Gerald Ford Dead Today at the age of 93

[hardeeharhar]

An ok guy... his presidency pretty much defined the crest of a swing in american politics from conservative to neocon (reagan was mostly an exception and old); from liberal with action to liberal with inaction...

[Bergermeister]

93... well done!

The poor guy had the fun of picking up the pieces after Nixon quit, which I doubt was a walk in the park. He also saw the end of the Vietnam War, and, like with Nixon, got the country refocused on the here, now and future rather than waddling in the past. My hat goes off to him for sticking it out through the bad times.

[jimmac]

That's another land mark passing. Like you said an ok guy thrust into the middle of things. That means he was 61 when he was in office. I didn't realize he was that old then. But a great thing to make it to 93.

[Aurora]

America will need another Ford to pick up the mess Bush has created. Partisons suck big F eggs. Ford wasnt Partison but a American working with both sides. King Bush could learn a lot from Ford. May he rest in peace.

[SDW2001]

America will need another Ford to pick up the mess Bush has created. Partisons suck big F eggs. Ford wasnt Partison but a American working with both sides. King Bush could learn a lot from Ford. May he rest in peace.

Why do you have to come in and try to derail the thread like that?

[SDW2001]

An ok guy... his presidency pretty much defined the crest of a swing in american politics from conservative to neocon (reagan was mostly an exception and old); from liberal with action to liberal with inaction...

He was more than an OK guy. He was a great man, an honest man who did something controversial. He will also be remembered for his never being elected to either the Presidency or the Vice Presidency.

Now, your statement: ...a swing in american politics from conservative to neocon

First, the term "neocon" is essentially meaningless now. It's become nothing but a rhetorical device that liberals think has a nice ring to it. But, that aside...it's not an acccurate statement to begin with. Such a swing would not explain the election of Carter. Also, are you claiming Bush 41 was a neocon? Clinton? As for Reagan...I've heard few people describe him as a neocon. Conservative...yes, but not one of the so called "Straussians" or "Vulcans" such as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

[Bergermeister]

Why do you have to come in and try to derail the thread like that?

I completely agree with the very appropriate statement that Bush could learn a lot from Ford. Many people could.

Ford put the past behind and tried to move forward; Bush is trying (pitifully) to complete his pappy's fight. He should have learned from Ford to move on.

When remembering someone, it is good to apply their life to the present. Ford, a former president (elected or not), had many qualities Bush needs to learn, not least: honesty. Actually, that is something a lot of people need to learn, and something that is actually very presidential IMO.

[@_@ Artman]

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/avproj/A4256-04.jpg

[SDW2001]

I completely agree with the very appropriate statement that Bush could learn a lot from Ford. Many people could.

Ford put the past behind and tried to move forward; Bush is trying (pitifully) to complete his pappy's fight. He should have learned from Ford to move on.

When remembering someone, it is good to apply their life to the present. Ford, a former president (elected or not), had many qualities Bush needs to learn, not least: honesty. Actually, that is something a lot of people need to learn, and something that is actually very presidential IMO.

That's just you guys bloviating rhetorical nonsense, as per usual. To quote our old friend Scott (Scott h phd):

"Rock 'N Roll Baby, Freedom of Speech!"

[hardeeharhar]

He was more than an OK guy. He was a great man, an honest man who did something controversial. He will also be remembered for his never being elected to either the Presidency or the Vice Presidency.

Now, your statement:

First, the term "neocon" is essentially meaningless now. It's become nothing but a rhetorical device that liberals think has a nice ring to it. But, that aside...it's not an acccurate statement to begin with. Such a swing would not explain the election of Carter. Also, are you claiming Bush 41 was a neocon? Clinton? As for Reagan...I've heard few people describe him as a neocon. Conservative...yes, but not one of the so called "Straussians" or "Vulcans" such as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney.

You are full of it. Neocon is a term created by the neocons, so if they didn't want it to be used to describe them, then they shouldn't have coined it in the first place. Carter was (is) a conservative southern democrat, Clinton was (is) a conservative southern democrat. I guess you didn't read my post, since I said that Reagan was mostly an exception, but honestly, look at the Iran-contra affair and the dealings of his obviously Neocon cabinet members in the world at large. Reagan was just a regal face on the ugly regime we currently have. As for Bush I, same deal as with Reagan but less obfuscated by real attempts at mock diplomacy -- Iraq I for all its legitimacy probably had the neocons of that time period salivating at the new world order... oh wait... it did.... Clinton's administration was a simple follow up -- we continued to police the world while paleocons, strangely, became doves...

Even Time magazine at the time of Iraq I was casting the war in terms of 'merican Leadership of an international coalition...

All of this was in the works when Nixon was president, but it wasn't until ford that that groomed generation of neocons secured their power and started changing the way the US approached international crises....

[SpamSandwich]

Throw the bums out...and a whole new bunch of bums move in to take their place. :rolleyes:

Oh, and my only memories of the Ford presidency were the Chevy Chase ones.

[hardeeharhar]

The guy led an interesting life...

Football star for Michigan, Yale Law graduate, Navy officer, Congressman, VP, President....

Too bad he won't ever live down the Nixon pardon.

I am sure he was an interesting guy, completely thrust into the limelight by Nixon and Nixon alone. Tricky Dick's shadow is just too dark to get out of...

[@_@ Artman]

http://tinyrevolution.com/mt-static/images/ford.jpg

[SDW2001]

You are full of it. Neocon is a term created by the neocons, so if they didn't want it to be used to describe them, then they shouldn't have coined it in the first place. Carter was (is) a conservative southern democrat, Clinton was (is) a conservative southern democrat. I guess you didn't read my post, since I said that Reagan was mostly an exception, but honestly, look at the Iran-contra affair and the dealings of his obviously Neocon cabinet members in the world at large. Reagan was just a regal face on the ugly regime we currently have. As for Bush I, same deal as with Reagan but less obfuscated by real attempts at mock diplomacy -- Iraq I for all its legitimacy probably had the neocons of that time period salivating at the new world order... oh wait... it did.... Clinton's administration was a simple follow up -- we continued to police the world while paleocons, strangely, became doves...

Even Time magazine at the time of Iraq I was casting the war in terms of 'merican Leadership of an international coalition...

All of this was in the works when Nixon was president, but it wasn't until ford that that groomed generation of neocons secured their power and started changing the way the US approached international crises....

You're deluded. Carter was a liberal. Clinton was liberal and turned towards the center to get reelected. Ironically, by calling them neocons or neocon-like, you further destroy any meaning the term had.

[hardeeharhar]

You're deluded. Carter was a liberal. Clinton was liberal and turned towards the center to get reelected. Ironically, by calling them neocons or neocon-like, you further destroy any meaning the term had.

Um, you are psychotic. I didn't call them neocons.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that Carter and Clinton were liberals, cut from the same cloth as Dukakis, for instance.

You have to understand my metric, I was surrounded in college by the entire range of liberality (and virtually no conservatives) that quite literally spawned Dukakis, and Clinton and Carter, well lets just say that their drinking buddies would have been those sparse conservatives. Mind you, before college I grew up surrounded by the entire range of conservatives (with very honest to god liberals)... I know the american political spectrum probably better than most people on this board, and Clinton and Carter, SDW, were no liberals.

[FormerLurker]

Turning back to President Ford for a minute....

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an interview never before published, former President Gerald Ford said President Bush and his chief advisers "made a big mistake" with their justifications for the Iraq war.

Ford made the comments in a four-hour interview in 2004 with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

Woodward is famous for being part of the writing duo who exposed the Watergate scandal, which led to Ford becoming president.

The interview was conducted at Ford's home in Beaver Creek, Colorado.

"I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly -- I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war," Ford said in a part of the interview broadcast on CNN's "Larry King Live" Wednesday.

"I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer," the former president said.

[Bergermeister]

The guy led an interesting life...

Football star for Michigan, Yale Law graduate, Navy officer, Congressman, VP, President....

Too bad he won't ever live down the Nixon pardon.



I wonder... He actually got the country past Nixon faster than had he not issued the pardon. So, while possibly screwing his own personal career in the short term (he made his riches after leaving office), he helped the country more than it could help itself. Can you imagine how drawn out and nasty any real investigation and trial would have been? The country would hhave self-destructed; luck at how devided we are here on AI over Bushie Baby (see the above posts); multiply it many fold and place it on a national scale. There were more important issues to be dealt with and life had to go on, and Ford led the way. I guess his trademark trips, falls, bumps and other bleeps and blunders prepped him in a good way to fall down for the greater good and yet still hold his head high.

By the way, I love the photo of him and Bush in April posted on CNN. Bush has his signature swagger and stupid, proud smirk ("I's great cuz I'z be an president") and Ford is leaning on a cane with an incredible look of utter disbelief/consternation ("Just who the FFFF do you think you are, moron, and what the FFFF are you doing to the country?"). The entire contents of that look are in the CNN article; Ford really didn't like what is going on in Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/27/ford.iraq/index.html

[Bergermeister]

Lots of bipartisan input saying how Ford helped the country heal at a time of need:
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/27/ford.obit/index.html

Nixon was crap, yes, and personally I wish Ford had not pardoned him.

However:

Vietnam was crap. The Cold War was crap. The energy crisis was crap. The economy was crap. Ford had a full platter of active problems without Nixon, and he chose to deal with them rather than get diverted by another event that was, in a manner of speaking, complete (as in Nixon was out of office).

Other presidents have made very questionable pardons, too; it is a prerogative of the position, whether we like it or not. Ford was unfortunate enough to be in a position where the president was the guilty party, a scenario that hopefully never occurs again (but with Bush running wild who knows), thus making his decision that much heavier and his pardon echo for eternity.

Just one way of looking at it.

Personally, I wish Nixon had spent the remainder of his days in a cell.
-----

CNN quotes Woodward quoting Ford on Bushie Baby:
"I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."

[SDW2001]

Um, you are psychotic. I didn't call them neocons.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the assertion that Carter and Clinton were liberals, cut from the same cloth as Dukakis, for instance.

You have to understand my metric, I was surrounded in college by the entire range of liberality (and virtually no conservatives) that quite literally spawned Dukakis, and Clinton and Carter, well lets just say that their drinking buddies would have been those sparse conservatives. Mind you, before college I grew up surrounded by the entire range of conservatives (with very honest to god liberals)... I know the american political spectrum probably better than most people on this board, and Clinton and Carter, SDW, were no liberals.

Well, it's all relative, it's true. But you made the statement that the nation went from being "conservative" to being "neocon." That would imply that future Presidents were cut of the neocon cloth. While Clinton and Carter weren't exactly Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, they were certainly nowhere near what most people consider to be neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al).

What you're really taking issue with, it seems, is America's policy of being the World Police. That policy has been in effect since at least the end of WWII. We intervened in Korea and Vietnam prior to the country becoming "neoconned."

[SDW2001]

Amazing what happens when you leave the American people with no recourse for punishing a President who clearly broke the law...



What needed "helping?"



:wow:

The horror, the horror.

A... congressional investigation...of a President who left office with a 24% approval rating.

The American people can't take it!



The country would have self destructed!

Chaos in the streets!



I'd say that was a pretty damn important issue.



There was no greater good he served other than his "corrupt bargain."

Well it's clear where you stand, now isn't it?

There is at least a good case for pardoning Nixon. A Berger says, it would have been chaos. Do you really think the country would have benefited in any way from a trial, jail, etc? Perhaps you can make the case that it would look good internationally. But it may not have. It may have just served to weaken the Ford administration which of course, had done nothing wrong. It's more likely that it would have weakened our international standing even further. What Ford did showed Nixon's guilt and spared the country from the circus of a trial.

[hardeeharhar]

Well, it's all relative, it's true. But you made the statement that the nation went from being "conservative" to being "neocon." That would imply that future Presidents were cut of the neocon cloth. While Clinton and Carter weren't exactly Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, they were certainly nowhere near what most people consider to be neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al).

What you're really taking issue with, it seems, is America's policy of being the World Police. That policy has been in effect since at least the end of WWII. We intervened in Korea and Vietnam prior to the country becoming "neoconned."

No. It would imply that all future 'conservative' presidents were neocons -- the 'liberal' presidents would have to respond to neocon conservative members of congress. Policing of the world through agencies like the UN etc and the vernacular used with it is far different than similar acts done by neocons. One tries to maintain peace and decorum, and the other tries to ensure maintenance of the american hegemony.

I am not suggesting the nation suddenly became conservative, i am suggesting that at Ford the neocons began directing the future actions of the conservative party -- the republicans...

[jimmac]

Well, it's all relative, it's true. But you made the statement that the nation went from being "conservative" to being "neocon." That would imply that future Presidents were cut of the neocon cloth. While Clinton and Carter weren't exactly Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis, they were certainly nowhere near what most people consider to be neocons (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al).

What you're really taking issue with, it seems, is America's policy of being the World Police. That policy has been in effect since at least the end of WWII. We intervened in Korea and Vietnam prior to the country becoming "neoconned."

Yes and both were mistakes. As is Iraq! the question is when will we learn we can't do this on our own and when will we stop investing in wars that don't need that kind of solution?

[SDW2001]

No. It would imply that all future 'conservative' presidents were neocons -- the 'liberal' presidents would have to respond to neocon conservative members of congress. Policing of the world through agencies like the UN etc and the vernacular used with it is far different than similar acts done by neocons. One tries to maintain peace and decorum, and the other tries to ensure maintenance of the american hegemony.

I am not suggesting the nation suddenly became conservative, i am suggesting that at Ford the neocons began directing the future actions of the conservative party -- the republicans...

Well that's where it gets dicey as the meaning of the term comes into question. It depends on your definition. My understanding of the term is: "A person who advocates America's dominance in the world, who believes America's power entitles and requires it to intervene in nearly all foreign affairs, and one who believes America should use its military power (in particular) to project that power across the globe."

At least, that is how most liberals use the term. Take a look at what Wiki says on the problems with the term:

Shortcomings and criticism of the term "Neoconservative"
Some of those identified as neoconservatives refuse to embrace the term. Critics argue that it lacks coherent definition [citation needed], that it is coherent only in a Cold War context, or is used as a pejorative by anti-Semites. See e.g. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, in a letter from Washington for Sunday, April 6, 2003:
First, "neo-conservative" is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel.
The fact that the use of the term "neoconservative" has rapidly risen since the 2003 Iraq War is cited by conservatives as proof that the term is largely irrelevant in the long term. David Horowitz, a conservative author, offered this critique in a recent interview with an Italian newspaper:
Neo-conservatism is a term almost exclusively used by the enemies of America's liberation of Iraq. There is no "neo-conservative" movement in the United States. When there was one, it was made up of former Democrats who embraced the welfare state but supported Ronald Reagan's Cold War policies against the Soviet bloc. Today neo-conservatism identifies those who believe in an aggressive policy against radical Islam and the global terrorists.
Similarly, many other supposed neoconservatives believe that the term has been adopted by the political left to stereotype supporters of U.S. foreign policy under the George W. Bush administration. Others have similarly likened descriptions of neoconservatism to a conspiracy theory and attribute the term to anti-Semitism. Paul Wolfowitz has denounced the term as a meaningless label, saying:
[If] you read the Middle Eastern press, it seems to be a euphemism for some kind of nefarious Zionist conspiracy. But I think that, in my view it's very important to approach [foreign policy] not from a doctrinal point of view. I think almost every case I know is different. Indonesia is different from the Philippines. Iraq is different from Indonesia. I think there are certain principles that I believe are American principles – both realism and idealism. I guess I'd like to call myself a democratic realist. I don't know if that makes me a neo-conservative or not.
Jonah Goldberg and others have rejected the label as trite and over-used, arguing "There's nothing 'neo' about me: I was never anything other than conservative." Other critics have similarly argued the term has been rendered meaningless through excessive and inconsistent use [citation needed]. For example, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are often identified as leading "neoconservatives" despite the fact that both men have ostensibly been life-long conservative Republicans (though Cheney has been vocally supportive of the ideas of Irving Kristol). Such critics thus largely reject the claim that there is a neoconservative movement separate from traditional American conservatism [citation needed].
Other traditional conservatives are likewise skeptical of the contemporary usage of the term, and may dislike being associated with the stereotypes, or even the supposed agendas of neoconservatism. Conservative columnist David Harsanyi wrote, "These days, it seems that even temperate support for military action against dictators and terrorists qualifies you a neocon."
During the 1970s, for example in a book on the movement by Peter Steinfels, the use of the term neoconservative was never identified with the writings of Leo Strauss. The near synonymity, in some quarters, of neoconservatism and Straussianism is a much more recent phenomenon, which suggests that perhaps two quite distinct movements have become merged into one, either in fact or in the eyes of certain beholders.
[edit]Pejorative use
The term is frequently used pejoratively, both by self-described paleoconservatives, who oppose neoconservatism from the right, and by Democratic politicians opposing neoconservatives from the left. Recently, Democratic politicians and television personalities, notably ex-Carter speechwriter and Hardball host Chris Matthews, have used the term to criticize the Republican policies and leaders of the current Bush administration. [citation needed]


In summary...it's a real term, but it's really been perverted into a nothing but a derogatory rhetorical device.

[@_@ Artman]

In summary...it's a real term, but it's really been perverted into a nothing but a derogatory rhetorical device.

Hey SDW2001. Have you watched "The Power of Nightmares"? It has been described as the best documentary showing the birth of American neo-conservatism and radical Islamists in 1949 and the subsequent variations (and distortions) of today's usage of these groups and terms. Very good watching...

Part 1: Baby It's Cold Outside (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5042711310749426183&q=the+power+of+nightmares)
Part 2: The Phantom Victory
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8828105995955577664&q=the+power+of+nightmares)
Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8732625326538179377&q=the+power+of+nightmares)

There's the whole set. For anyone else too. :smokey:

[FormerLurker]

In summary...it's a real term, but it's really been perverted into a nothing but a derogatory rhetorical device.
Ah, I see.

Just like "liberal".

[hardeeharhar]

Ah, I see.

Just like "liberal".

You know those neocons and their postmodern imperialistic augmentation of the manifest destiny... just like those weak wrist liberals...

Yeah... the caricatures are exactly on par with one another...

[SpamSandwich]

Saw a wonderful interview with Ford by Cokie Roberts on public television last night. I have new found respect for the man, I really never truly understood his historic role until I saw that interview.

[midwinter]

Ah, I see.

Just like "liberal".

Damn. Beat me to it!

[SDW2001]

Hey SDW2001. Have you watched "The Power of Nightmares"? It has been described as the best documentary showing the birth of American neo-conservatism and radical Islamists in 1949 and the subsequent variations (and distortions) of today's usage of these groups and terms. Very good watching...

Part 1: Baby It's Cold Outside (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5042711310749426183&q=the+power+of+nightmares)
Part 2: The Phantom Victory
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8828105995955577664&q=the+power+of+nightmares)
Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8732625326538179377&q=the+power+of+nightmares)

There's the whole set. For anyone else too. :smokey:

I started watching it and will finish when I have time. It looks like each part is what...an hour? One problem I'll tell you about right now...it starts from the viewpoint that the War on Terror is nothing but a control mechanism and that the governments of the West are exaggerating the threat for their own gain. I won't accept that premise, but I'll watch it all when I can.

[SDW2001]

Ah, I see.

Just like "liberal".

We're really getting semantical now, but I would argue that term "liberal" is more easily defined.

[midwinter]

We're really getting semantical now, but I would argue that term "liberal" is more easily defined.

That's funny.

[SDW2001]

That's funny.


Why??

[midwinter]

Why??

I would hope that it's obvious: you are saying that one of the broadest of broad political categories (liberal/conservative), and one whose ideology/alignment has shifted radically from its inception in the 19th century until now, is easier to define than a very, very specific political movement occurring within a specific wing of the conservative movement in America, with very specific origins in Chicago and well documented members and philosophies and think-tanks associated with it.

In short: you toss "liberal" around as if it means something between "I don't like it" and "they eat babies." When I, and most of the left-ish folks around here toss around "neoconservative," we're talking about a very specific group of folks with a very (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) specific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol) ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism).

[gregmightdothat]

@ Midwinter

That is hilarious and perfectly succinct.

[SDW2001]

I would hope that it's obvious: you are saying that one of the broadest of broad political categories (liberal/conservative), and one whose ideology/alignment has shifted radically from its inception in the 19th century until now, is easier to define than a very, very specific political movement occurring within a specific wing of the conservative movement in America, with very specific origins in Chicago and well documented members and philosophies and think-tanks associated with it.

In short: you toss "liberal" around as if it means something between "I don't like it" and "they eat babies." When I, and most of the left-ish folks around here toss around "neoconservative," we're talking about a very specific group of folks with a very (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss) specific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol) ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism).

Perhaps it should be easier to define, but I don't think it is in reality, at least as most people use the terms. It's clear you understand the meaning of the term. However, the masses now use it in a way that has distorted it's meaning. That's where I'm going.

[sammi jo]

Well it's clear where you stand, now isn't it?

There is at least a good case for pardoning Nixon. A Berger says, it would have been chaos. Do you really think the country would have benefited in any way from a trial, jail, etc? Perhaps you can make the case that it would look good internationally. But it may not have. It may have just served to weaken the Ford administration which of course, had done nothing wrong. It's more likely that it would have weakened our international standing even further. What Ford did showed Nixon's guilt and spared the country from the circus of a trial.

Wow! Conservatives going soft on crime? Whatever next?

:wow:

[midwinter]

Perhaps it should be easier to define, but I don't think it is in reality, at least as most people use the terms. It's clear you understand the meaning of the term. However, the masses now use it in a way that has distorted it's meaning. That's where I'm going.

Are you talking about "liberal" or "neoconservative"? If you're talking about "liberal," you're talking about a living, breathing political ideology, just like "conservative," and so defining them strictly is impossible. We can describe their current characteristics, but that doesn't mean they won't change.

If you mean neoconservative, then it's not my fault that some people may use the term without knowing what it means. But the fact of the matter is that this administration is thoroughly neoconservative and has run off any "paleoconservatives" who got in the way (e.g. Powell, Clark) of their agenda.

I don't know what, specifically, you're objecting to about the way "neoconservative" gets bandied about. Could you provide an example?

[SDW2001]

Are you talking about "liberal" or "neoconservative"? If you're talking about "liberal," you're talking about a living, breathing political ideology, just like "conservative," and so defining them strictly is impossible. We can describe their current characteristics, but that doesn't mean they won't change.

If you mean neoconservative, then it's not my fault that some people may use the term without knowing what it means. But the fact of the matter is that this administration is thoroughly neoconservative and has run off any "paleoconservatives" who got in the way (e.g. Powell, Clark) of their agenda.

I don't know what, specifically, you're objecting to about the way "neoconservative" gets bandied about. Could you provide an example?

I'm talking about the term "neocon." It's difficult to provide a specific example to be honest. In general I hear it lobbed at anyone who supports or at least doesn't viciously attack George W. Bush. It's often used to describe the GOP in general, and anyone who votes for them. It's bothersome because it's essentially a specific political ideology. But even there, it's problematic because it's nearly always used in a derogatory sense. I've never heard someone describe himself as a Neocon, have you? My point is that it's become nothing but a tool for attack.

Liberal, on the other hand, at least has some current meaning. It's true that it's used as a slur as well, but that's where the similarity ends. Liberals today generally believe in more government spending on social programs, greater government control of the economy and wealth, less military spending and less use of military force, higher taxes, support of labor unions and minimum wage increases, etc. Most people (from my perspective) that use the term in a derogatory way use it in that context.

[midwinter]

I'm talking about the term "neocon." It's difficult to provide a specific example to be honest.

That might suggest where the problem is.

In general I hear it lobbed at anyone who supports or at least doesn't viciously attack George W. Bush.

Again. A quote? A pile of quotes?

It's often used to describe the GOP in general, and anyone who votes for them.

Where? By whom?

It's bothersome because it's essentially a specific political ideology. But even there, it's problematic because it's nearly always used in a derogatory sense.

It wasn't derogatory until everything the neoconservatives touched started turning to shit.

I've never heard someone describe himself as a Neocon, have you?

Yes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp). Another term for it is "Straussian." Are there any *elected* politicians who openly claim to be neoconservatives? Dunno. Hard enough to find any right now who will admit they're Republicans. ;) But the neoconservatives in this administration tend to be either appointees or advisers or folks in thinktanks. Condi Rice is a neoconservative. Wolfowitz is. Perle is. Feith is. PNAC is a thinktank full of them.

My point is that it's become nothing but a tool for attack.

Well, it's pretty clearly a failed political ideology. It had a good run from Reagan and reached its culmination in GW Bush. And it has failed. Miserably. Horribly. And so if people speak of it and its proponents with contempt, that's understandable. If people spoke of it with contempt before it had clearly failed, that's fine, too. But without any evidence to back up what you're saying, I'm not really with you on this.

Liberal, on the other hand, at least has some current meaning.

That's a far cry from your original statement.

It's true that it's used as a slur as well, but that's where the similarity ends.

It's been so effectively used as a slur that even the whacko crazy howl at the moon liberal democrats DON'T USE IT ANYMORE.

Liberals today generally believe in more government spending on social programs, greater government control of the economy and wealth, less military spending and less use of military force, higher taxes, support of labor unions and minimum wage increases, etc.

OK. I'd have just said "Liberals think that government can be a force for good in people's lives and that it can help make America a better place."

But less military spending and less use of force? Have you looked at what the Democratic Presidents have done?

Most people (from my perspective) that use the term in a derogatory way use it in that context.

I don't know about most people, but from my perspective, when Rush or Coulter or whomever uses the word "liberal," it is either to describe a group of people who are stupid, evil, or utterly beneath contempt and who are best talked to with a baseball bat.

[SDW2001]

That might suggest where the problem is.



Again. A quote? A pile of quotes?



Where? By whom?



It wasn't derogatory until everything the neoconservatives touched started turning to shit.



Yes (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp). Another term for it is "Straussian." Are there any *elected* politicians who openly claim to be neoconservatives? Dunno. Hard enough to find any right now who will admit they're Republicans. ;) But the neoconservatives in this administration tend to be either appointees or advisers or folks in thinktanks. Condi Rice is a neoconservative. Wolfowitz is. Perle is. Feith is. PNAC is a thinktank full of them.



Well, it's pretty clearly a failed political ideology. It had a good run from Reagan and reached its culmination in GW Bush. And it has failed. Miserably. Horribly. And so if people speak of it and its proponents with contempt, that's understandable. If people spoke of it with contempt before it had clearly failed, that's fine, too. But without any evidence to back up what you're saying, I'm not really with you on this.



That's a far cry from your original statement.



It's been so effectively used as a slur that even the whacko crazy howl at the moon liberal democrats DON'T USE IT ANYMORE.



OK. I'd have just said "Liberals think that government can be a force for good in people's lives and that it can help make America a better place."

But less military spending and less use of force? Have you looked at what the Democratic Presidents have done?



I don't know about most people, but from my perspective, when Rush or Coulter or whomever uses the word "liberal," it is either to describe a group of people who are stupid, evil, or utterly beneath contempt and who are best talked to with a baseball bat.


It's not really possible to provide quotes because I'm talking about everyday folks that I've listened to and spoken to, and read here on AI and elsewhere. Your common pundits tend to use it in their stupid shouting arguments on Fox and MSNBC. I've heard it used countless times, and rarely in the right context.

You mention some specific personalities, but that begs the question: Who labeled them as such? Their political opposition did. While you "dunno" if politicians would call themselves neocons, I know for sure I've never heard one of those folks describe themselves as such.

This presents a further problem in labeling it "a failed political ideology." First, that's not entirely clear, because you're only saying that due to the state of the Iraq War at present. Second, the term becomes intertwined easily with "paleoconservative." if Reagan was a Neocon, was GHWB as well? Hardly.

But less military spending and less use of force? Have you looked at what the Democratic Presidents have done?

Who might you be talking about exactly? Lyndon Johnson? Harry Truman? You know full well that those Dems were not the same as todays Dems. Do Carter and Clinton not fit the bill?

[dmz]

Christopher Hitchens (http://www.slate.com/id/2156400/fr/flyout) weighed in on Ford a couple of days ago. As usual, he's hard to argue with.

No one can escape their age.

[midwinter]

It's not really possible to provide quotes because I'm talking about everyday folks that I've listened to and spoken to, and read here on AI and elsewhere. Your common pundits tend to use it in their stupid shouting arguments on Fox and MSNBC. I've heard it used countless times, and rarely in the right context.

Then you ought to be able to supply some kind of evidence for this perception you have.

You mention some specific personalities, but that begs the question: Who labeled them as such? Their political opposition did.

Evidence?

While you "dunno" if politicians would call themselves neocons, I know for sure I've never heard one of those folks describe themselves as such.

That's great. But what you've heard is a pretty limited sample.

This presents a further problem in labeling it "a failed political ideology." First, that's not entirely clear, because you're only saying that due to the state of the Iraq War at present.

and Afghanistan.

Second, the term becomes intertwined easily with "paleoconservative." if Reagan was a Neocon, was GHWB as well? Hardly.

What on earth are you talking about? Reagan was a neocon? New one on me. There were staffers there (coming from Ford) who were. Same for GHWB, but GHWB wasn't a neoconservative and nor was his admin. Bush, on the other hand, has thoroughly embraced these people.

Who might you be talking about exactly? Lyndon Johnson? Harry Truman? You know full well that those Dems were not the same as todays Dems. Do Carter and Clinton not fit the bill?

I'm pointing out that no Democratic president we've ever had has cut spending and use of force. Johnson and Truman, obviously. Clinton had troops all over the place and was lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq and Afghanistan ever other month. I seem to remember Carter expanding troop numbers in Europe as part of his dealings with the USSR.

Think about this: the Pentagon is the biggest government bureaucracy/gov't office there is. Why would the democrats, who like big gummit, not love it?

[dmz]

...and was lobbing cruise missiles into Iraq and Afghanistan ever other month.

I think you meant to type 'ever other day.'

[midwinter]

I think you meant to type 'ever other day.'

Nah. It wasn't that frequent.

[dmz]

Rats, now I'm confusing the ME with the Balkans! I said kiddlies, diddle I?

[midwinter]

Rats, now I'm confusing the ME with the Balkans! I said kiddlies, diddle I?

Well, technically, the Balkans was a NATO thing. ;)

[@_@ Artman]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20061228/lpo061227.gif