"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
25.201...
"Dan White" wrote in
:

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
. 125.201...


"Neo-con" is not meant to be a talking point. It's a distinguishing
philosophy of neoconservatism, which is different from traditional
conservatism. One definition characterizes the difference as
"Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives are
characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser
social conservatism, and weaker dedication to a policy of minimal
government."

I can use a more politically correct term if you want. Since I am
not a neo-con, I don't mind using PC terms if needed ;-P


It isn't that big a deal, really, but I think most liberals who use
the neo-con term do so to put the current admin into some sort of
labeled box so they can point them out as not "real" conservatives --
more like something new that isn't to be trusted. Until the
conservatives in question begin calling themselves neo-cons, I don't
think it is up to their political opponents to do it for them and say
there is no harm intended.

Right, but surely you realize that the current leadership is not
reflective
of traditional Republican conservative ideology? Particularly with
respect
to a more aggressive foreign policy and a weaker committment to small
government and fiscal responsibility.

I remember voting for Reagan. Reagan was a conservative. But GWB is not
very much like Reagan.

But we still call Lincoln a Republican, not a "pseudo republican." Remember
also that JFK, who was for cutting taxes and was certainly more conservative
than democrats today, is still a democrat. In the same way that the dems
are trying to label conservatives as "neo cons" they are trying to hide
their extremism and call themselves "progressives." So far I don't think it
is working.

dwhite