West Virginny don't take kindly to Obama

[Danny White]

Sorry Brain. :o:

West Virginia keeps distance from Obama
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a50425a-1f86-11dd-9216-000077b07658,s01=1.html?nclick_check=1

By Andrew Ward

Published: May 11 2008 20:13 | Last updated: May 11 2008 20:13

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

Mr Simpson’s remarks help explain why Mr Obama is trailing Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, by 40 percentage points ahead of Tuesday’s primary election in the heavily white and rural state, according to recent opinion polls.

A landslide victory for Mrs Clinton in West Virginia will do little to improve her fading hopes of winning the Democratic nomination, because Mr Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in the overall race.

But Tuesday’s contest is likely to reinforce Mrs Clinton’s argument that she would be the stronger opponent for Mr McCain in November, and raise fresh doubts about whether the US is ready to elect its first black president.

Occupying a swathe of the Appalachian Mountains on the threshold between the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt, West Virginia is a swing state that voted twice for George W. Bush but backed Democrats in six of the eight prior presidential elections.

No Democrat has been elected to the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, yet Mr Obama appears to have little chance of winning there in November. Recent opinion polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would narrowly beat Mr McCain in the state but Mr Obama would lose by nearly 20 percentage points.

West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent.

A visit to Mingo County, a Democratic stronghold in the heart of the Appalachian coalfields, reveals the scale of Mr Obama’s challenge – not only in West Virginia but in white, working-class communities across the US. With a gun shop on its main street and churches dotted throughout the town, Williamson is the kind of community evoked by Mr Obama’s controversial comments last month about “bitter” small-town voters who “cling to guns or religion”.

“If he is the nominee, the Democrats have no chance of winning West Virginia,” said Missy Endicott, a 40- year-old school administrator. “He doesn’t understand ordinary Americans.”

Ms Endicott was among roughly 500 people who crammed into the Williamson Fire Department building on Friday to attend a rally by Bill Clinton, the former president. He told them his wife represented “people like you, in places like this”, and urged voters to turn out in record numbers on Tuesday to send a message to the “higher-type people” who were trying to force her out of the race.

Local leaders said Mr Clinton was the most important visitor to Williamson since John F. Kennedy passed through during the 1960 election campaign. Mr Kennedy’s victory in the West Virginia primary that year was a crucial step towards proving his electability as the first Catholic president. Nearly five decades later, the state appears less willing to help Mr Obama break down barriers to the White House.

None of the 22 Democrats interviewed by the Financial Times at the Clinton rally would commit themselves to voting for Mr Obama if he became the nominee, and half said they definitely would not. The depth of opposition is particularly striking considering that Mingo County is one of the most Democratic places in West Virginia, having cast about 85 per cent of its votes for the party in the 2006 midterm elections. If Mr Obama cannot win there in November, he has little chance of carrying the state.

Most people questioned said they mistrusted Mr Obama because of doubts about his patriotism and “values”, stemming from his cosmopolitan background, his exotic name and the controversy surrounding “anti-American” sermons by Jeremiah Wright, his former pastor. Several people said they believed he was a Muslim – an unfounded rumour that has circulated on the internet for months – despite the contradiction with his 20-year membership of Mr Wright’s church in Chicago. Others mentioned his refusal to wear a Stars and Stripes badge and controversial remarks by his wife, Mich*elle, who des*cribed America as “mean” and implied that she had never been proud of the US until her husband ran for president.

Conservative commentators have questioned Mr Obama’s patriotism for months and the issue is expected to be one of the Republicans’ main lines of attack if he wins the nomination. “The American people want a president who loves their country as much as they do,” said Whit Ayres, a Rep*ub*lican strategist. Obama supporters believe patriotism is being used as code to harness racist sentiment.

Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,” he said.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Although I do not live in Mingo county, that viewpoint is not uncommon in WV.


Many still fall under the delusion that he is the manchurian candidate...although many will claim it has nothing to do with racism...hard to swallow that line when they keep electing Byrd year after year just because he can get WV the most money.

It is what it is but I could have told you she would win the dem primary months ago, not a big shocker if you live here.

[iceberg]

Although I do not live in Mingo county, that viewpoint is not uncommon in WV.


Many still fall under the delusion that he is the manchurian candidate...although many will claim it has nothing to do with racism...hard to swallow that line when they keep electing Byrd year after year just because he can get WV the most money.

It is what it is but I could have told you she would win the dem primary months ago, not a big shocker if you live here.

what's funny is one of the initial quotes..."i heard obama was muslem and his wife an athiest..."

do the bother to check it out even or do they just rattle this stuff off among themselves and it's suddenly gospel?

[Hostile]

40 percentage points behind Hillary?

Holy Moses met the Pharoah.

That doesn't seem possible.

[Danny White]

what's funny is one of the initial quotes..."i heard obama was muslem and his wife an athiest..."

do the bother to check it out even or do they just rattle this stuff off among themselves and it's suddenly gospel?

Hey, that's what the Clinton campaign flyer told them, so dammit, they're gonna believe it! :laugh2:

[Maikeru-sama]

West Virginia is hostile territory for Mr Obama because it has few of the African-Americans and affluent, college-educated whites who provide his strongest support. The state has the lowest college graduation rate in the US, the second lowest median household income, and one of the highest proportions of white residents, at 96 per cent.


Holy Moes meet the Pharoah :laugh2:

[big dog cowboy]

Josh Fry, a 24-year-old ambulance driver from Williamson, insisted he was not racist but said he would feel more comfortable with Mr McCain, the 71-year-old Vietnam war hero, in the White House. “I want someone who is a full-blooded American as president,” he said.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

[BrAinPaiNt]

Hey, that's what the Clinton campaign flyer told them, so dammit, they're gonna believe it! :laugh2:

Umm...let's be real here. Clinton AND the neocon spin machine.

I remember a few years ago the neocon spin machine passed out a flyer that said if Kerry and the dems won, they would ban the bible.

[Hostile]

Holy Moes meet the Pharoah :laugh2:It's a shame that it's reduced to that though isn't it? I have no concept of most state demographics.

[ConcordCowboy]

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

It's frickin ridiculous to not know by now that that is a bunch of crap.

Get out of the frickin coal mine and read or watch some news once in awhile.

If you're not going to vote for somebody because of something at least get the facts straight on that something.

Good God.

Better yet don't vote.

[Maikeru-sama]

It's a shame that it's reduced to that though isn't it? I have no concept of most state demographics.

I agree 100% with Hos.

However, at the end of the day "humans" are going to vote for people that are most like them.

Some people have put certain negative connotations on the aforementioned actions, but historically I believe that has always been the case.

[Hostile]

I agree 100% with Hos.

However, at the end of the day "humans" are going to vote for people that are most like them.

Some people have put certain negative connotations on the aforementioned actions, but historically I believe that has always been the case.Maybe that's why I don't get politics. I'm not much like any of these people.

:D

[canters]

What a hoot! I am sure some reporter that likes and supports Obama went out of his way to find the most ignorant citizen in WVa to quote reference the Muslin issue! Just like the toothless guy they always seem to find when the tornado tears through a trailer park.

I get mad when the media and egg heads place all whites that oppose Obama in the same group: racists. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME IF NOT MOST WHITES IN WVa OPPOSE OBAMA FOR REASONS OTHER THAN RACE?!

We need to get out of the practice of this way of thinking. Just like the title of this thread, calling the state "west virginny". Insulting and unnecessary. Not all WVa folks are imbreds that are KKK types. I bet this is a minority of folks. This race issue will never die because Libs will not let it!

[iceberg]

What a hoot! I am sure some reporter that likes and supports Obama went out of his way to find the most ignorant citizen in WVa to quote reference the Muslin issue! Just like the toothless guy they always seem to find when the tornado tears through a trailer park.

I get mad when the media and egg heads place all whites that oppose Obama in the same group: racists. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOME IF NOT MOST WHITES IN WVa OPPOSE OBAMA FOR REASONS OTHER THAN RACE?!

We need to get out of the practice of this way of thinking. Just like the title of this thread, calling the state "west virginny". Insulting and unnecessary. Not all WVa folks are imbreds that are KKK types. I bet this is a minority of folks. This race issue will never die because Libs will not let it!

so are all the bush name callings that happen. so are all the "jerruh" comments people throw out. that's what people do.

but when every other state holds a much closer election than it looks like w virginia will have, what other reasons are there?

love to hear them, but the quotes we have so far are not very flattering on the whole. no, i don't want to get into stereotypes and blind insults, but please help give me reasons why WVG will have such a different election outcome (if they in the end do) than any other state.

[BrAinPaiNt]

so are all the bush name callings that happen. so are all the "jerruh" comments people throw out. that's what people do.

but when every other state holds a much closer election than it looks like w virginia will have, what other reasons are there?

love to hear them, but the quotes we have so far are not very flattering on the whole. no, i don't want to get into stereotypes and blind insults, but please help give me reasons why WVG will have such a different election outcome (if they in the end do) than any other state.

I know many people that pretty much fit the stereotype. Not as many as some people would think and no we all don't work in coal mines.

But it is annoying when I see people in my state acting a certain way because it just perpetuates the stereotypes.

[Danny White]

Umm...let's be real here. Clinton AND the neocon spin machine.

I remember a few years ago the neocon spin machine passed out a flyer that said if Kerry and the dems won, they would ban the bible.

There's a slight difference here, in that as far as I can tell, the "neocons" who are most suspicious of Obama's muslim roots are the Jewish contingent of the neo-con movement. Those like Daniel Pipes, FrontPage magazine, etc who are very concerned about any muslim upbringing he may have had.

I only raise that because I think you're going to see McCain come down hard on anyone even remotely affiliated with his campaign who tries to promote that idea.

What you have is a subset of the neocons who are very concerned about this and will write about it extensively, but I don't think that view will find any quarter in the official McCain camp or at the RNC (which is now being run by McCain people).

[canters]

so are all the bush name callings that happen. so are all the "jerruh" comments people throw out. that's what people do.

but when every other state holds a much closer election than it looks like w virginia will have, what other reasons are there?

love to hear them, but the quotes we have so far are not very flattering on the whole. no, i don't want to get into stereotypes and blind insults, but please help give me reasons why WVG will have such a different election outcome (if they in the end do) than any other state.

Agreed, but if one looks hard enough, one would find white folks in all the states that will not vote for Obama because of race. They are a small minority though, IMO.

The fact that Clinton is far ahead of Barry O' in WVa meaning that there must be a racial overtone goes to prove that IF he is elected, it will do nothing to prove that race relations are better, or no longer an issue. To the contrary.
ANYONE who dares to disapprove in public of President Obama will risk being called racist. There will be less "honest" debate. Critics may not be given the benefit of the doubt as to motive. There will be a racist under every rock.

[Danny White]

I received a PM asking what exactly a "neocon" is, so I thought I'd post something explaining that here, since it's a term that gets thrown around a lot without full understanding of the genesis of the label.


So, what is a 'neocon'?

By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, May 29, 2004

What's the difference between "conservative" and "neoconservative"? Who are the "neocons," anyway? And were they, as some charge, an unduly influential cabal of intellectuals who talked President Bush into going to war in Iraq after 9/11 as part of their long-planned crusade to plant democracy in the Middle East?

To seek enlightenment on things neoconservative, I rang up four of the biggest names in the punditry business and asked them the same questions. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Paul Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. Paul Gigot is editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. And George Will is the famous syndicated columnist:

Q: What is a neoconservative and who are they?

Rich Lowry: Historically, 30 years ago it meant a former liberal who became a conservative. The cliche was because "they were mugged by reality," but it was because they saw the empirical failures of liberal welfare, state and foreign policies, and they were therefore less ideological than other conservatives and brought much more of a social science background to their argumentation.

They were associated with Irving Kristol's journal, the Public Interest, that had a lot of social-science pieces poking empirical holes in liberal theory. These people were former liberals, former Democrats, and in some cases former communists, but gradually over 30 years they really merged into the conservative mainstream, and the difference was very difficult to tell.

In fact, one of the foremost neoconservatives, Norman Podhoretz, wrote an obituary for this distinction several years ago because it just seemed to no longer matter. We've seen the rise of it again, first of all, with John McCain's candidacy in 2000, where the segment of conservatives that supported Sen. McCain tended to have more neo-kind of tendencies and tended to sort of self-consciously describe themselves as "neoconservatives," foremost among them Bill Kristol and David Brooks.

Neoconservatives are less skeptical of government than other conservatives. They are less worried about reducing the size of government, less enthusiastic about tax cuts, more concerned about forging national crusades that can tap either the American public's patriotism or its desire for reform. You saw this in McCain with his campaign finance proposal and a little bit in his foreign policy.

And with the war on terror, you saw neoconservatives emerging as a distinct tendency within conservatism, mostly on foreign policy; its hallmarks being extreme interventionism, extremely idealistic foreign policy, and emphasis on democracy building and spreading human rights and freedom and an overestimation, in my view, of how easy it is to spread democracy and liberty to spots in the world where it doesn't exist currently.

Paul Weyrich: They are mostly ex-liberals, by and large out of the intellectual community. These are people who came to the realization that modern liberalism was not the kind of liberalism that they had subscribed to. They are a fairly small group of people, both in and out of government. Those who are out of government are in either the media or academia. They are influential because they promote each other. They are very skilled at that.

Paul Gigot: I think of neoconservatism as having a very specific meaning related to history. That is, the neoconservatives were people who in the 1970s were former liberals, in some cases socialists, who moved right in reaction to the left's shift on cultural mores, personal responsibility and foreign policy. So I think the term "neoconservative" has that narrow meaning of that historical period. I think of them as the Podhoretzes and the Kristols and others. I don't think "neoconservative" means much anymore. I don't know what it means now or who they're referring to.

George Will: Oh gosh, that's not simple. Neoconservatives are persons who in domestic policy often were former Democrats who felt that conservatives had erred in not accepting the post-New Deal role of the central government. They were in their early incarnation focusing on domestic policy and were distinguishing themselves from Goldwater conservatives.

Also in domestic policies, however, as the '60s unfolded into the '70s and '80s, they led the critique of overreaching in domestic social engineering, saying that we accept the post-New Deal role of the central government, but the accumulated powers thereof are being wielded in a way too confident and optimistic and hubristic, if you will.

In foreign policy, and here's where it gets interesting, they have a more ambitious, more confident approach to the use of power than regular conservatives -- if you see the symmetry here? They say that America is a nation uniquely equipped as the sole remaining superpower to order the world and spread our values, etc., etc.

Who are they? The ones most commonly mentioned are Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, maybe Dick Cheney and his aide, Scooter Libby, Doug Feith in the Pentagon, Bill Kristol.

Q: Is this a neoconservative war in Iraq?

Rich Lowry: No. We've editorialized about this a couple issues ago. It was a war of national interest, and it was broadly supported on the right for that reason. You had someone like (Rep.) Tom DeLay, who is as conservative as you can get -- he's an unhyphenated conservative through and through -- strongly supporting this. You had all factions of conservatism supporting it, except for a fringe represented by Pat Buchanan, and that's because it was a war of national interest.

Paul Weyrich: I don't think that you could make that case. Certainly, neoconservatives were pushing for this war. But Vice President Cheney was the principal proponent of the war. He is certainly not a neoconservative. The president himself made the decisions. He's not a neoconservative. There are any number of people in the administration -- Condoleezza Rice, for example -- who were very much in favor of the war but who are not neoconservatives.

On the other hand, neoconservatives were very involved in the planning and execution of the war -- Paul Wolfowitz being very prominent among them. Conspiratorialists could make the case, I suppose, that it was a neoconservative war. But I think it's much more complex.

Paul Gigot: No. It's an American war in Iraq. I don't think the Marines who are putting their lives on the line in Fallujah think of themselves as neoconservatives.

George Will: It had a neoconservative overlay, to the extent that it was a war -- however mistakenly -- based on the confident belief that there was a growing arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; that was not a distinctly neoconservative rationale.

Neoconservatives supported the war for that reason, among others. It's the other reasons where it acquired its neoconservative patina. The neoconservative patina is that Iraq should become a secular, pluralist, multiparty, market-oriented democracy with the power of its example to transform the greater Middle East. That's the neoconservative edition.

Q: Is it automatically anti-Semitic to single out neocons as being the planners and instigators of the war in Iraq?

Rich Lowry: No. No. It would be false. It wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic. It would be accurate to say that some of the most articulate and powerful expressions of the case for war have come from people who are neoconservatives. So that's not anti-Semitic. But if you take a couple of steps beyond that, you begin to get into territory that is a little shady, I would think.

Paul Weyrich: No. That is really outrageous. I really resent the idea that if you question who it is that planned the war -- just because you ask questions about them -- it is automatically anti-Semitic. It is not. It is legitimate to ask these questions. It is legitimate to have a debate about the legitimacy and effect of this war. If that means questioning some of the people who are involved in it, so be it. The president is a very committed Christian. Should we say that, "Well, we can't question anything that Bush does, because if we did it would be anti-Christian"? That's silly.

Paul Gigot: No. Unlike a lot of the people on the left, I'm not going to question the motives of people who use the phrase. I think a lot of people just use it as a short-term shortcut for anyone who supported the war. But in the mouth of some people, there is an anti-Semitic overtone. I would point to recent remarks by (Sen.) Fritz Hollings. He clearly was attempting to link support for the war to Jews who also support Israel -- and I think that's a slur.

George Will: It's not necessarily anti-Semitic. There is often an anti-Semitic twist to it, yes.

[BrAinPaiNt]

There's a slight difference here, in that as far as I can tell, the "neocons" who are most suspicious of Obama's muslim roots are the Jewish contingent of the neo-con movement. Those like Daniel Pipes, FrontPage magazine, etc who are very concerned about any muslim upbringing he may have had.

I only raise that because I think you're going to see McCain come down hard on anyone even remotely affiliated with his campaign who tries to promote that idea.

What you have is a subset of the neocons who are very concerned about this and will write about it extensively, but I don't think that view will find any quarter in the official McCain camp or at the RNC (which is now being run by McCain people).

Oh...somehow the people who kept saying Barrack Osama and questioning his religion I saw on Fox and CNN...I don't think most of those people were jewish.

But, if that makes you feel better, go for it.

Now I know McCain has said he will keep this campaign on the up and up and knock of the smearing and cheap shots. Problem I see is that even if he means it 100% (and I hope he does since he was a victim of it by his own party in the past) it does not mean people working for him or his party will not do it.

I think it may all start out ok but I imagine it will turn nasty by both parties before it is all said and done...most do.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I received a PM asking what exactly a "neocon" is, so I thought I'd post something explaining that here, since it's a term that gets thrown around a lot without full understanding of the genesis of the label.

Wow...except for the origins of where it came from, the rest of that was pretty much a bunch of political spin and hoo-ha.

[Danny White]

Wow...except for the origins of where it came from, the rest of that was pretty much a bunch of political spin and hoo-ha.

I question how closely you read it, then?

Weyrich is a paleo-conservative and critic of the war and of neoconservatives. However, his response to the second question places blame firmly both on non "neos" such as Bush and Rice, and neos alike.

Lowry, who's become more critical of the war as well, was willing to spread the blame around.

Gigot made one comment that could be construed as "spin" -- the one about the Marines -- but other than that, I wonder what else you saw as spin.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I question how closely you read it, then?

Weyrich is a paleo-conservative and critic of the war and of neoconservatives. However, his response to the second question places blame firmly both on non "neos" such as Bush and Rice, and neos alike.

Lowry, who's become more critical of the war as well, was willing to spread the blame around.

Gigot made one comment that could be construed as "spin" -- the one about the Marines -- but other than that, I wonder what else you saw as spin.

When the first three start their answers to the Iraq war being a neocon effort start out with...No, I don't think you can make the case and no...that says enough to me about it with out reading the rest of their comments.

[Danny White]

Oh...somehow the people who kept saying Barrack Osama and questioning his religion I saw on Fox and CNN...I don't think most of those people were jewish.

But, if that makes you feel better, go for it.



I was referring to those who are doing the bulk of the "opposition research" into these questions about Obama. These are the "neocons" you keep referring to.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I was referring to those who are doing the bulk of the "opposition research" into these questions about Obama. These are the "neocons" you keep referring to.

So I guess most of fox news and pat robertson is Jewish?

I mean let's not turn it into the jews and only neocons doing it.

Furthermore I have a broader definition of neocons than what those people in the post you provided.

The origins are liberals becoming republicans but I think it has morphed beyond that with neocons IMO.

I mean I don't think W was a liberal democrat at one time but he is neocon because of the way he spends like a drunken sailor without accounting for it. He is in some cases much worse than some flaming liberals except he just spends it in different areas and does not raise taxes to cover it...instead he gives tax breaks out.

[hairic]

You should have just linked to the Wikipedia article or something. They're fine for intros.

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

http://www.mcadcafe.com/images/commentary/us_federal_budget_deficit_20040510.jpg

[iceberg]

You should have just linked to the Wikipedia article or something. They're fine for intros.

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

http://www.mcadcafe.com/images/commentary/us_federal_budget_deficit_20040510.jpg

i long for the day people understand wiki is just a collection of ideas kept in check by ... people. then when i see such pages named to stereotype i do wonder what it's real intent is in the world.

[hairic]

i long for the day people understand wiki is just a collection of ideas kept in check by ... people. then when i see such pages named to stereotype i do wonder what it's real intent is in the world.

I long for the day people understand books are just a collection of ideas kept in check by... robots.

[iceberg]

I long for the day people understand books are just a collection of ideas kept in check by... robots.

great. but by people i mean you and i can alter that site. wiki is not really a valid resource of which to pull anything more than a general public opinion. is it factual at times? i'm sure it is. is it bogus at times? i'm sure it is.

my biggest point here is that i'd not really call wikipedia the same as an encyclopedia when it comes to unbiased views.

[Danny White]

So I guess most of fox news and pat robertson is Jewish?

I mean let's not turn it into the jews and only neocons doing it.

Furthermore I have a broader definition of neocons than what those people in the post you provided.

The origins are liberals becoming republicans but I think it has morphed beyond that with neocons IMO.

I mean I don't think W was a liberal democrat at one time but he is neocon because of the way he spends like a drunken sailor without accounting for it. He is in some cases much worse than some flaming liberals except he just spends it in different areas and does not raise taxes to cover it...instead he gives tax breaks out.
You're the one who blamed the neocons for this. If you disagree with my definition of neocon, that's fine, but so far I'm the only one who's even attempted to define it past a buzzword.

The fact is that the bulk of investigation on the Obama/Muslim issue is being done by folks like Daniel Pipes and other strongly pro-Israel publications. Others surely have picked up on it, and their work will be repeated by others, but they are doing much of the leg-work on it.

I'm not sure why you've taken such an issue with this. It confirms your claim that neocons (along with the Clinton campaign) are the ones driving the "Obama is a Muslim" accusation.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You're the one who blamed the neocons for this. If you disagree with my definition of neocon, that's fine, but so far I'm the only one who's even attempted to define it past a buzzword.

The fact is that the bulk of investigation on the Obama/Muslim issue is being done by folks like Daniel Pipes and other strongly pro-Israel publications. Others surely have picked up on it, and their work will be repeated by others, but they are doing much of the leg-work on it.

I'm not sure why you've taken such an issue with this. It confirms your claim that neocons (along with the Clinton campaign) are the ones driving the "Obama is a Muslim" accusation.

Because I don't think your definitions also include Fox news, Rush and Robertson as I don't see them as being Jewish.

And all three have done a great deal of work to persuade their listeners in the whole Obama is muslim rhetoric whether it be directly or indirectly.

And as I have stated. I don't just see Neocons as only being the way you, or the article you provided, as neocons.

I think it is much broader and the idea of actual conservative republicans, not voters but the politicians, are a dying breed or at the very least they no longer control the republican party.

The most conservative candidate of all of the republican party candidates this election was Paul, and yet he was short changed in debates, rediculed, not given fair treatment from Fox news and other right speaking outlets. Because the republicans are no longer traditional conservatives any longer, they have become neocons and ran by neocons.

But that is just my opinion on it. To me neo means new and con means conservative. No longer just liberals that turned to the republican party, although that is part of the problem with free spending neocons. However it has morphed beyond that to a situation where it actually takes the worst of both parties and combined them in order to get votes.

[Dallas]

I long for the day people understand books are just a collection of ideas kept in check by... robots.


Sourcing Wiki in anything is probably not a good idea. Certainly don't source it to support an argument.

It is constantly edited by me and iceberg to support our own agendas. :D

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sourcing Wiki in anything is probably not a good idea. Certainly don't source it to support an argument.

It is constantly edited by me and iceberg to support our own agendas. :D

I think it is an ok source for a general debate. It can always be questioned however it used to, not sure if it still does, have articles to back up many points.

Too many times people automatically dismiss it no matter what.

However I am guilty of doing so from other sources that are far and away bias for the left or right.

[iceberg]

I think it is an ok source for a general debate. It can always be questioned however it used to, not sure if it still does, have articles to back up many points.

Too many times people automatically dismiss it no matter what.

However I am guilty of doing so from other sources that are far and away bias for the left or right.

i think it's hard to find a site that's not tilted one way or another. wiki can have a lot of great info in it, sure. but like dallas and i pointed out, it can be changed by any user who comes along as i understand it. i think if that "out there" it will be changed by someone who knows better, but then, it's just a war of the words now and who can get the last edit in.

then again i wonder how many people know the history behind wiki? i may read up on it some later tonight.

[Heisenberg]

The misinformation is a bit staggering. It's one thing to disagree with policies, but to spit out information that's blatantly false as a reason for not voting for someone...

[BrAinPaiNt]

i think it's hard to find a site that's not tilted one way or another. wiki can have a lot of great info in it, sure. but like dallas and i pointed out, it can be changed by any user who comes along as i understand it. i think if that "out there" it will be changed by someone who knows better, but then, it's just a war of the words now and who can get the last edit in.

then again i wonder how many people know the history behind wiki? i may read up on it some later tonight.

That is why I like when they have LINKS to the points they discuss in Wiki. I don't know if they still do it like they used to but it is nice to find the source they are getting their information from.

For instance. Someone on there can put up something that W said this or that.
If they have a link I can look it up myself to see if it is correct.

[Heisenberg]

That is why I like when they have LINKS to the points they discuss in Wiki. I don't know if they still do it like they used to but it is nice to find the source they are getting their information from.

For instance. Someone on there can put up something that W said this or that.
If they have a link I can look it up myself to see if it is correct.

They still do and things that have no source have a notation next to them stating as much. It's actually quite a good source of information regardless of its critics.

[iceberg]

That is why I like when they have LINKS to the points they discuss in Wiki. I don't know if they still do it like they used to but it is nice to find the source they are getting their information from.

For instance. Someone on there can put up something that W said this or that.
If they have a link I can look it up myself to see if it is correct.

They still do and things that have no source have a notation next to them stating as much. It's actually quite a good source of information regardless of its critics.

i think by and large wiki is a great place to start. but i think it's a bad place to end, if that makes sense. wiki to me is a good 10,000 foot view of a topic but not heavy on details. could be wrong as i just tend not to use it much.

[Jon88]

He's not a Muslim. He goes to a racist black church (with his wife).

[Danny White]

Because I don't think your definitions also include Fox news, Rush and Robertson as I don't see them as being Jewish.

And all three have done a great deal of work to persuade their listeners in the whole Obama is muslim rhetoric whether it be directly or indirectly.

And as I have stated. I don't just see Neocons as only being the way you, or the article you provided, as neocons.

I think it is much broader and the idea of actual conservative republicans, not voters but the politicians, are a dying breed or at the very least they no longer control the republican party.

The most conservative candidate of all of the republican party candidates this election was Paul, and yet he was short changed in debates, rediculed, not given fair treatment from Fox news and other right speaking outlets. Because the republicans are no longer traditional conservatives any longer, they have become neocons and ran by neocons.

But that is just my opinion on it. To me neo means new and con means conservative. No longer just liberals that turned to the republican party, although that is part of the problem with free spending neocons. However it has morphed beyond that to a situation where it actually takes the worst of both parties and combined them in order to get votes.

I shouldn't have singled out Jewish commentators. I regret doing that as I think it has distracted from what I was saying. If you take a look at a lot of the opposition research out there, much of it comes from pro-Israel sources, but you are absolutely right in saying that many others are propagating it as well.

Beyond that, we have a fundamental difference in what we view as what a "neocon" is, and I think we should probably just leave it at that. I think you are right in that it has morphed since the most recent Iraq war. If that is the case, then it has morphed to a point of being almost meaningless as a label, but that is neither here nor there.

Cheers.

[Heisenberg]

i think by and large wiki is a great place to start. but i think it's a bad place to end, if that makes sense. wiki to me is a good 10,000 foot view of a topic but not heavy on details. could be wrong as i just tend not to use it much.

I'm the opposite. I go there for the details. If you see that it has no source, don't completely take it as fact, but most of the details DO have a source.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I shouldn't have singled out Jewish commentators. I regret doing that as I think it has distracted from what I was saying. If you take a look at a lot of the opposition research out there, much of it comes from pro-Israel sources, but you are absolutely right in saying that many others are propagating it as well.

Beyond that, we have a fundamental difference in what we view as what a "neocon" is, and I think we should probably just leave it at that. I think you are right in that it has morphed since the most recent Iraq war. If that is the case, then it has morphed to a point of being almost meaningless as a label, but that is neither here nor there.

Cheers.

I am sure we do have differences...it is plain to see.

I am a very jaded person when it comes to government and especially the two party system.

First it was the dems with all the power with the clinton admin and house.

Then the republicans gained control on the hill before clinton left office and I was thankful only for the reason that one party would not control the house and the admin.

Then bush took office and really screwed things up IMO. You have one party in control again and the party that one time vowed to clean up the government got fat and bloated like a tick on a dogs blood, only thing was the dogs blood turned out to be money and the dog turned out to be most of us average joes.

So I do lump a great deal of the republicans into the neocon tag. Because they are not the republicans of old as far as I am concerned. They have increased government and spent like crazy. As I said before I feel that the neocons (my version) have taken over and responsibility has flew out the window for something they desire more...power and money.

Now the dems got some power on the hill but in typical fashion they try to cater to much to the poor and pander to votes but once they get the votes they don't have the backbone to get the job done unless they have a no veto president for their wishes, which means they don't have a dem president to let everything go through like bush did for the republicans.

Yes I am very jaded. Heck I will tell you that some of the people you have sat beside or talked to in your young republican rallies would turn my stomach. The idea of being in the presence of someone like the ilk of Shim (ann coulter) would just repulse me because she is just another brick in the wall of what government has become even though in reality she is just out for herself and making outrageous comments are just a method for the weak to hock their wares in most cases.

But I just have a hard time sitting and listening to the political right spin machine and what bothers me more is so many are so willing to lap up whatever they give out to further their own party and power.

So...yes I see neocons in some lights as you do but much more in the broader sense.

Now my fear is that somehow McCain will choke and we will get another dem president and then the dems will grow a back bone and start going hog wild.

I have some problems with McCain but I would still take that over the possibility of the dems having all the power again.

I also have to hope that he will not turn into bush II but instead go back to some of the ideas he had in the past. No not all of the ideas, but some of them that made me like him before.

It is scary what government has became, it is worse that so many are so willing to go and excuse them...like an enabler to a crack addict.

Jaded...yes I am and for good reason.

[burmafrd]

So brain then how do you swallow all the MOVEON.ORG company on the left?

[Danny White]

Brain, there's no shame in being jaded when it comes to our government.

When I was a kid, up through college, my dream was to be President some day. Then, in college, I spent one summer on Capitol Hill as a congressional intern and became so jaded with the system and the inability of good people to really accomplish something, that I abandoned that right then and there.

Don't get me wrong, there are some good people in government, but they are few and far between, and there are too few of them to really change things too much. And even the best have their warts. The closer you get to them, the more you see it.

As far as your fondness for divided government, you're definitely not alone. A lot of people prefer a divided government (party control wise). I can see the benefit of it as well... gridlock certainly keeps the politicians from doing too much damage, and the Republican control recently sure left a lot to be desired.

[BrAinPaiNt]

So brain then how do you swallow all the MOVEON.ORG company on the left?

I don't. Pretty simple.

I do not like the far right or far left.

I think it would be pretty obvious of what I do not like...even for someone as far right as yourself.