Tucker to Ron Paul: Democrats are Neocons too

[Bullet1987]

What an IDIOT!! He said that because the Dems haven't taken a nuke strike against Iran off the table...that they're neocons too.

[NYCGirl]

1. So what did Ron Paul answer to that? NT

[Bullet1987]

4. He was talking about the Presidential candidates...

Ron Paul basically agreed and said many Americans on both sides may sit 2008 out...

[rurallib]

2. Why is that fucking idiot still on TV anywhere?

Doesn't seem to have enough brains to clean toilets.

[lojasmo]

22. Um...it's true. Republicans don't have the corner on neocon postions. EOM

[On the Road]

3. Traditionally, That's Quite True

Most neocon Democrats from the 60s and 70s have changed parties, however. The few that are left (like Lieberman, if you can count him) are out of step with most Democrats today. But there is a long neocon history in the Democratic party.

On Edit: And the "nothing off the table" comment is apt. As Gravel pointed out in the first debate, "these people scare me." When Obama or any other candidate state that all options are on the table regarding Iran, they are adopting neocon language and opening themselves up to being depicted as on the same team. I don't think that's a smart move, especially since I don't believe any Democrat would conduct policy like Bush.

[primative1]

5. At least Ron Paul Is getting TV time ...

They gave him a whopping 5 minutes during yesterdays 2 hour debate ....

[dogday]

11. Then MSNBC rates him last place for the Republicans

He scares them.. I think he actually scares them...

[Bullet1987]

12. Not Tucker

Tucker said he wants to have him on a lot because he's the only real Conservative...or something along those lines.

[applegrove]

6. Did he call the neocons "liberals" again? A new meme to confuse

the floundering GOP base into staying Repukelican even though they hate * and the war.

[Bullet1987]

7. Not to Ron Paul...

But he did keep repeating with Pat Buchanan that Bush isn't a conservative. Bush=Liberal is the new right-wing meme.

[David__77]

8. I think it's a branch of Trotskyism.

Indeed, many leading neo-cons came from Trotskyist politics. The whole concept of "global democratic revolution" confirms that. The US is the motor force for proselytizing the "democratic ideology." I certainly wouldn't call neo-conservatism a traditional rightist ideology. It's roots on from the left, but it's become the equivalent to globalist fascism.

[applegrove]

9. I know but just like they tried to sell "Hitler was a socialist not a right winger", they will

try and sell "Bush is a liberal" to keep from loosing their base. And I am afraid the base that remains are not the types to understand anything deeper that the vague tie between neocon and liberal.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Shh don't tell anyone but some are

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

13. Lieberman, Rahm Emanuel

Neocons.

[dflprincess]

14. The whole DLC crowd are neocons.

n/t

[primative1]

15. I agree ...

From a purist viewpoint I see little difference between occupying a country with 150,000 troops or sitting offshore with the entire naval fleet routinely firing off billion dollar missiles and using random bombing runs as training exercises.
When will we figure out that neither is in our interest.

[Totally Committed]

16. DLC-ers are Neo-Cons.

In issues of war, poverty (or, more preceisely, the disparity of wealth and poverty), governmental policy and safety-nets, etc., they are barely indistinguishable from the other side.

We let the foxes into our henhouse, and are now left wondering why only they have eggs. They disgust me.

TC

Edited to ad: They also never met a corporation or a lobby they wouldn't take $$$ from. Sorry, they ARE Neo-Cons!

[Jacobin]

23. What you said

:thumbsup:

Fucker Carlson is right on this one

[Robson]

17. Neocons are represented in both parties?

I somewhat agree that neocons are neither liberal nor conservative and that they hold strategic positions in both parties. Some might even consider their goals as an agenda.

[Totally Committed]

18. Neoconservatism...

is a political movement that emerged as a rejection of liberalism and the New Left counter-culture of the 1960s. It coalesced in the 1970s and was influential in the Reagan administration, George H. W. Bush administration, and George W. Bush administration. It has received so much attention because it represented a realignment in American politics and the defection of "an important and highly articulate group of liberals to the other side." Because the neoconservatives knew liberalism from the inside, they were more effective than previous conservatives at criticizing the failures of liberalism, and one of their first accomplishments was "to make criticism from the right acceptable in the intellectual, artistic, and journalistic circles where conservatives had long been regarded with suspicion."

The term neoconservative was first used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to make clear that a group, many of whom called themselves liberal, was actually a group newly conservative ex-liberals. The name eventually stuck, both because it was reasonably accurate, and because neoconservatives came to accept that they were, in fact, conservative. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" became one of the central themes of neoconservatism, and by the 1980s, being considered a conservative was far from an insult.

The etymology of this type of conservatism is based on the work and thought of Irving Kristol, cofounder of Encounter and its editor from 1953 to 1958, Norman Podhoretz, and others, who described themselves as "neoconservatives" during the Cold War.

Prominent neoconservatives are associated with periodicals such as Commentary and The Weekly Standard, and with foreign policy initiatives of think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

Neoconservative journalists, policy analysts, and politicians, are often dubbed "neocons" by supporters and critics alike; however, in general, the movement's critics use the term more often than their supporters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

Now, tell me again if there are Neo-cons in both Parties? The DLC are indeed Neo-cons.

TC

[PassingFair]

19. The lovely WILL MARSHALL

Founder of the New Democrats, President of the PPI and PNAC SIGNATORY.


:puke:

Sucks when TUCKER is correct, no?


snip> Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more centrist orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

[Totally Committed]

20. "Sucks when TUCKER is correct, no?"

You said it! I hate it when that happens.

TC

[primative1]

21. There is that term again .. NEW democrat ...

Every time I hear someone rambling about some crap I am violently opposed to, the noise is either coming from a republican or a "NEW DEMOCRAT". The two are indistinguishable.

[Hart2008]

24. Gary Hart: Where the New Democrats went wrong

It wasn't always that way, but what Clinton did to the term!

Where the New Democrats went wrong
Gary Hart says Clinton and Gore abandoned their base to expand the party, but says he'll support Gore anyway.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Fred Branfman

Aug. 16, 2000 | LOS ANGELES -- Colorado Sen. Gary Hart was the original New Democrat when he ran for the party's presidential nomination in 1984 against Walter Mondale. ...

Hart spoke to the Shadow Convention on Los Angeles this week about how the new New Democrats lost their bearings. He told Salon that, despite some reservations, he's supporting Al Gore and says, "The Democratic Party is not beyond redemption.


You were seen as the original New Democrat in 1984. What were you about, and how did it differ from the Clinton-Gore version of "New Democrats"?

Our goal was to move the party forward without compromising its principles. These guys have gained power, but I'm not sure they maintained the principles.

What I had in mind was to expand the party beyond a shrinking New Deal base of basically organized labor, some minorities and old traditional Democrats. It wasn't to abandon those people, by any means. But it was somehow to appeal to young people and independent voters. I believed that there was an emerging new economy. We sought to capture people who understood that the economy of America was shifting away from processing raw materials into manufactured goods, and towards information technologies, communications and so forth.

What was your basic critique of Mondale?

That he simply represented the old elements of the Roosevelt coalition without more. And it wasn't a critique that this was wrong: It was just not enough. Organized labor's big issue of the day was legislation called domestic content, which required that a certain percentage of all manufactured goods be manufactured in the United States. It simply was heavy-handed and mechanical and it wasn't going to work. I was against it, and Vice President Mondale was for it. And that was a big watershed with labor. And I was for a different defense. I was for military reform. And I wrote a book called "A New Democracy" with a lot of so-called "new ideas," such as individual training accounts giving workers training money as they shifted jobs. We were progressive pragmatists, trying to bring the Democratic Party into the future.

How does your version of a "New Democrat" differ from Bill Clinton and Al Gore today?

Well, I had my own version of the napkin. Arthur Laffer and Jack Kemp had a napkin curve that was supposed to correlate tax cuts and economic growth. I had one that overlaid the left-right spectrum with a vertical future-past spectrum. I think those of us who were trying to find a new way were on the left. We were redistributionists in a sense, and government activists. But we also thought we ought to be exploring new ways of doing things, and not simply holding on to the old programs. But I think the so-called New Democrats today are a different breed of cat. What they did was operate on this left-right spectrum, rather than future-past as we tried to do. I think President Clinton moved the party back here to the center of the left-right spectrum, as on welfare reform. I think that gave away too much what we stood for, our principles; I don't say he was unprincipled, just that I wouldn't have taken that approach in welfare reform. I saw a story in the New York Times about the first county in America to eliminate welfare. The welfare officials of that county put enormous effort in understanding each individual welfare person's problems. They went to a great trouble to put that person together with an available job, and also provide the support mechanisms necessary. I would have made sure that happened on a national basis.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/15/hart/index.html

What we had, and what we lost...
and what we could be again!

http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[Robson]

25. And the New Corporate Democrats wonder why they lost the OLD Democrats

The Democratic Party of old was un-nuanced and unambiguously in support of American workers. That was a core Party plank. The new Democratic Party has been corporatized and nuanced so that the position on support of American workers is....well how shall we say it.... nuanced.

If Ted Kennedy says he's in favor of American workers on one hand, and supports bringing in millions of immigrants that will undercut American workers.....that's what we mean by nuanced. That's why the Democratic Party lost the south and those many millions of Americans who voted against their economic interests. This globalism and neoconism isn't limited to Repubs and to be honest it somewhat outrages me.