Paleocons were never Democrats, bucky1. You are confusing them with neocons. And it's not them we need. If it was we'd be in deep shit. Time for another edition of Sectors of the American Right. ...

Sorry fellow, but I lived it, and you are just plain wrong.

The old south of the 60s, 70s and even into the 80s, was solid Democratic and even was called "The Solid South" in politics. In Florida, we used to say that a flying elephant was more common than a Republican.

These solidly conservative people morphed into "paleo-conservatives" who are trapped in the Republican party. The simple fact that Presidential politics from the 70s on shows a bias in favor of the GOP should tell even a Democratic Strategist (stupidest sort of fraud) that they have lost a whole branch of the FDR coalition. Sure, neo-cons used to be Democrats; but they are few in number even if they are the intellectual force behind our destruction. Paleo-conservatives are closer (real differences to be sure) to libertarian thought --- and many libertarians joined the Republican party long ago as there was no place else to be, and RR talked a good game.

LWM, where do you think all the 'Reagan Democrats' came from? Do you think they were all neo-cons? Balderdash. They were conservatives who should properly be labeled 'paleo-conservatives' who left the GOP when the 'new-left' took over and now are in the Republican party being led astray by neo-cons (like Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds) to the dismay and destruction of us all.

Your little label list (for the slow witted) contains the common slurs against paleo-conservatives that lefties like to trot out. That does not make it so. (and I really thought so much better of you) This explanation is shallow, but much closer than your slander.

"... Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleo or paleocon when the context is clear) is an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian[1] right wing movement based primarily in the United States that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity.[2] Chilton Williamson, Jr. describes paleoconservatism as "the expression of rootedness: a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture — an identity that is both collective and personal.”[3] Paleoconservativism is not expressed as an ideology and its adherents do not necessarily subscribe to any one party line.[4] ..." (wikipedia)

Paleo-conservatives can also be called (loosely speaking) Taft conservatives, and many Republicans love to remind paleo-cons that Taft was indeed a Republican. I try to remind them that Taft could not get elected in today's GOP! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taft)

The Democrats may win in 2008 even while demonizing the paleos, but you will not hold power long enough to fix this country until the Democratic party gets the votes of a deeply broad cross-section of America. The party that stops trying to win with just sop to its own base and tries to build a broad alliance has a chance to govern for good of the country and for a long time. Or, the Dems could just force the paleo-conservitives to stay in the Republican party and thus remain in the political wilderness, except when the GOP totally fscks up the country badly enough so they stay home on election day. (great deal, you only get to govern when it is all screwed up)

Democrats can be so dense. :-(

PS: The key is to remind the paleo-conservatives and the left that both sides honor the style of government we called "Jeffersonian Democracy" to a large extent even as they disagree at the margin.

... and attacks Ron Paul

LWM wrote "... Even a stopped clock like Ron Paul is right twice a day. ... Darfur or someplace else ... Paul wouldn't care less. Then there is the small matter of Paul dismantling and dissolving the entire federal government. You couldn't even eat hash with any safety. ..."

Why not tell us what you think? :-)

Where to start? Let us start by LWM's wanting to murder people in Darfur. Perhaps it never occurred to him that the policies of our empire has led to human tragedy like this? Could he be that dense? I guess so. What next? Will he call for the invasion of the world? Is there an evil anywhere in the whole world that we may decry and cry out about --- but not invade?

I guess the old wag was right; lefties love war just as much as wing-nuts --- they only have different targets in mind.

Then there is our great FDA that he claims is the only reason he can eat his hash safely. What a joke that is. The agency set up to protect the corporations will protect our food? He obviously does not keep up with the doings of our "great daddy protectors" over at the FDA. Plus, how did we humans survive the millions of years before the FDA? It is a mystery, my son.

Next he will tell us that the TSA is the only reason one can travel the friendly skies in safety! What a hoot.

Ron Paul believes that the central government is too big and to powerful --- LWM loves it as is. I leave it to you to decide if we could not remove even one little department.

LWM wrote: "Neither would Eisenhower, Goldwate, Nixon, Pete McCloskey or even Reagan. Being a paleocon yourself explains the density issue."

Hmmmm. Now you claim that Anarco-capitalists are the same as paleo-conservatives? By gosh you are dense. Does it hurt to be that stupid?

You seem to to be able to read; I bet it is just your mindless hatred getting in you way. sad, it is.