Rove, Bush and the Republicans.

[techs]

Opinion:
When the Rovian Neo-Cons took power they claimed they were going to have a Republican majority for 20 years. While old time Senate and House Republicans were overwhelmingly skeptical, the Republican and Neo-Con public swallowed this hook, line and sinker.
Then Rove and his Neo-Con buddies engineered things like the K-Street project, which broke the accepted norm that each party tried to outraise each other in money into the Republicans trying to deny money to the Democrats. The Rovians (I just like the way the word Rovian sounds but it refers to neo-cons, Rove and Bush) also ended all bi-partisanship with their strict party controls. Then they did things like hide the work of Congress from the Democrats.
At each step along the way the Neo-Con public was really enjoying the hate directed towards the Democrats and supported every distasteful policy and procedure the Neo-Cons adopted.
All the while the old hand Republicans were wondering:
"Uh, what will happen if we lose the majority"
"Aren't you Neo-Cons aware that the Democrats will do the same thing to us?"

I think there is outright hatred going around these days, directed from the Republicans who know realize they may have screwed themeselves royally, towards the Rovians. The ascension of Trent Lott, one of the "old hand" Repubicans who warned about this, to Minority Whip, may just be the beginnings of a new Civil War between Neo-Cons and Republicans.
Personally, I'm hoping for Mutual Assured Destruction.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The so-called neo-con leadership has been shown to be impractical.

It was an experiment that failed.

Do not try to associate the Republican ideals esposed by ronnie & co with those spouited by Rove & co.

If the Dems try to do so; they will have another drought coming to them.

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The so-called neo-con leadership has been shown to be impractical.

It was an experiment that failed.

Do not try to associate the Republican ideals esposed by ronnie & co with those spouited by Rove & co.

If the Dems try to do so; they will have another drought coming to them.

Ideals or not they were still quick to get in bed with them, and quick to jump ship only after the election was lost.

 

[xenolith]

What is a neoconservative (neo-con)?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The so-called neo-con leadership has been shown to be impractical.

It was an experiment that failed.

Do not try to associate the Republican ideals esposed by ronnie & co with those spouited by Rove & co.

If the Dems try to do so; they will have another drought coming to them.

Ideals or not they were still quick to get in bed with them, and quick to jump ship only after the election was lost.

BINGO!! It's my opinion that Ronnie did a good job his first term, but everything started going awry in his second term. He let things go the direction it is now and the rest of the Republicans were too busy counting their money to give a crap.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: xenolith
What is a neoconservative (neo-con)?

really depends on who you ask.
and i don't mind saying you have asked a loaded question with alot of answers.
sorry i can't be of more help.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: xenolith
What is a neoconservative (neo-con)?

really depends on who you ask.
and i don't mind saying you have asked a loaded question with alot of answers.
sorry i can't be of more help.

A good place to start would be to check out PNAC...

 

[Uhtrinity]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The so-called neo-con leadership has been shown to be impractical.

It was an experiment that failed.

Do not try to associate the Republican ideals esposed by ronnie & co with those spouited by Rove & co.

If the Dems try to do so; they will have another drought coming to them.

Ideals or not they were still quick to get in bed with them, and quick to jump ship only after the election was lost.

BINGO!! It's my opinion that Ronnie did a good job his first term, but everything started going awry in his second term. He let things go the direction it is now and the rest of the Republicans were too busy counting their money to give a crap.

I was referring to the last 5 - 6 years, but I guess that could also apply with Reagan's deficits, and Iran Contra.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: xenolith
What is a neoconservative (neo-con)?

Usually a Republican who espouses hawkish foreign policy. Definitely not a typical Republican.

 

[slash196]

Reagan was every bit as bad as Rove. Praise is an easy thing to lavish on a dead man, but the 80s were terrible, terrible years for our country and Reagan gets responsibility for that. The only difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan could actually speak English. They're both beholden to the same destructive ideals; Rove was just a bit more ruthless in going about it. If Reagan had a Republican congress things would've gotten out of hand just as quickly.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: xenolith
What is a neoconservative (neo-con)?

Usually a Republican who espouses hawkish foreign policy. Definitely not a typical Republican.

for sure.

I mean, hardly any republicans ran on a pro-war platform in 2002 and 2004...

oh wait...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: xenolith
What is a neoconservative (neo-con)?

99% of the resident Republicans in here.

There are a couple of true Republicans but they are the exception rather than the rule pretty much the way the current GOP is as well.

 

[xenolith]

Thank you wikipedia:

Neoconservatism

Neoconservative - Paleoconservative Conflict

 

[techs]

You gotta despise a political movement that is so ashamed of itself its members deny belonging to it.
btw
Here's a quote that sums up what the Democrats and Republicans should do with the neo-cons:
"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."

 

[xenolith]

Are you a neo-con?

Some of the questions are old. "Do you support enforcement of the "no-fly zone" over Iraq?" I guess you could replace that with; Do you support the Iraq war?

I scored; #1 centrist, #2 conservative, #3 paleoconservative ...

 

[Starbuck1975]

Ideals or not they were still quick to get in bed with them, and quick to jump ship only after the election was lost.

The same could be said for the Democrats...the NeoCon rise to power directly correlates to their empowerment after 9/11....the Democrat leadership was largely complacent as the Rovian machine went into full gear, and only went on the offensive once it was politically convenient to do so.

The NeoCon power grab is a perfect example of how power corrupts...the Democrat leadership's inability to keep that power grab in check similarly exposes the inherent flaws in our two party system.

Those calling for "revenge" now that the Democrats have Congress are missing the point entirely.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: slash196
....the 80s were terrible, terrible years for our country.....

O RLY?
Explain?

 

[Starbuck1975]

99% of the resident Republicans in here. There are a couple of true Republicans but they are the exception rather than the rule pretty much the way the current GOP is as well.

Depends on how you define NeoConservative...in many cases, you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as a NeoCon, even those who make an effort at engaging in reasonable dialogue.

You gotta despise a political movement that is so ashamed of itself its members deny belonging to it.

A more reasonable conclusion is that most of the conservatives on this board, and perhaps even Republicans, are not necessarily NeoCons.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: slash196
Reagan was every bit as bad as Rove. Praise is an easy thing to lavish on a dead man, but the 80s were terrible, terrible years for our country and Reagan gets responsibility for that. The only difference between Reagan and Bush is that Reagan could actually speak English. They're both beholden to the same destructive ideals; Rove was just a bit more ruthless in going about it. If Reagan had a Republican congress things would've gotten out of hand just as quickly.

Reagan was pretty ruthless - a terrorist army in Nicaragua, death squads in other Central American nations, a war on unions, sneaking around the ban on Contra aid, selling thousands of missiles to Iran outside the law, using Israel as a middleman giving them some nice 'blackmail' leverage against our nation and making it hard for the US to be a 'neutral' mediator in the middle east, creating the Social Security 'trust fund' which would be used for hundreds of billians a year in off the books government borrowing...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Originally posted by: slash196
....the 80s were terrible, terrible years for our country.....

O RLY?
Explain?

Obviously because his Anti-America heroes were not in power then.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

99% of the resident Republicans in here. There are a couple of true Republicans but they are the exception rather than the rule pretty much the way the current GOP is as well.

Depends on how you define NeoConservative...in many cases, you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as a NeoCon, even those who make an effort at engaging in reasonable dialogue.

You gotta despise a political movement that is so ashamed of itself its members deny belonging to it.

A more reasonable conclusion is that most of the conservatives on this board, and perhaps even Republicans, are not necessarily NeoCons.

The vast majority of you republicans fought hard for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and refused to listen to the democrats. He's your guy, you are responsible for him.

No cut and run allowed - that's the only way to prevent you doing the same thing in 2008.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

99% of the resident Republicans in here. There are a couple of true Republicans but they are the exception rather than the rule pretty much the way the current GOP is as well.

Depends on how you define NeoConservative...in many cases, you dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as a NeoCon, even those who make an effort at engaging in reasonable dialogue.

You gotta despise a political movement that is so ashamed of itself its members deny belonging to it.

A more reasonable conclusion is that most of the conservatives on this board, and perhaps even Republicans, are not necessarily NeoCons.

The vast majority of you republicans fought hard for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and refused to listen to the democrats. He's your guy, you are responsible for him.

No cut and run allowed - that's the only way to prevent you doing the same thing in 2008.

QFT

 

[Starbuck1975]

The vast majority of you republicans fought hard for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and refused to listen to the democrats. He's your guy, you are responsible for him.

How do you define "fighting hard." If you mean by voting for a candidate, then yes some of us voted for Bush at least the first time around...many of us, myself included, chose not to the second time around.

And last I checked, citizens are not held responsible for who they vote for...accountability of government is the responsibility of all citizens, and most noteably, the system of checks and balances inherent to our system.

And what exactly are you referring to when you mention responsibility.

That our system of checks and balances failed to keep Bush in check is a failure of our ENTIRE system, both Republicans AND Democrats.

While quite venomous, your post really doesn't say much of anything.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

The vast majority of you republicans fought hard for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and refused to listen to the democrats. He's your guy, you are responsible for him.

How do you define "fighting hard." If you mean by voting for a candidate, then yes some of us voted for Bush at least the first time around...many of us, myself included, chose not to the second time around.

By fought hard, I mean stood by him and insisted he was the right guy, despite all we'd learned his first four years, and you put fingers in your ears to block the criticism.

You say many of you did not support him the second time - I think the facts disagree, very few republicans abandon him the second time.

Those that did, I give a pass for 2000 (fool you once) and allow to disassociate from Bush for 2008. But the republicans had a huge, loyal turnout for Bush in 2004.

I saw the problems with Bush early on, and asked, how can a party put someone so damaging in power with unmet promises and expect to get elected again in 2008?

The answer was for them to get to say 'he wasn't REALLY our type of guy, the next one you'll love!'

We can't allow them to get away with that and fool people yet again. Accountability is needed. He *was* their kind of guy; their agenda makes them lie to the voters.

At some point you have to stop just feeling sorry for the republicans who are lied to, and say, 'hey, boneheads, your ease of being duped is screwing our nation. Pay attention.'

And last I checked, citizens are not held responsible for who they vote for...accountability of government is the responsibility of all citizens, and most noteably, the system of checks and balances inherent to our system.

And what exactly are you referring to when you mention responsibility.

That our system of checks and balances failed to keep Bush in check is a failure of our ENTIRE system, both Republicans AND Democrats.

While quite venomous, your post really doesn't say much of anything.

I'm referring to the responsibility the voters have for their selection. Whatever the person they vote for does in office, is their responsibility for putting him in office.

I see a lot of voters who don't want to take that responsibility and these voters are a menace to the nation.

Voters who allow themselves to be led around by the nose by nice ad campaigns saying 'if you love the flag and apple pie you are a republican' are causing harm to the nation.

It's like the dog who gives you the 'where did that come from' look next to the mess on the carpet - Bush voters need their noses rubbed in the vote, not to let the marketers continually ignore the messes and get the voters to keep putting the next disaster in office again and again. These people run by saying conservative things and then governing badly for another agenda.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: techs
Opinion:
When the Rovian Neo-Cons took power they claimed they were going to have a Republican majority for 20 years. While old time Senate and House Republicans were overwhelmingly skeptical, the Republican and Neo-Con public swallowed this hook, line and sinker.
Then Rove and his Neo-Con buddies engineered things like the K-Street project, which broke the accepted norm that each party tried to outraise each other in money into the Republicans trying to deny money to the Democrats. The Rovians (I just like the way the word Rovian sounds but it refers to neo-cons, Rove and Bush) also ended all bi-partisanship with their strict party controls. Then they did things like hide the work of Congress from the Democrats.
At each step along the way the Neo-Con public was really enjoying the hate directed towards the Democrats and supported every distasteful policy and procedure the Neo-Cons adopted.
All the while the old hand Republicans were wondering:
"Uh, what will happen if we lose the majority"
"Aren't you Neo-Cons aware that the Democrats will do the same thing to us?"

I think there is outright hatred going around these days, directed from the Republicans who know realize they may have screwed themeselves royally, towards the Rovians. The ascension of Trent Lott, one of the "old hand" Repubicans who warned about this, to Minority Whip, may just be the beginnings of a new Civil War between Neo-Cons and Republicans.
Personally, I'm hoping for Mutual Assured Destruction.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by: Uhtrinity

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The so-called neo-con leadership has been shown to be impractical.

It was an experiment that failed.

Do not try to associate the Republican ideals esposed by ronnie & co with those spouited by Rove & co.

If the Dems try to do so; they will have another drought coming to them.

Ideals or not they were still quick to get in bed with them, and quick to jump ship only after the election was lost.

Hear, hear!