I saw the cover of American Conservative Magazine in the bookstore...

[eppur_se_muova]

http://amconmag.com/

it (not the issue currently online) showed an anonymous figure in an executive (presumably unitary)-style business suit crushing a small copy of the Capitol building. The cover story was on "Presidential Power" and it didn't look like the publishers were too thrilled with **. Checking out the online mag, I see articles like:

Syria In Their Sights
By Robert Dreyfuss
For the neoconservatives, one Middle Eastern war at a time may not be enough.

Declare Victory and Stay
By Scott McConnell
In his ongoing flight from the reality-based community, President Bush unveils yet another plan for victory in Iraq.

Painting the White House Red
By John Laughland
The torch of global revolution has passed from old-school Communists to neoconservative democracy-promoters.

Might the Arabs Have a Point?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Karen Hughes has her work cut out.

I knew Buchanan was one of the paleocons who despised **, but maybe there are more than we know. Perhaps these voices within the Republican party could tip the balance in favor of evicting ** from our property on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[coldiggs]

1. what is a paleocon

[eppur_se_muova]

2. A good old-fashioned conservative, as opposed to a "neocon"...

who should properly be called PSEUDOCONS.

[coldiggs]

3. oh ok that is the first time I heard that term

[MissWaverly]

4. in other words dried up old fossils which we already knew

[eppur_se_muova]

5. We sometimes talk in code here. And welcome to DU!

:hi:

[TalkingDog]

8. Or more properly an ULTRA-LIBERAL

The true conservatives understand this which is why they can't stand him.

If the 42% of Joe Public that still supports him understood * in those terms, they might wise up.

[C_U_L8R]

6. paleo-con.. neo-con.. neander-con

they are all backwards steps on the evolutionary ladder
(or rather the result of not-so-intelligent design)

[pnorman]

7. Here's an article I've quoted frequently:

How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio

Clear Channel gags an antiwar conservative.

By Charles Goyette

“Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: “No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made.”

Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: “German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ‘Oops!’, Powell Silent; ‘Bring ’Em On,’ Says Defiant FDR.”

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, “I told you so!” But it sure isn’t doing my career as a talk-show host any good.
>
>

http://www.amconmag.com/2004/2004_02_02/article3.html

It drive some of my faux-conservative acquaintances NUTS!

pnorman

[murdoch]

9. Scott McConnell

Scott McConnell was at a Nation panel talking about the US mess in the Middle East. McConnell said if Gore was elected in 2000, we would still be in a mess in the Mideast, because Gore signed off on all the DLC nonsense. The bozos in the audience booed the one person there who was telling the truth.

Frankly, I'd rather have Bush as president than a DINO. At least let the conservatives and Republicans get the blame for their policies.