I didn't say republicans, I said neocons, which is the toxic version of republicans. I happen to think there are plenty of good people who are Republicans, including my two best friends.

I'm going to ignore the rest of the namecalling.

The neocons, led by Norquist and the rest of the Gang of 5, have come right out and said they don't want government. I believe Norquist's exact quote is something like, "We want to make government so small that we can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Unlike the north and south after the civil war, I'm not sure Obama will be able to find commonalities with the neocon faction. I hope I'm wrong. I'm simplifying things, of course, but my point is that I don't think the neocons, who have control of the Republican party right now, are honest partners. The southern leaders wanted what was good for their people. I'm not sure that's the case with these guys, unless you happen to be rich enough to be part of their club.

It may be, however, that the more traditional conservatives will take back control of the Republican party and sanity will win the day. I spent 9 years of my life in State College, William, and I spent most of that time voting for local Republicans, who I think did a good job for their constituents. I'm not sure who you think I am, but a raging liberal isn't it (pissed off and slightly left of center is more like it). IMO, any person paying attention should be against the neocons running the country because they have been bad for the nation, domestically and internationally.

One last point, it isn't premeditated. Stop pounding bad beer and start paying attention to what's going on. There have been plenty of signals about what's going to happen, including the RNC (or whatever the guy was) leader saying they were going to fight against Obama. Really? Fight against Obama, the president elect who hasn't even done anything yet? Who is being premeditated?

Rudy is more like it.

and you've become a hack, btw

I guess pointing out that Obama has been reading Lincoln (his words, not mine) is controversial. Or the fact that the current neocon crew might not be honest partners, I guess that's controversial. At least I try to be informed and read a variety of sources, both left and right. I prefer that to sticking my head in the sand.

But you can make me the board bitch of the week if you want. I might even find it entertaining, for a while.

I swear to god no one knows what a neocon is anymore. I thought neocons were people like Bill Kristol who weren't conservative first and foremost due to their hostility to the welfare state (or strangling gov't in the bathtub or whatever), but rather due to their desire to blow up foreign countries and remake them in our own image.

Feel free to think they're evil or dangerous or whatever, but Grover Norquist would strongly object to being labeled a "neocon" and I'm pretty sure the people most commonly called "neocons" would find it hilarious that you think Grover Norquist is leading them anywhere.

jerseyhoya wrote:I swear to god no one knows what a neocon is anymore. I thought neocons were people like Bill Kristol who weren't conservative first and foremost due to their hostility to the welfare state (or strangling gov't in the bathtub or whatever), but rather due to their desire to blow up foreign countries and remake them in our own image.

Feel free to think they're evil or dangerous or whatever, but Grover Norquist would strongly object to being labeled a "neocon" and I'm pretty sure the people most commonly called "neocons" would find it hilarious that you think Grover Norquist is leading them anywhere.

You're right, I've misused that term before and I think we had this discussion before. It's become a substitute word for the radical wing of the republican party encompassing both the real neocons (Kristol) and just the tax and government radicals (Norquist). They've been confused partly because they've worked together to help make the current mess through their wednesday meetings, etc, where both groups were strongly represented. It's just a shortcut to saying the "radical wing of the republican party," which I usually use to try to separate them from the otherwise respected Republican party. I do it in part to avoid posts like William's and so people know I'm not trying to bash the whole republican party or conservatives in general. Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to be more careful with my word choices, even if it means I have to be called a rabid liberal.

On a related note, sometimes I think people forget that most of us have only been on these boards for a few years, all of which were under the presidency of GW. I don't think you can adequately judge someone's politics by their response to this one presidency when it's been such a huge failure. To use myself as an example, by the time I started posting at pp.com, I was already pretty ticked off with what was happening with Iraq and the corruption starting to bubble to the surface. My consistent railing against this administration no doubt looked like I hated republicans at times, but that's not the case. If I laid out a laundry list of the things I believed on the main issues separating traditional conservatives and liberals, any objective observer would say I was pretty close to the middle, generally socially liberal and governmentally conservative. I deserve much of the blame for the confusion, of course, but it doesn't help that some people ignore half of what I'm saying most of the time.

I'll feel better when average republicans have control of their party again. Unlike what William seems to think, the radicals in the Rep party are still at the top of their party. They're not gone....yet.

I think everyone should simply stop using the word neo-con. It used to mean something. It no longer does.

jerseyhoya wrote:I swear to god no one knows what a neocon is anymore. I thought neocons were people like Bill Kristol who weren't conservative first and foremost due to their hostility to the welfare state (or strangling gov't in the bathtub or whatever), but rather due to their desire to blow up foreign countries and remake them in our own image.

Yeah, this is how I generally try to use the term: people who see war as the answer to every foreign policy problem. Mostly they don't talk about domestic issues, express strong views about the size of government, etc--maybe because, as Paul likes to remind us, they started out a generation or two back as Trotskyite leftists and never really repudiated the domestic side of that worldview.

What makes Kristol at least a little different is that unlike, say, James Woolsey, he's a Republican partisan hack at least as much as he is an ideological neocon. So he'll champion someone like Sarah Palin purely for political reasons rather than because of some demonstrable ideological simpatico.

Obama probably has more to worry about from the pure partisan hacks--especially those like Norquist who are essentially nihilists--than the ideologically committed neocons, who will grouse and whine and hold events at AEI where they talk about what a big wimp the president is.

Monkeyboy wrote:Obama keeps talking about reading Lincoln. I think he sees the present environment as similar to the division Lincoln had to deal with. So I think he's making an effort to bring people together. Unfortunately, something tells me the neocons don't have the honor our southern brothers had after the Civil War. You can't govern with people who don't believe in government.

Lincoln wasn't really a part of Reconstruction. He was killed before he could convince others of a moderate approach to the occupation of the South. Your reading of history is seriously misguided if you believe that the postwar south "believed in government" more than the neocons. As far as I know, the neocons have not tried to secede, form a rival government, nor needed military districts and puppet governors for re-admittance to the Union.

It's the demonization of the political opposition, and exaggeration of the evils of the other side, that contributes to the fractures in political discourse that you so ironically decry.

I think some Philadelphians are being a bit silly about the library closings.

For now at least, I believe Obama has more to fear from those on the left than on the right. Those self-identifying "moderates" won't hesitate to shift their votes away from Obama (and the Dems) if he's viewed as too willing to do the bidding of the leftwingers.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I think some Philadelphians are being a bit silly about the library closings.

Do you have links to people being silly?

Tom Daschle will be Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I think some Philadelphians are being a bit silly about the library closings.

Do you have links to people being silly?

sample Philebrity post about it, there are a bunch more

This is a pretty bad source I suppose because the writers of this blog are generally reactionary and not too insightful, but it's pretty indicative of comments I'm hearing around town. People are just pissed, even though most of them haven't used these small libraries in years, if ever, with no thought of the economic atmosphere were in, or that streamlining services and reducing bloat might be a good thing anyway, or recommendations for other services that could be cut in their stead.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I think some Philadelphians are being a bit silly about the library closings.

Do you have links to people being silly?

sample Philebrity post about it, there are a bunch more

This is a pretty bad source I suppose because the writers of this blog are generally reactionary and not too insightful, but it's pretty indicative of comments I'm hearing around town. People are just pissed, even though most of them haven't used these small libraries in years, if ever, with no thought of the economic atmosphere were in, or that streamlining services and reducing bloat might be a good thing anyway, or recommendations for other services that could be cut in their stead.

I applied for a library card from the Free Library 20 years ago, and I still haven't received it.

charge them 5 cents a day overdue fee

One of the branches being closed is one I went to in South Philly. It was horrible, hardly any books, nobody ever there. I agree with Housh that the complaining is pretty retarded

Sessions will be next NRCC Chair. Cole dropped out. Good.

Hopefully he can raise some real money, and find a bunch of ambitious state legislatures who want to go hunting for freshmen.

The incredible shrinking Republican base

The gist here: the Rs will have to broaden their appeal beyond white married Christians--where they've nearly maxed out among a relatively shrinking demographic--if they want to avoid becoming marginalized as a national party. I guess I buy this, though it seems to overlook the possibility that, say, "Latino married Christians" could come to resemble the first group enough that Republicans can win them with the same message. Of course, this probably would require muzzling the Tancredo types.