin of error.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Granite+Status:+Pollls+show+ Republican+U.S.+Senate+primary+race+dead+heat&articleId=288b0da4-c45d-4388-9a39-7f1ef2ceb2ef