Skip to main content

Right Is Wrong -- How the Lunatic Fringe Hijacked America

The GOP is now a dark, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh and Coulter. And we're all the worse because of it.


The following is an excerpt from Arianna Huffington's new book, Right Is Wrong.
The Radical Takeover
The most sweeping takeover of the new millennium didn't take place among the telecoms or the big oil companies, or in Silicon Valley. It took place in Washington, but we can see and hear and feel its effects nationwide on our televisions, radios, and computer screens. And America is much the worse because of it. I'm talking about the takeover of the Republican Party by its own lunatic fringe, and the Right's hijacking of America.



Ronald Reagan's GOP has been replaced by the dark, moldering, putrefied party of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, and Coulter. Morning in America has given way to Midnight in America.
Yes, the Republican Party has always had its far-right cowboys, its Jesse Helmses and Spiro Agnews. Yet they were removed from the party's more sober core.
But these days, judging by the opinions and actions of the Republicans in office and the party's candidates for president, it has become impossible to tell where this core stops and the fanatical fringe begins. Just look at what the party is endorsing.
We have a Republican Party that continues to back the White House's delusions about Iraq at the expense of our military, our treasure, our safety, and our standing in the world.



We have a mainstream on the Right that supports torture, that confirmed an attorney general nominee who is officially agnostic on torture, and that rallies behind a president who refuses to define what the very word "torture" means.
We have a mainstream that supports -- even applauds -- the behavior of thuggish Blackwater mercenaries, that supports the gutting of our civil liberties, that opposes universal health care, and that has views on immigration that wouldn't have been heard outside a John Birch Society meeting ten years ago.
It can no longer be denied: The right-wing lunatics are running the Republican asylum, and their madness has infected the entire country and poisoned the world beyond.



And just look who the GOP settled on as its 2008 standard-bearer: the most hawkish candidate in the running, who has said he wants the United States to stay in Iraq somewhere between one hundred years and ten thousand years -- John McCain.
Despite an avalanche of evidence showing that McCain the Maverick has long ago been replaced by McCain the Pandering Pawn of the Party's Right Wing, the press refuses to believe its own eyes. Right Is Wrong will show how the "Straight Talk Express" and its conductor have completely and cravenly gone off the tracks -- and how the media steadfastly refuse to notice.
Even those bastions of the so-called liberal media, the New Yorker and the New York Times, have continued to portray McCain as a moderate who, in the words of New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza, has "the rare opportunity to reinvent what it means to be a Republican."
Let's see, over the last few years McCain has bowed to the party's lunatic fringe on tax cuts, immigration, the intolerance of religious bigots, and torture ... so you might wonder how is he reinventing what it means to be a Republican?



During the primary campaign, I waited in vain for one of the leading GOP presidential candidates to step away from the twitchy ideologues who have taken over their party, but instead they all held hands with Kristol, Rove, and Limbaugh and jumped. To a man, every one of the top-tier candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee -- seemed intent on competing to see who could out-Bush Bush. Not a single one of them tried to put any distance between himself and the president -- especially on foreign policy, the area of Bush's most catastrophic errors. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee made a halfhearted attempt to speak out against an "arrogant bunker mentality" at one point and was called out by Mitt Romney to apologize. Huckabee promptly shut up, putting an end to any further rebellious attempts to amble off the reservation. As conservative pundit George F. Will put it, "They are, if anything, to the right of (Bush) on foreign policy. There's a bidding war to see who can be more hawkish toward Iran."
The reign of Bush and Cheney and the rise of the neocons and the "nea-cons" (the "Neanderthal conservatives") have alienated traditional conservative intellectuals like they have Bill Buckley, the godfather of modern conservatism. In April of 2007, writing about Iraq, Buckley called public opinion on the war "savagely decisive" and concluded, "There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican Party will survive this dilemma."


And Michael Gerson, once Bush's top speechwriter, offered this gloomy 2007 assessment of the state of the GOP: "The party is in a funk. There is a lack of creativity, very little domestic policy energy. I think it's going to be a problem." Of course, along with being one of the party's brightest thinkers, Gerson is a Bush loyalist, so his calling it "a problem" can be translated as "a disaster." If the Republican Party in its current form loses the next general election and ends up fading into obscurity and irrelevancy, we can use the words of Don Rumsfeld (trying to sugarcoat a different debacle) for its epitaph: "The dead-enders are still with us, those remnants of the defeated regimes who'll go on fighting long after their cause is lost."
Read Page 2&3.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/85968/
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The Radical Takeover from the right wing, the so called GOD party, that started under Reagan, I hope will end on Jan 20, 2009.

Hi JJ,

No, it actually started under Lincoln. Only, for many years the Left was not as Liberal as it is today -- so the contrast was not so stark.

Now that we have the total darkness of the Liberal Left -- the goodness of the Right stands out much more.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bush-Kerry-Faith_1b
Last edited by Bill Gray
The article said it best.

1.''It can no longer be denied: The right-wing lunatics are running the Republican asylum, and their madness has infected the entire country and poisoned the world beyond.''

2.''We have a Republican Party that continues to back the White House's delusions about Iraq at the expense of our military, our treasure, our safety, and our standing in the world.''

3.''The reign of Bush and Cheney and the rise of the neocons and the "nea-cons" (the "Neanderthal conservatives") have alienated traditional conservative intellectuals like they have Bill Buckley, the godfather of modern conservatism. In April of 2007, writing about Iraq, Buckley called public opinion on the war "savagely decisive" and concluded, "There are grounds for wondering whether the Republican Party will survive this dilemma."



4.''During the primary campaign, I waited in vain for one of the leading GOP presidential candidates to step away from the twitchy ideologues who have taken over their party, but instead they all held hands with Kristol, Rove, and Limbaugh and jumped. To a man, every one of the top-tier candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and Huckabee -- seemed intent on competing to see who could out-Bush Bush. Not a single one of them tried to put any distance between himself and the president -- especially on foreign policy, the area of Bush's most catastrophic errors. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee made a halfhearted attempt to speak out against an "arrogant bunker mentality" at one point and was called out by Mitt Romney to apologize. Huckabee promptly shut up, putting an end to any further rebellious attempts to amble off the reservation. As conservative pundit George F. Will put it, "They are, if anything, to the right of (Bush) on foreign policy. There's a bidding war to see who can be more hawkish toward Iran."


5. ''Democrats are in the majority today because the positions they campaigned are in line with mainstream America. But if the lunatic fringe group now known as the Republican Party is to be stopped in its efforts to radically remake this country, Democrats are going to have to step up and defend the mainstream that swept them into power in 2006. So far, they have shown little stomach for that fight.''



6. ''The Only Thing We Have to Fear

The Right's hijacking of America would not have been possible without its masterful use of fear to sway a nation terrified by the 9/11 attacks. It's a symptom of just how sick the radical Right is that their immediate response to 9/11 was to look for opportunities to push their agenda. Abroad, they saw a pretext for an attack on Iraq, a long-cherished objective. At home, they saw a chance to solidify a permanent Republican stranglehold on power if they could recast themselves as the "party that will keep you safe" and then keep fear alive. It worked for them in 2004, and they are trying it again in 2008.

Since 9/11, the Right's fear-mongering has been relentless and revolting. It bottomed out during the 2004 presidential campaign with a sewer-level attack ad against Democratic candidate John Kerry, put together by a 527 group largely financed by a pair of longtime Bush backers. The TV spot showed pictures of Osama bin Laden, 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, the Chechen school murderers, and the Madrid train bombings and asked: "These people want to kill us. Would you trust Kerry up against these fanatic killers?"

Somewhere -- and I don't think it's heaven -- Karl Rove's mentor Lee Atwater was smiling.''
Quoting Ms Huffington, the biggest gold diggers since Senator and Mrs. Kerry, is hardly a good argument. She has changed her core beliefs with the breeze -- whatever would improve her status.

Her blog now rivals DailyKos for its hate filled screeds.

"Since 9/11, the Right's fear-mongering has been relentless and revolting. It bottomed out during the 2004 presidential campaign with a sewer-level attack ad against Democratic candidate John Kerry, put together by a 527 group largely financed by a pair of longtime Bush backers. The TV spot showed pictures of Osama bin Laden, 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, the Chechen school murderers, and the Madrid train bombings and asked: "These people want to kill us. Would you trust Kerry up against these fanatic killers?"


And our citizens, showing their innate common sense, didn't trust the Kerrys.
The Huffington Post is a very credible source of information and deals with real issues which is more then I can say for Matt Drudge. And Ms Huffington wasn't the only one to change her politics, Reagan at one tome was a liberal democrat.

She changed because she believes the conservatives are wrong.

She is not the only conservative to distance herself from the current fanatics in the Republicans Party. here is an excerpt from Kevin Phillips, long time conservative and was credited as a founder in the rise of the Conservatives and Republican Party. The interview is worth reading, or watching or listening to.


Democracy Now! | Fmr. GOP Strategist Kevin Phillips on American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil,

Democracy Now! March 21, 2006

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/3/21/fmr_gop_strategist_kevin_phillips_on

Fmr. GOP Strategist Kevin Phillips on American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century

Former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips joins us to discuss his new book, “American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.” Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Phillips was viewed as one of the GOP’s top theoreticians and electoral analysts.

As we continue to mark the start of the fourth year of the war in Iraq, we turn now to Kevin Phillips, the former top Republican strategist.

A generation ago Phillips wrote “The Emerging Republican Majority” which Newsweek described as the “political bible of the Nixon administration.” Throughout the 1970s and 1980s Phillips was viewed as one of the GOP’s top theoreticians and electoral analysts.

But no more.

Phillips is now warning that the party–and the country as a whole–is headed for potential disaster. Phillips sums up his concerns in the title of his new book: “American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century.”

A review in Sunday’s New York Times said the book may be “the most alarming analysis of where we are and where we may be going to have appeared in many years.”

The book examines issues ranging from peak oil to the rapture to the future of the American empire. In a minute we will be joined by Kevin Phillips here in our Firehouse Studio but first I want to turn to President Bush. On Monday he spoke about the war in Iraq Renaissance Cleveland Hotel in Ohio. After his address he took questions from the crowd. The first question addressed Phillips" book American Theocracy:

Cleveland, Ohio–March 20, 2006:

Q: Thank you for coming to Cleveland, Mr. President, and to the City Club. My question is that author and former Nixon administration official Kevin Phillips, in his latest book, American Theocracy, discusses what has been called radical Christianity and its growing involvement into government and politics. He makes the point that members of your administration have reached out to prophetic Christians who see the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism as signs of the apocalypse. Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse? And if not, why not?

THE PRESIDENT: The answer is—I haven’t really thought of it that way. (Laughter.) Here’s how I think of it. The first I’ve heard of that, by the way. I guess I’m more of a practical fellow. I vowed after September the 11th, that I would do everything I could to protect the American people. And my attitude, of course, was affected by the attacks. I knew we were at war. I knew that the enemy, obviously, had to be sophisticated and lethal to fly hijacked airplanes into facilities that would be killing thousands of people, innocent people, doing nothing, just sitting there going to work.

We are joined now by Kevin Phillips, longtime Republican strategist and author of several books. His newest work, “American Theocracy,” comes out today.

Kevin Phillips, author, "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century ......



KEVIN PHILLIPS: It’s really an appalling thing, because I—in the course of the last couple of days, as my book tour started, I’ve talked with a number of conservatives, people running conservative publications, old aides from the Republican campaigns back in the 1960s and 1970s, and everybody agrees, and some are even starting to say it semi-publicly: this man is a national embarrassment.

AMY GOODMAN: Conservatives?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Conservatives.

AMY GOODMAN: On what grounds?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, some just because they know him and don’t think anybody with his lack of qualifications should be president, others that think that the country has a black eye, others that think that conservatism is now being threatened as much as liberalism was in the late 1960s by the Johnson administration. This is just a convergence of the ineptitude of one man, of the complicity of a number of other senior people in the administration—I don’t know their exact motives—and a horrible situation for the Pentagon, because the Pentagon realizes that the American soldiery in Iraq is being brutalized in a way that then casts disrespect on the American army, that interferes with recruitment. I, two years ago, gave a talk near Fort Bragg in North Carolina, and already dozens of people from the military were saying that this was going to be a black eye. And it’s worse than a black eye. And you really have to say, and I have to say, that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, if we had a parliamentary system, they would be there before the bar of the Congress, having to defend this. And that’s where they should be.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Paul Craig Roberts who was an Under Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and a former associate editor for the Wall Street Journal and now writes for liberal publications, like Information Clearing House and Counterpunch, denouncing the take over of the Republican Party and Conservatives by fanatics.

The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat - by Paul Craig Roberts

http://antiwar.com/roberts


May 19, 2008
The Conservative Movement: From Failure to Threat

by Paul Craig Roberts


"In theory, conservatives adore the Constitution and seek to protect it with appeals to "original intent." In practice, conservatives hate the Constitution as the protector of homosexuals and abortionists. Conservatives regard civil liberties as coddling devices for criminals and terrorists. They see the First Amendment as a foolish protection for sedition. The neoconservative magazine Commentary has called for the New York Times to be prosecuted for informing Americans that President Bush was illegally spying on them without warrants.

The conservative assault on the U.S. Constitution is deeply entrenched. The Federalist Society, an organization of Republican attorneys from which the Republican Party chooses its Justice Department appointees and nominees to the federal bench, was organized as an assault on the checks and balances in the Constitution.

The battle cry of the Federalist Society is "energy in the executive." The society has its origin in Republican frustrations from the days when Republicans had a "lock on the presidency," but had their agenda blocked by a Democratic Congress. The Federalist Society set about producing rationales for elevating the powers of the executive in order to evade the checks and balances the Founding Fathers wrote into the political system.

With the Bush regime we have seen President Nixon's claim that "it's not illegal if the president does it" carried to new heights. With the complicity of Democrats, Bush and Cheney have appointed attorneys general who have elevated the presidency above the law.

Just as liberals used judicial activism in the federal courts to achieve their agenda, the conservatives are using the Department of Justice to concentrate power in the executive branch in order to achieve their agenda. In America the Constitution has no friends. It is always in the way of one agenda or the other and, thus, always under threat.

For now, however, the threat is from the Right. Conservatives have confused loyalty to country, which is loyalty to the Constitution, with loyalty to the Bush regime. It is purely a partisan loyalty based in emotion – "you are with us or against us."

When I was a young man, conservatives were frustrated that facts, reason, and analysis could not penetrate liberal emotions. Today facts, reason, and analysis cannot penetrate conservative emotions. When I write a factual column describing how we have been deceived into wars that are clearly not in our interest, self-described conservatives indignantly write to me: "If you hate America so much, why don't you move to Cuba!" Conservatives have become so intellectually pathetic that they regard my defense of civil liberties as an anti-American act.

Today's conservatives are so poorly informed that they cannot understand that to lose the Constitution is to lose the country."
"The Huffington Post is a very credible source of information and deals with real issues which is more then I can say for Matt Drudge."

Huffington Post is mainly opinion blogs -- left wing and sublimely ignorant of economics or demagogues, supreme -- take your pick. Drudge is a reporter of breaking news and links to sources -- good and bad. Hardly a thing to compare, except in a leftie's belfry.

The rest of your post decries a non-existent takeover of the Republican Party by religious zealots.

Your second post quotes Paul Craig Roberts, a once respected man, who has descended to truther status. I was amused with an economic theorist lecturing physicists and engineers about their profession.

What dog and pony show will you try next? You act is stale!
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
"The Huffington Post is a very credible source of information and deals with real issues which is more then I can say for Matt Drudge."

Huffington Post is mainly opinion blogs -- left wing and sublimely ignorant of economics or demagogues, supreme -- take your pick. Drudge is a reporter of breaking news and links to sources -- good and bad. Hardly a thing to compare, except in a leftie's belfry.

The rest of your post decries a non-existent takeover of the Republican Party by religious zealots.

Your second post quotes Paul Craig Roberts, a once respected man, who has descended to truther status. I was amused with an economic theorist lecturing physicists and engineers about their profession.

What dog and pony show will you try next? You act is stale!



Howard Roark, Even I can agree with some republicans. I can agree with some right wing websites. I can agree with some conservatives. I'm not going to disagree just because they lean right wing or conservative as long as they are speaking truth. But the problem with you Howard, you only see out of one eye and most of the right wingers do. You have never agreed with any of the democrats or the liberals from this board. It's a constant argument from you. And this is why I cannot understand right wingers. They will argue to hell and back whether you are right or wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
"The Huffington Post is a very credible source of information and deals with real issues which is more then I can say for Matt Drudge."

Huffington Post is mainly opinion blogs -- left wing and sublimely ignorant of economics or demagogues, supreme -- take your pick. Drudge is a reporter of breaking news and links to sources -- good and bad. Hardly a thing to compare, except in a leftie's belfry.

The rest of your post decries a non-existent takeover of the Republican Party by religious zealots.

Your second post quotes Paul Craig Roberts, a once respected man, who has descended to truther status. I was amused with an economic theorist lecturing physicists and engineers about their profession.

What dog and pony show will you try next? You act is stale!



Howard Roark, Even I can agree with some republicans. I can agree with some right wing websites. I can agree with some conservatives. I'm not going to disagree just because they lean right wing or conservative as long as they are speaking truth. But the problem with you Howard, you only see out of one eye and most of the right wingers do. You have never agreed with any of the democrats or the liberals from this board. It's a constant argument from you. And this is why I cannot understand right wingers. They will argue to hell and back whether you are right or wrong.



Touché, JJ!
Howard doesn't even agree with "Republicans", he just shills for the NeoCon agenda. Exhibit 1: The GI Bill. He's on here trying to make excuses for Senators McCain refusal to sign the bill. Of course, this stance is the stance taken by the Bush administration, a clear indicator it is the wrong stance.

The Bill had 75 Senators sign it. Guess what? That means a buttload of Republicans signed it too. As the old saying goes, as GW says, so goes Howard.

JJ, search YouTube Nine Inch Nails Capital G. I think you will get a kick out of it.

~fin~
Last edited by MonkeysUncleByMarriage
Same ol', same ol' Howard. Paul Craig Roberts is a very respected economist and columnist. You simply no longer respect him because he's spoke out against the Bush administration and their policies, especially the war.

I personally don't agree with a lot of his politics --most of them actually--, and he's a little over the top at times, but be honest, he lost your respect when he spoke out against Bush's war and the executive policies put into place by Bush.
Drudge is not much more then a right wing hack man who's main objective is sensational gossip. the Corporate Media love it as their main purpose to to distract the people from real issues. Drudge was social gossip reporter before his new incarnation. Huffington's post is filled with insightful opinions and also more credible news then we find in Drudge.

The real difference between Drudge and Huffington is accurate information and class.

Typical of the right wing when faced with the facts hides behind insults and tries to slander the sources. The American people are tired of right wing "Liberal Bashing." They are seeing through the lies and slander.
check out and Watch these videos.

1. GOP Playing the Religious Right for Fools.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ik7GrReCjPc

2.Playing the Religious Right for Fools 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5bhDstGdZE


3.80% of religious right voted BUSH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpfUxIgY8I

4..Bill Maher on Neo-Conservative Think Tanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZusw8erU4M&feature=related

5.Bill Moyers on the rise of NeoCons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLv69k3G2Qg&feature=related
.
JJP,

You do realize the Youtube references to GOP playing the religious right for fools negates the opening post about the religious right taking over the GOP, as does the third?

Fourth and fifth posts warning of neocons, so which conspiracy is it? Moyers usually uses the neocon label as a code word for jews. Poor lefties, logic is such a foreign language for them.
LOL Oh man, you used "islamofascist". You are truly losing it now Howard. Is that a code word for something too?

Heck Howard, it must be tough having to spend so much of your time trying to tear down so many reputable reporters, researchers and pundits. Especially considering the Bush administration has such a small support base now, with even Republicans speaking out against his policies nowadays. How do you do it sir? I admire that dedication.
9/11 didn't happen? LOL what are you talking about? Just like a Bush lover, when confronted on the b.s. and faced with the fact that even a good number of Republicans no longer believe the bull, you revert back to 9/11.

We all know 9/11 happened. We all know all too well. That doesn't excuse terrible policy decision or make you right when you're obviously wrong.

I am actually quite proud of the Republican Party for breaking ranks, especially the true patriots like Chuck Hagel.
Monkey,
I don't know if you’re a naïf or a juvenile, or both. I'll explain the term code words, which you obviously do not understand.
A good example is the old south, when late unlamented prejudice was more rampant. Most know the term colored and think it meant black. In actuality, it meant anyone with some negro ancestry to include the unfortunate French appellations mulatto, quadroon and octoroon. Among white protestants, there was the term "not our kind." Not our kind referred to whites who were catholic or Jewish.

Such code words were and are used throughout many societies as euphemisms in "polite society." Bill Moyers, before he became chief pontificator on the Partisan Broadcasting Station, was a Baptist preacher. Sometimes he slips and old habits slip out.

As to 9/11 not happening, that’s one of the latest ravings among the truthers. They claim the towers were just blown up and the videos of the planes crashing into the towers was a computer generated stunt. Never mind witness, etc, that was just hysteria.
Any fool who says 9/11 was a conspiracy, is just that, a fool. Those who believe in said conspiracy are few and far between on both sides of the political fence.

How this has anything to do with my comment about your undying, moronic love and blind support of the Bush Administration, even in the face of opposition from other Republicans, is beyond me. But I guess I am just juvenile. It wouldn't be like you to change the subject.
I have never heard the term "neocon" mean Jew. I have also never heard that al Qaeda uses the term to refer to Jews. But I do know that a number of Bush's administration were Jewish and Neocons and the more extreme right wing, like Lyndon Laruchure and people like that tied the two together.

Because the left is critical of Israel and the neocons will say they are "anti-Semitic." They say any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. But that's typical of the right wing that accuse anyone that criticizes them or Israel as anti American and anti Semitic. They use slander to hide behind.

The extremist have taken over the Republican Party and have destroyed it. They are intolerant of any views they disagree with and try to enforce their extreme views of religion, society and war.

This has been written about by people who once led the "Republican Revolution" like Kevin Phillips and Paul Craig Roberts.

As far as 9/11 goes there are plenty of legitimate questions that were white washed over but the conspiracy theories are mainly coming form the right wing.
Thats because it doesn't mean Jew. It never did. A lot of the NEOCONS try to say its the lefts way of opposing Isreal, much what you just touched on. The foundation of the word has nothing to do with Jews at all.

The term was first used in the United States in the 60's.

Some of the earlier usages of the word, per Wikipedia:

Writing in The Contemporary Review (London) in 1883, Henry Dunckley used the term to describe factions within the Conservative Party; James Bryce again uses it in his Modern Democracies (1921) to describe British political history of the 1880s. The German authoritarians Carl Schmitt, who became professor at the University of Berlin in 1933, the same year that he entered the Nazi party (NSDAP), and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck were called "neo-conservatives".[30] In "The Future of Democratic Values" in Partisan Review, July-August 1943, Dwight MacDonald complained of "the neo-conservatives of our time [who] reject the propositions on materialism, Human Nature, and Progress." He cited as an example Jacques Barzun, who was "attempting to combine progressive values and conservative concepts."


Per usual, Howard is shilling for the Bush administration by his skewing of the words meaning and the supposed usage by Al-Qaeda.
Pogo and Monkey,

To claim neocon is not used as a code word for jew is either naive or demogogic, at best. Here are five sources, one like WSJ reputable, others severely bigoted, but agreeing on the subject. Note the al-Jazeera article:

“Neoconservatism is better described in general as a complex interlocking professional and family network centered around Jewish publicists and organizers flexibly deployed to recruit the sympathies of both Jews and non-Jews in harnessing the wealth and power of the United States in the service of Israel.”
http://wake-up-america.net/NEO-CON%20JEWS%20AND%20THE%20WAR%20IN%20IRAQ.htm

“Last week Pat Buchanan appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and liberal host Jon Stewart bonded with his paleoconservative guest over their mutual opposition to the liberation of Iraq. Mr. Stewart smiled and nodded while Mr. Buchanan derided "neoconservatives" four times in the course of the six-minute interview. In his efforts to promote his and his guest's common agenda, Mr. Stewart didn't ask Mr. Buchanan what he meant by "neoconservatives." It was clear that the Jewish Mr. Stewart didn't realize that Mr. Buchanan was using what has become an epithet for "Jews"--an epithet employed most often by the left.

One big culprit has been Air America. Tune in to the proudly liberal radio network, and you'll hear actress-turned-activist Janeane Garofalo and other hosts frequently blast the "influence" of the "neocons" on the Bush Administration, then go on to name names such as Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and Libby. Not a single gentile name makes the list, so it's the Jewish influence to which the network takes particular exception.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005656

“New poll reveals how unrepresentative neocon Jewish groups are”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/12/ajc_poll/

President George W. Bush is merely the puppet and "go-for boy" of powerful, behind-the-scenes, Marxist, neo-con, dual loyalist Jews. That's the conclusion of people in the know in Washington, D.C.
http://www.conspiracyworld.com/index0067.htm

„There is an obsession in the Arab media about Jewish control of American foreign policy. It is a theme in Al-Jazeera, which usually tries to hide the notion of Jewish control behind words like “Zionists” and “Neoconservatives”. The following Al-Jazeera article attempts to understand why ‘progressive’ Jews support ‘reactionary’ pro-Israel organizations, an artificial dichotomy invented by those who refuse to understand that many Jews support Israel because they are progressive. They certainly would not back Hamas, the PA, or Syria (although there are plenty of confused Jewish ’progressives’ who are so far to the left that they support Islamist organizations that are on the far right of the spectrum).“
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2007/12/28/neoconservat...olicy-in-al-jazeera/
Pro Bush sites who bash Air America? LOL GRRREEEATTTT sources Howard. Do you actually believe this crap you post? Heck, I even gave you a history of the word and you still want to try to change it to mean something else. Typical doublespeak from the Bush administration and their shillers.

Get the chip off your shoulder there Howard, NEOCON can and does refer to anyone with the NEOCONSERVATIVE Agenda. If some so happen to be Jews, then that's how it is. It does not mean, nor is it a "code word" for Jews.

This is almost as dumb as your comment that McCain and GW weren't friends LOL.
Monkey girl,

Your statement: “This is almost as dumb as your comment that McCain and GW weren't friends LOL”
The distaste of Bush and McCain for one another is well known and commented on. Don’t know how you missed it, except that you’ve missed so much.

Bush will obey the 11th commandment and make nice during the campaign, Here are a few articles commenting on another thing you missed, one is from your revered alternate universe blogs.

The Bush-McCain Cold War
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=85000606

“Truth be told, John McCain really can't stand George W. Bush, even if he agrees with him on a lot of things, especially Iraq. It's amusing for us political reporters to watch the senator from Arizona struggle with the role fate handed him: riding shotgun on the Bush re-election stagecoach. It's hard to know whether McCain, deep down, wants to protect his passenger or let the Indians have him. As for Bush, he doesn't trust McCain, but he needs him.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506988/

“The McCain-Bush conflict has been one of the most-watched soap operas in Washington. Now it appears the Arizona senator may have a rude surprise for the president.”
http://www.alternet.org/election04/19937/
Did I say Republican Media?

Where did you quote Air America?

Also, the differences between McCain and Bush were in 04, and some again in 06. It's definetly not the case now. McCain has flip flopped on so many policies lately in order to align himself with Bush, not to mention spending his birthday with Bush and the numerous instances of them embracing. I am sure its part political strategy, but not political strategy could explain him aligning himself with Bush on the War and the GI Bill. Maybe he is just senile already?

Here are some interesting things:

Old Rivals Join Forces in Political Friendship

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×