What do republicans mean when they call people in their party neo-cons & say this people are not conservatives?

preventive war they endorse the American empire a powerful federal government (powerful military) attack civil liberties (patriot act) neo cons oppose neutrality in foreign affairs no opposition to the welfare state they believe lying is necessary for the state to survive (Weapons of mass destruction maybe torture is were they got their information from) they despise the constitution (smearing libertarians) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFsA3bcpDXc I believe the neo-cons are the Military Industrial Complex. 1961 speech President & WWII General Dwight D Eisenhower warned us... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8wwMFmCeE "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. " -Dwight D Eisenhower A real republican supports the constitution, and smaller government.

A "traditional" Republican is about lower taxes, smaller government, greater personal freedom AND responsibility, responsible gun ownership and maintaining (but not necessarily deploying) a strong military. And of course being anti-abortion. A "neocon" Republican is about lower taxes for the rich, smaller government through the elimination of social programs and safety/environmental/financial regulations, bombing the ever-living s**t out of any country that doesn't agree with them, denying gays equal rights, unlimited, no-questions-asked, better-buy-some-body-armor gun ownership and turning America into a Christian theocrasy. And of course being anti-abortion. It's pretty hard to argue with the platform of the traditional Republican (ignoring for the moment that many people strongly disagree on the abortion issue). "Reagan Democrats" proved this in the 80's. It's pretty hard not to just want to push an neocon off a cliff.

That is what the rest of the world calls tryhing to rewrte history. They got their way for 8 years, screwed everything up and now they want claim it wasn't their fault

Chris here, has it pretty much right. The difference is.....republicans lost, and they need a scapegoat.......so their GREAT idea, was to blame the whole thing, on ROGUE republicans, in their own party. BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!! George Bush.??? He was a ROGUE republican, so now it's OKAY to bash him. McCain? Well, he was always a ROGUE, so the election was HIS fault. Sarah Palin? Well, she might prove useful in the future..........so she's okay............ basically, anyone expendable, and out of power, is suddenly a "ROGUE" republican who RUINED the party........and any Neo con, who MIGHT be useful in the future...is just a misunderstood good guy. A true Patriot........who wants to SAVE the country! I wonder why republicans of all stripes then, voted in lockstep with Bush.......and Oppose everything Obama does? But we're suppose to believe there's TWO seperate camps now...... The "Bad" republicans,.....and, uh.....the GOOD ones, who still repeat whatever trash Rush tell them to. yeah, Dick Cheney........going on his "Bash Obama" speaking tour.......yeah., see.......he's a ROGUE republican, giving the party a black eye. Sean Hannity, and Glen Beck and Rush, agreeing with everything Dick sez though............somehow , we're suppose to believe they are GOOD republicans, when they say the same things though. The whole thing is pretty laughable, isn't it?

Actually it's a bit of an anatomy lesson. When I first started studying these guys, a friend sent me this link - it's trite, flashy and just a little left of center, but it's also fairly accurate - for a 3 minute spot. You basically have 3 general groups of Republicans, and there is a 4th group that largely does not exist any longer. This is - of course - a vast generalization and I'll post a few links if you are interested. Firstly you have - let's call them - traditional conservatives - these are folks who believe in smaller government, less taxes and allowing corporations to do as they please with a limited amount (or no) regulation regarding their activities. These folks are quite respectable in most cases, but over the decades there have been a few compromises which have occurred which have corrupted this relatively simple "libertarian" ideal. After the social upheavals of the 1960's there were two currents in American politics which found their way to conservatism. First was "social" conservatives, which basically stemmed in opposition to the 1960's civil rights movement. Social "conservatives" who might have otherwise been democratic or simply uninterested in politics, found great offense at the equal rights and civil rights movements - particularly the federally enforced civil rights of Blacks during the 1960's in the South and elsewhere in the US. In the mid 1960's you saw a slow groundswell of folks who were socially conservative (not racist per se) but who felt socially uncomfortable with any number of ideas they saw threatening their beliefs or values , so whether it was hippies and free-love, or rioting against the Viet Nam War, or Civil Rights activism, basically you have a group that worked in reaction to those movements. Gradually, through the use of Marketing and demographic analysis this group was brought into close concert, and the Republican party benefited TREMENDOUSLY, during the 1970's and 1980's by defining a set of "planks" or agenda items which were hot-buttons and for which social conservatives would both volunteer to support and vote during elections. Very gradually this was integrated into the evangelical protestantism of the south and the GOP found the miracle of voters that would turn out in droves, so long as you play their tune, so concepts of opposing gay / womens or civil rights generally, gun regulation or other items became standard stuff. The Neoconservatives are a very different group, and are an extraordinarily small but powerfully influential group, these guys largely were liberals (even radical liberals - Trotskyists) in most cases), and in the first "generation" that's almost exclusively what they were. As I mentioned, there were VERY few of these neoconservatives, although not exclusively Jewish, after the 1970's they determined that liberalism was "not in the best interests of Israel", and so slowly migrated over the early 1970's towards being "new" conservatives. In a way it's almost appropriate to consider them a cabal as do several critical writers of their influence. This was a marriage of convenience - in that neoconservative writers provided some intellectual horsepower to some of the otherwise defunct ideals of libertarian thinking. There were some notable personalities which were and have been persistent throughout the rise and (hopefully) the fall of the Neoconservative movement. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Irving & William Krystal, Donald & Robert Kagan, Norman & John Podhertz and various others loosely followed an ideology framed by the writings of a philosophy professor at University of Chicago named Leo Strauss. Strauss himself - profoundly ironically was a Jewish emigre of European, who in short wrote extensively on the virtues of Fascism and more specifically wrote extensively on the concepts of tyranny , fascism and the ideal form of Democracy, (Totalitarian Democracy). In this way, this MUCH smaller group became disproportionately powerful over the Republican party as the 1980's came through. Many of these personalities landed government positions, and their actions lead directly to the Iran Contra Affair of the 1st Reagan Administration. Regular Conservatives in the Reagan Administration, George Schultz, James Baker and others had to sideline or contain Neoconservatives acting on their own ideological impulses against the interests of either the US or the administration. Here's a classical example of Richard Perle in action As time wore on, evangelicals and these neoconservatives became increasingly powerful and influential in Conservative circles. With the advent of cable News and specifically FOX News, their power - rhetorical and real - became even more distorted, and dominant within the GOP over other opinions or political/ideological viewpoints. With the election of George Bush (2), you had a perfect storm for neoconservatives. An inexperienced president, their militarism and hard-line ideological views, and influence in various important parts of the US government. After 9/11 - things took a TRAGIC turn. Prior to 9/11 the Project for the New American Century was the ONLY political action group in Washington calling for the forcible ouster of Saddam Hussein. The influence and effect on oil policy , also cannot be understated, which is where Cheney and Rumsfeld come into play getting - in war - what they could not achieve by other means. By example consider some of the problems with US policy in the Middle East as seen by those in the Middle East. Which made Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld additional conduits for expressing and "selling" the president on Neoconservative ideals. The Office of Special Plans, was a successful 5th column effort in the United States Pentagon to advocate and "select" intelligence to further the aims of predominantly Israeli interests in destabilizing unfriendly nations around Israel ( Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Iran) . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans The start of Neoconservative downfall was during the height of their power, during the 2004 and again in 2006 election cycle, Republicans found themselves in the position of trying to run candidates who had some serious personal,professional and ethical challenges. After trying to foist a child-molester upon Floridians, as an upstanding supporter of "family values", the Social Conservatives abandoned the GOP in LARGE numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley Coupled with the dubious actions and activities regarding the justification for the war in Iraq itself, and particularly the obvious cronism and incompetence the GOP suffered two hits in two areas where they claimed superiority & strength. Social Values and National Defense. Essentially , the wheels fell off the GOP election cart. Today, we are debating - slowly - the torture policies and other profoundly disturbing activities of the Bush(2) presidency and there is now a call for the heads of those who promoted these policies and the war generally. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1003188675654300379&ei=j8UpSuSWEaSOrALVzfCcCg&hl=en&emb=1 In this way, Neoconservatives may never stand trial for war-crimes or implementing policies of torture, but they were run out of town, and these days apparently are being made out as scapegoats - after a fashion. After so much death and destruction on their account, particularly the destruction of Iraq, perhaps Mr. Krystal's and his friends heads on a pikes - outside the senate as a reminder of undue and unwarranted influence would be satisfying. But I suspect that for the well-being of the Republic we should avoid the tendency to persecute unjustly , simply take the mike away from these guys, prosecute the guilty and remember their antics - next time. Personally I would like to see them brought to justice, but I would be satisfied with their permanent removal from influence in the environs of Washington.

The 'Pure and innocent' have to blame someone when they lose, don't they? According to them all Liberals/Democrats are 'socialist scum', but they are 'Put any name you like here' Conservatives, Reagan Democrats, Bush Neocons, Rinos, blah, blah, blah, (what diversity!) but in reality they are just a bunch of 'old-or-middle-aged white men' overdosing on Viagra and destructive Righteousness'. Luckily their numbers are shrinking even as we speak.

A neocon is a person who was once a liberal, but became conservative over time. Ronald Reagan is a good example. He was the head of the Screen Actors Guild, of all things, and a Democrat.

The Neo Con label is misunderstood and over used however the shoe fits those you named. Another variety is the RINO, Bush also fits here as well as McCain and about half the Republicans in congress. Its no wonder they are in such disarray.

Actually, it's pretty seldom I hear a Republican call someone a neo-con. Almost always it's the Dems and liberals calling them that.