A Republican just told me he has never heard the word neocon

as in neoconservative. As in the Bush Adminsitration. I was floored. How can he never have heard this? He had just told me how much he liked Bush, and I started bringing up some things he didn't know about. At some point, I used the term neocon. I said, don't you know what their philosophy is? I told him to read PNAC's site. He hadn't heard of that, either. And he's a smart guy! Is this what we are up against? Completely uninformed voters on the right?

but he is obviously not well read in the political arena. Either that or he is in deep denial.

But most of them are clueless of the real facts. They just vote that way because they think they'll actually get to keep their money. (Which, as we all know, is total BS.)

There is a large group of voters who only care about "What's in it for me?"

They aren't among the 3% who were unemployed in November 2000, so they don't care about unemployment insurance. They aren't disabled, sick, or elderly so they don't care about Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. They already have health insurance, so they don't give a damn about National Health Care. All they know is that Bush will give them a tax cut. They don't know how much, but they know they get something.

They don't care about other people. They don't care about the budget deficit, the debt, or the future of America. They only care about tomorrow and what's in it for them tomorrow.

all the republicans I know who support Bush are plain and simply united with the party. They don't investigate anything, and when pressed, do nothing but spout what Rush tells them to say.

One even told me there's nothing wrong with McCarthyism if it makes us safer.... *barf*

there's a stretch

LOL. I suspect most regular people have no idea what the term "neocon" means. And most Bush voters don't even want to know, I'm afraid. ;-)

One of those guys who's so poor and barely getting by that you can't understand why he's a RetHUG, until he opens his mouth and out falls the distillation of years of Mega-Dittos and "Fair and Balanced".

These poor sods vote republican because they've been told that the liberals and Democrats are responsible for their sorry lot in life, what with all those "welfare queens" poppin' out kids every 6 months and living in The Hamptons on welfare, and raising your taxes to buy stupid shit like school for those welfare kids and pills for old people who just need to hurry up and die so you can get a better job and move out of that 1969 10X50 into a new dpouble-wide.....And if you keep voting for ReTHUGlicans, SOME day, YOUR ship will come in, and along with that double-wide, you can finally get a disability for that bad back you got showing-off at the cook-out after you saw that "Jackass" movie....

Is he one of those guys?

Lay this gem on him. I heard it attributed to Former ReTHUG Congressman J.C. Watts' dad:
"A Working Man votin' RePublican is like a Chicken Votin' for Col. Sanders..."

Nice guy. Very intelligent. That's what is so depressing.

The Cargo Cultists are the po' folk making less that 40 kilobucks.

Was his Dad a ReTHUG?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3544.htm

How We Got Into This Imperial Pickle: A PNAC Primer

By: Bernard Weiner

05/27/03: Recently, I was the guest on a radio talk-show hosted by a thoroughly decent far-right Republican. I got verbally battered, but returned fire and, I think, held my own. Toward the end of the hour, I mentioned that the National Security Strategy -- promulgated by the Bush Administration in September 2002 -- now included attacking possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent-war strategy, etc.

"I'm not making up this stuff," I said. "It's all talked about openly by the neo-conservatives of the Project for the New American Century -- who now are in charge of America's military and foreign policy -- and published as official U.S. doctrine in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America."

The talk-show host seemed to gulp, and then replied: "If you really can demonstrate all that, you probably can deny George Bush a second term in 2004."

(more)

No, actually that's your job...the media's job...to demonstrate what's actually happening in this country.

and not everyone is as engaged politically as we are. In fact, we are more the exception than the rule. In fact, this election will likely be won or lost based on the votes of people who don't even pay any attention to politics until the last few weeks of an election.
These people get snips of politics here and there...and often draw first impressions of candidates by accident.

that he is unaware of. Who does he think is in office, anyway, Eisenhower?

ARE THEY THAT DAMNED LAZY AND NAIVE?

I mean, I assumed he agreed with all this stuff and that was why he was backing Bush. It turns out he doesn't even know about what is going on.

If you are even slightly inquisitive, you will run across that term within a few hours.

How disappointing.

I think I only know one conservative that's known it.

There was one guy who knew it for a while and forgot it.

These people call themselves "conservatives" without knowing that there's a rift between the conservatives and the neoconservatives, which just goes to show how much of a culture of follower-types it is.

The other thing is I could right then and there explain all that stuff to them, but it's so far-out that it makes me look like a paranoid loonball. I have this theory that the Republicans are trying to do so many bad things at once that the average person couldn't possibly believe that any group of people would have the moxie to even attempt it. Like that's how they plan to get away with it.

You kind of see that at work with the "protest and pessimism" ad that they came up with. Like it works like this:

1. Do a bunch of really bad stuff.
2. Wait for them to complain about it - naturally it will be a lot of complaining if it's a lot of bad stuff.
3. Make it look like they complain too much since they're complaining about a lot of stuff.

I spoke with a very intelligent independent colleague who I respect very much. He has no idea what a neoconservative is. We need to educate.

When you live in an insular world alien to others, those others are as perplexed by you as you by them. One of the inherent side effects of conservatism is isolation; it's a philosophy of selfishness and banishment of contrary thought.

but the dots which are given to you are all lies. What is lacking in the Conservative is the ability to question authority.

"Are you a good conservative? Well you been neo-conned..." then continue with an explaination of the movement.

"Is this what you stand for?"

What the hell? Now I hear they think not only was she not outed, but she's not CIA. Are these people in la la land? I'm floored.

:eyes:

They think Bush = Eisenhower. Hell, they even think Bush Jr. = Bush Sr.

Even those I've met who oppose Bush don't know what I'm talking about. The plan to invade Iraq BEFORE 9/11! Really?

We must get the facts out there!

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/260903ronpaul.html

alot of people in this country don't have a clue. The media is partly to blame as well as all the propaganda.

The standard Rush/freep line is, "Liberals live in their little insulated world, where they just pat each other on the back and echo the party line."

But you come here, and people can talk, not merely about flavors of Democrats, but about the varieties of sociopathy that make up the Republican party.

Talk to Republicans, and they can't even tell you what their own party stands for, let alone anyone else's.

I put it down to projection: if you don't want to be challenged; if all you want is some easy slogans, it's best to believe that everyone else operates that way. "Hail. Ah jist say whut Rush sez. An' I know thim Dimicrats do the same."

Unfortunately, as you have demonstrated, it's not even limited to the Rush/freep stratum. Willful ignorance in the interest of petty gain is not a pretty sight.

BTW: There are, no doubt, Democrats who vote thet way acause their daddy did. But if you compare the discourse here with the discourse on rightist political fora (i.e., people with presumably the same level of political interest as here), the same principle holds.

But it's not his Daddy's Republicans in the White House.

I want Howard Dean to win the office of president. But if he does, I'll be damned if I'm going to rubber stamp him. I'm going to keep an eye on what he does, and if I don't like it, I'm going to say something.

I just don't get not being informed to the point where you trust your retirement savings and your civil liberties and everything else to ANYONE without taking a little time to find out what they are up to.

The laziness of not bothering to look past Fox News & Rush Limbaugh is disturbing enough.

But the readiness to believe in fairytales is even worse. I mean, believing Valerie Plume is not CIA? If I caught my source in one blatant lie, I'd never trust them again. If the WMD lies leading to $200 billion of our money spent and nearly 500 dead soldiers (and many more with horrible wounds) wasn't enough, I guess one outed CIA agent and her sources likely killed won't do the trick, either.

AUGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!