danivon wrote:Yes, "Darth Vader Republicans" was so helpful. So it's "not run of the mill" Republicans, but the ones who go around building Death Stars for Sith Lords?

Apart from the one guy named (Bill Kristol), it's not too specific, really. I have doubts as to whether Kristol will actually endorse Obama for re-election, as opposed to supporting one of his actions in government. Do you want to lay a wager on whether he does or not?

Danivon. NeoCons have a specific definition within the U.S. political spectrum. They tend to focus on foriegn affairs being quite hawkish. The tend to be willing to accept social democratic programs as long as foreign affairs is the primary focus.

I am aware of the US definition. I'm confused as to Neal's.

Frankly it's a term that gets bandied about a lot, like neoliberal, usually as a form of abuse, aimed at political opponents rather than as a constructive point. I'm still at a loss as to whether these 'neocons' will actually back Obama and have enough clout to give him the win over a Republican. Are there (apart from Paul) many Republicans who are less hawkish than Obama in a general sense? It's only Libya that seems to have been a point of difference, and frankly that looks like oppositionalism rather than principle.

danivon wrote:. I'm still at a loss as to whether these 'neocons' will actually back Obama and have enough clout to give him the win over a Republican.

I don't think they will. While they may be more happy with him based on his actions in Afghanistan and Libya, I don't think they will vote for a Democrat over a Republican unless that Republican is a like Ron Paul and says they are going to pull out of everything.

Of course, nobody seems to think I know what I am talking about so....

Owen's just trolling. ;) He knows full well what Neal was saying.

So, Russ, do we have a deal on my terms? Paul just has to match the aggregate. I orignially meant he would double each (not both combined), but this puts it somewhere between the two--in case one of them pulls a Ron Paul. :P

ARJ - I meant to type 'why' rather than 'whether'. As much as 'neocons' might have welcomed Libya and the killing of OBL, I can't see them seeing Obama as more of a hawk than a mainstream GOP candidate.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/241602/saturday-night-live-republican-ad#s-p1-sr-i4

For those who need little more information about some of the nondescript candidates.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110522/us_ ... ining_it_1

Russ, consider yourself lucky that I'm a nice guy and don't believe we had our deal confirmed. :P

Guapo wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110522/us_ac/8517281_mitch_daniels_bows_out_of_presidential_race_before_joining_it_1

Russ, consider yourself lucky that I'm a nice guy and don't believe we had our deal confirmed. :P

Well, I don't think I have lost yet because the agreement was that Ron Paul would get more then the two of the combined. Since Daniels isn't running, it means Jon Huntsman has to get more votes (as a percentage) then Ron Paul. I am willing to say that is the deal. However, I would make it subject to Huntsman actually running.

Ok. I am good with that. Casa Vicente is my favorite restaurant. ;)

Could Gary Johnson be the most successful libertarian candidate in history?