Ted Cruz

Neocons Prefer Cruz to Trump

...but they'd still rather go with a third choice.

|

According to the reigning narrative in the political press right now, the Republican establishment would rather see Donald Trump get the GOP's nomination than Ted Cruz. But as Rosie Gray reports, this opinion is not unanimous among the party elites:

A TIME FOR CHOOSING
CNN

Some of the hawkish figures who Ted Cruz recently dismissed as "crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East"…say they'd consider supporting Cruz anyway if he's the last man between Donald Trump and the Republican presidential nomination….

The neocons' willingness to consider Cruz stands in sharp contrast with a new line of current conventional wisdom in Washington that Cruz, who is the object of particularly intense personal dislike from establishment Republicans, is actually less acceptable to the establishment than Trump. The logic of many of the Republican interventionists: Cruz, according to this argument, doesn't really mean his criticism, or at least might change his mind; Trump, by contrast, has longstanding, if sometimes incoherent, isolationist impulses. And campaigns don't always determine foreign policy, they note: George W. Bush promised a "humble" foreign policy free of nation-building, and look what happened.

There are three reasons why Cruz is attracting some soft support from neoconservatives. To start, it's Cruz's pedigree. With degrees from Harvard and Princeton, some think he can't possibly be serious about some of his more extreme statements. (During his first campaign, he launched a scathing attack on the Council on Foreign Relations as a "pit of vipers," neglecting to note that his wife had been an active member of the group.)…

Cruz also has skillfully kept channels to key neoconservatives open throughout the campaign season. His top foreign policy adviser, Victoria Coates, is a former aide to Donald Rumsfeld and is respected inside the party.

And finally, when compared to Trump's rhetoric about foreign affairs, Cruz is considered the lesser of two evils.

By "some of the hawkish figures," Gray basically means Bill Kristol and Elliott Abrams—not exactly a big group, though it's an influential one. (That's who she quotes, anyway.) I wouldn't read this as a mass migration of neocons into the Cruz camp so much as a sign of how things could play out if this really does turn into a two-man Trump-Cruz race, a scenario that at this point is hardly certain.

But if we do get a long-term Trump-Cruz battle, I suspect that Gray's piece will prove prescient. Cruz has spent a couple of years now trying to steer a middle path between the neocons and the relatively dovish Rand Paul faction. He also famously hopes to win the nomination by nailing down his base and then emerging as everyone else's second choice. It would be pretty funny if both Paul and Kristol wind up backing him against Trump a couple months from now, each figuring for his own reasons that Cruz's foreign policy views are the lesser of two evils.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why real-world governments don't have the consent of the governed - and why it matters

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah, they’d rather go with Jeb or Marco, the neocon twins. Imagine Jeb with Marco as VP, with Hillary back as SOS. A neocon wet dream.

    1. Yeah, I heard Rubio reference a “New American Century” early on. Talk about a shout out to neocons.

    2. Marco and Jeb both Floridians so that can?t happen but Marco and the fat man would be the dream neocon ticket

  2. Bill Kristol and Elliott Abrams?not exactly a big group, though it’s an influential one.

    Why does Bill Kristol still matter?

    . With degrees from Harvard and Princeton, some think he can’t possibly be serious about some of his more extreme statements.

    Yeah, no graduates from those locations could possibly have extreme views.

    Also, who did Jesse screw to end up on the Buzzfeed beat?

  3. Looks like Gary J has the libertarian vote locked up tight.

    1. I wonder if write-ins for Rand will exceed people checking the box for Johnson.

      1. Depends on the state, I’d think.

  4. Trump is an enemy of the neocons which is why they have been so vociferous in their hate. Trump wants to pursue good relatons with Russia, China and others and opposes the regime change madness. Trump is the best hope for those who have wanted a non interventionist policy. No Candidate with any chance of winning has taken on the DC foreign policy establishment like Trump has ever. Neo cons will line up behind Hillary if she makes it or Bloomberg. Non interventionist libertarian leaners should support Trump as he will deliver what many of them have wanted for years

    1. This would be the same Trump who promises to strong-arm world leaders and impose drastic tariffs against China, yes?

      1. Exactly this. Which leads some people, myself included, to not believe anything he says, one way or the other. If you take everything he says at face value he would be both the best and worst president ever, both at the same time.

        1. The Heisenberg Presidential Principle?

          1. No, no. He will be the superpositional president.

          2. You see for every position Trump has taken, there is another Trump in a parallel universe who holds the opposite position. Therefore, there are an infinite number of Trumps.

            The Many-Trump interpretation

            1. But unlike ordinary people, and unfortunately for ordinary people, the infinite numbers of some politicians all live in the same universe, ours.

        2. He would be less competent and more aggressively mocked than our current leader.

          1. Less competent, I doubt, that’s a huge hurdle for anyone. More aggressively mocked for sure, he’s running as a Republican.

            1. Less competent, I doubt, that’s a huge hurdle for anyone.

              It will be close. I said previously that anyone elected in 2016 would be an improvement. But that was back before I realized that Republican voters were stupid enough to take Trump seriously.

              I guess we’ll have to elect him to determine which is more incompetent.

            2. The idiot would run his mouth and immediately have his bluffs called.

              1. I’ll wait until he blames the death of US ambassadors on a cartoon before making the call.

        3. If you take everything he says at face value he would be both the best and worst president ever, both at the same time.

          Schrodinger’s President.

        4. So he is a typical politician…

      2. As I’ve said before, this would be the Trump who would attempt to strong-arm world leaders who would then proceed to laugh in his face, slap a “Kick Me” sign on his back and pull his underwear up over his head. Putin ain’t impressed by how big a killing you made in the New York real estate market, Donald – Putin’s made far more killings than you and his killings are in the bottom-of-the-river real estate market.

        1. No reason for Putin to be an enemy. Trump will engage him and cooperate on fighting ISIS unlike the current policy of demonizing Russia and trying to overthrow Assad by supporting rag tag jihadis in Syria.

          1. TRUMPBOT 3000 ENGAGING IN PROSELYTIZING MODE BEEP BOOP

            1. Looks like it has a PUTINMOD too.

          2. No reason for Putin to be an enemy. Trump will engage him and cooperate

            HAHAHAHAHA!

            Trump is far more likely to blunder into war with him.

            1. that is based on nothing. Most of the GOP has declared they will shoot down russian planes over Syria as if Syria is somehow a part of the US now. Trump has stated that he does not see Putin as the enemy unlike most of GOP and Hillary do.

              1. To the extant that this is true, I would be completely in favor of it. While Putin is not necessarily a great friend of liberty, the fact is that he is no Stalin either. And Putin respects strength, which is the very antithesis of Obama. That doesn’t imply interventionist=strength. Rather, don’t half-ass involvement in everything. If fighing ISIS is important, we could leverage cooperation with Russia to affect Syria, and downstream even Lebanon and Hezbollah.

                The problem is, in this case, I don’t think he is consistent. Of course, never mind all the other reasons libertarians don’t trust him.

            2. When you write “blunder into war”, do you mean like a century ago, i.e. ending up at war vs. Russia as a by-product of some other policy? Or do you mean “blunder” in some other sense, like making a faux pas that leads to war?

      3. Tariffs are a negotiating tool not a promise. The other candidates want to continue sanctions against Russia. Trump wants to re open trade with Russia

      4. But Trump’s bit about China is in the sense of competition, not enmity. He wants what he considers more favorable trade relationships w China. He’s not like the neocons, who see Russia & China as implacable enemies.

    2. Yeah, but Trump is a mean old fascist who will deport your grandma and make Mexico pay for it. I know this because I read Reason magazine. Trump really means everything he says, he’s not just full of shit, he’s Mussolini come back to life!

    3. TRUMPBOT 3000 HAS DELIVERED ITS PAYLOAD INITIATE SELF DESTRUCT SEQUENCE HAIR-HAT-GAMMA-FIVE

    4. Use the word that you really want to use.

      1. be-penised?

      2. queef?

      3. Kakistocracy?

    5. Non interventionist libertarian leaners should support Trump

      HAHAHAHAHA!

      1. They should support Gary Johnson because at this point why does it matter? there is no other decent choice.

        Rand is polling ahead of Bush now in Iowa, at like 4%, and I hear Fox has invited him back to the big kid’s table. Like it matters since they won’t actually let him talk.

        1. We’ll see. Since the Donald is sitting this one out, there may actually be a chance to make a splash.

          Of course, the Donald lies a lot.

          What will happen is that Cruz will be responding to a question when all of a sudden, Trump’s theme song will start blaring over the PA and he’ll come running down the aisle with an American Flag in one hand and a steel chair in the other.

          1. This theme song? I might be tempted to vote for him if he did.

          2. If there’s one thing that the Fox talking heads hate and fear more than Trump, it’s Rand Paul. They are not going to give him a chance. They threw him out once already because for a millisecond Kasich was polling ahead of him, somewhere, maybe in Zimbabwe. They were literally sitting there watching the polls until that moment. ‘Make the call! Rand is below Kasich now, hurry!’

        2. Who the fuck votes for Gary Johnson? Insomniacs?

    6. Hilarious! I give it an A-.

      1. If by “Tulpa” you mean an idiotic troll bot spewing Road Warrior queefs all over the thread, then yes.

      2. Ya think? He really is so pathetically obvious. He just can’t help it.

  5. Whatever you think of Trump, he has exposed the Republican Party and their media cheerleaders for the bunch of pathetic out of touch losers they are. I am reading now where Trump skipping the debate because he is mad at Megyn Kelly is finally him jumping the shark and is going to be the end of him. People are actually claiming this. Really?

    In the real world no one gives a shit about the debates let alone the seventh or whatever of them this one is. And they don’t care who shows up or who doesn’t. And few people even know who Megyn Kelly is much less give a shit that Trump is picking on her. Yet, these geniuses are convinced this is finally going to be the end of Trump.

    It is just fucking sad. How did our political and media class become so stupid and out of touch with reality?

    1. People are actually claiming this. Really?

      Yes, because they’re retarded. It will probably improve his polling numbers if anything. Fox News is almost as bad as CNN and MSNBC. The only reason I give them the benefit of the doubt for not being AS bad is because they gave Stossel and a bunch of cosmos, at least for a brief moment, some air time. Fox News is pretty much nothing outside of a mouth piece for the GOP establishment.

      1. It will probably improve his polling numbers if anything.

        Its a no-lose deal for him. The debate is now the little kid’s table, because the runaway leader isn’t there.

        Fun fact: Reagan skipped the last debate before the caucuses when he was running, too.

        1. I recently saw that somewhere about Reagan, I think it was a link on Drudge, didn’t really remember it. Well, it’s been 36 years or so, I’m getting old.

          1. I didn’t remember that. But the primary debates were not very important back then. Hell, they only had one general election debate in 1980. I don’t know how the debates got so out of control. The entire thing has become a monumental waste of time.

            1. No, they had more than 1 gen. election presidential debate in 1980, but IIRC only 1 that had Reagan, Anderson, & Carter. Carter was the empty chair in the 1st debate. The primary debate where Reagan “paid for this microphone” was the 1st of its kind to get much att’n.

              But I remember from before presidential debates, general or primary, were routine at all. Now it’s taken as a matter of course that there’ll be some, and the circuit has gotten huge & lengthy.

              A lot of people, when they learn about the debate for the 1960 presidential debate, assume there’s been an unbroken string of them since then, & just don’t realize there weren’t any in 1964 or ’68.

    2. It is just fucking sad. How did our political and media class become so stupid and out of touch with reality?

      Except for the f-bomb this could be a verbatim Trump tweet.

      1. Hmmm… well, we’ve never seen John and Trump in the same post so….

        1. Trump seems to like his women a little more svelt.

      2. I don’t read Trump’s twitter account. So, I leave that judgement to you. Regardless, it is true. Do you think our political class and media are smart and in touch with reality? Do tell.

        1. John, you’re usually smarter than this. Much smarter. Do us all a favor. Stay away from the Trump sites for a week. That stuff’s eating your brain.

          Saying the media and political elites are stupid and out of touch with reality does not make anything Trump is saying less stupid and out of touch with reality.

          1. What does this have to do with my or anyone’s opinion of Trump? Whether you love or hate Trump the average voters doesn’t care about the debates or that he is skipping them and doesn’t know who the hell Megyn Kelly is.

            Trump may be Satan’s minion on earth. That fact, however, doesn’t make the GOP and conservative media’s claim that him skipping the debate is finally him jumping the shark any smarter or less out of touch with reality.

          2. Saying the media and political elites are stupid and out of touch with reality

            It however, is true.

          3. Saying the media and political elites are stupid and out of touch with reality does not make anything Trump is saying less stupid and out of touch with reality.

            Since my observation about the media has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s grasp or lack thereof of reality, why the hell would you think one has to do with the other?

            Maybe you should back off from reading the Trump sites. You are the one who seems to think every observation no matter how unrelated to Trump is really some endorsement of of Trump, not me.

      3. The entire comment sounds so much like something Trump would actually say, I found myself hearing it in Trump’s voice in my head as I read it. As Rhywun implied, has anyone ever seen John and Trump together?

        1. You really know how to hurt a guy Loki.

      4. Except for the f-bomb this could be a verbatim Trump tweet.

        Considering the opposite statement sounds rather AmSoc/Tony, I’d probably go with the Trumpesque interpretation too.

        Didn’t it just hash out above that The Donald is a actually superposition of many bombastic sound bytes that can be observed to collapse into any given political view at any time?

    3. How did our political and media class become so stupid and out of touch with reality?

      Because what rules the day is not what’s right, or what’s connected to reality, or even what “the majority” wants; what rules the day is what the people involved with the process want.

      Trump is just representing a different group of people.

  6. “””Victoria Coates, is a former aide to Donald Rumsfeld and is respected inside the party.””‘

    Here is a big problem for the Republican establishment, that anyone connected to Donald Rumsfeld would be respected.

    Rumsfeld was a disaster as Secretary of Defense. Everything from his nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan to his Transformational procurement policy which wasted huge amounts of money while delivering either overpriced under performing equipment or delivering nothing at all for the billions spent

  7. ” Gray basically means Bill Kristol and Elliott Abrams?not exactly a big group, though it’s an influential one”

    Thank you jesse, for being the first person to actually refer to honest-to-god “neoconservatives”

    the question is, how many other of these people are there out there, and do they matter anymore in policy-circles? I’d argue that they stopped being influential – even among hawkish defense types – almost a decade ago.

    Even in the case of Syria – i would be surprised to find anyone who actually argues that the US should intervene with overwhelming military force and that doing so would help “bring democracy” to a region long-oppressed by dictators. Or… i’m sure there’s someone out there saying so, but that they only say so for domestic political reasons, not because anyone actually believes that’s a good idea.

    1. Few of them are out there and no one cares what they think. And the public is not going to support “bringing democracy” to anyone. If there is another 911, the public is going to want blood and retribution and nothing else.

      The US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to be remembered as the last time the US intervened in the middle east with any kind of good intentions. Though the war in Afghanistan continues, there is no political will to go back into Iraq. If the situation in Iraq results in another 911 on American soil, the US will go back to level the place not build a democracy.

      1. ” If the situation in Iraq results in another 911 on American soil, the US will go back to level the place not build a democracy,” John gasped as he finished into the wad of tissues.

        1. It must be hard being so stupid that you think people who grasp reality somehow have made it so or want it to be as it is.

      2. If there is another 911, the public is going to want blood and retribution and nothing else.

        I don’t recall too many people (normal people, not “neo-cons” or their Wilsonian Democrat doppelgangers on TEAM donkey) being all that gung-ho over the prospect of nation building in Afghanistan after the first 9-11. Most people wanted to go in, kick the Taliban’s ass, kill Osama, and then leave.

        1. That is true. But they tolerated it happening. They won’t tolerate the nation building the next time. And if the President tries it, he will be replaced by someone who is more serious about the issue.

      3. I thought Iraq had a chance of becoming a stable, somewhat free society. We seriously botched it until about 2006 or so, (the surge etc.) and things were becoming much better. Maybe if we had stayed it could have continued, maybe the Syria civil war would still have spilled over. I don’t know. I do know that Afghanistan never had a chance. We had every right to bomb the shit out of the place, and forcibly remove the Taliban. Then get the fuck and tell whatever tribal goat herder who took their place, that if you fuck with us, or help those who do, we will remove you, too.

        As far as Syria goes, I hate Assad. He is a butcher. But, at the end of the day, if there are any US interests, it would be to shut down ISIS, which can also be used to leverage cooperation with Putin (who is a strongman, is hardly on a par with the great dictators of history), and maybe even reduce Hezbollah’s power (I know Iran is the real source of funding, but it does go through Syria). Or, we just tell Putin, we aren’t getting involved, but knock yourselves out. Either way we would be in a stronger position than we are now.

        1. Iraq did have a chance. But for all of the whining about how Obama left too early, the stupid fuckers had 8 years of US support, thousands of US lives and tens of billion dollars and they still couldn’t build a stable country or an army that could stop a bunch of dipshits in Datsun pickups.

          If Iraq couldn’t get its shit together by 2011, when the hell was it going to? Fuck the Iraqis. If they want to live under ISIS or view stealing as more important than stopping ISIS, they deserve what they get. Especially now that we are energy independent or close to it, what the hell interest do we have there anymore?

          1. As far as Iraq goes, I hear you. I am not fighting that battle anymore. Whatever may have happened, the fact is that we left, and it is what it is now. And regardless of the details, you are right in that it showed that nation-building is a pipe dream.

            And I am not necessarily even saying at this point that we should necessarily get directly involved with Syria. But, if we do, it shouldn’t be to support some mythical, non-ISIS but anti-Assad freedom fighters. Or lob some bombs or fly some drones. That just ends up wasting American resources, likely to kill civilians as the enemy, and projects weakness. If a fight is worth having, than it is worth committing to. If it isn’t worth committing to, then it isn’t worth fighting at all. And in this particular area, there are no good guys. Just bad guys and a bunch of civilians who are getting fucked over.

            1. I am increasingly open to the idea that Obama might be right. Let the Iranians have the bomb and let them deal with the mess. Who cares if Iran becomes a regional great power?

              Yeah, I know they seem intent on national suicide via nuking Israel or Europe but it remains to be seen if they would actually do that or that we couldn’t stop them if they tried. Moreover, it is a good bet they are more interested in killing Sunni Muslims and Arabs than they are in killing us or even the Jews.

              As much as a dislike the Mullahs, I think it is at least possible that Obama is right and they are easier to deal with than the Saudis.

          2. But for all of the whining about how Obama left too early

            The funny part is he tried to stay longer, but had to leave under the deal Bush negotiated with the Iraqi government. Then, of course, he tried to spin it as him finally ending the war. His followers ate it up as proof that he is the peacemaker and lightbringer and neocons thought he was chicken for leaving too early, all for something he had little to no control over. Amazing how people can forget the past and buy into the narrative.

            1. I think leaving Iraq is likely the one smart thing he ever did. The Republicans who claim he could have gotten them to agree to an acceptable SOFA if only he had tried harder are kidding themselves. They didn’t want us there and asked us to leave. Had we stayed or strong armed them into inviting us to stay, it really would have been a hostile occupation.

          3. ” If Iraq couldn’t get its shit together by 2011, when the hell was it going to? Fuck the Iraqis. If they want to live under ISIS or view stealing as more important than stopping ISIS, they deserve what they get. Especially now that we are energy independent or close to it, what the hell interest do we have there anymore? ”

            ^This

            Well said John.

    2. …and do they matter anymore in policy-circles? I’d argue that they stopped being influential – even among hawkish defense types – almost a decade ago.

      Really? I’d argue quite the opposite. They’re no longer personally influential because now pretty much everybody in policy circles has bought into their creed. Now all they’re saying is the consensus. Seriously, try looking up the Weinberger Doctrine. Yeah, after Casper Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s Sec. of Defense. If somebody went around pushing that as U.S. geostrategy today, they’d be labeled a hippy isolationist.

      1. I’m familiar with the Weinberger doct. and I disagree with your depiction re:

        “[neocons are] no longer personally influential because now pretty much everybody in policy circles has bought into their creed. “

        I think you might misunderstand what it was that made ‘neocons’ different from just more generic security-‘hawks’.

        if there’s a defining feature of neoconservatism, its a shared belief alongside Wilsonianism that US foreign policy has a moral obligation to “forcibly promote global democracy”. It comes from the Left-wing in that it rests on the idea that the US Government is a ‘force for Good’, and that it can enforce its will and ‘improve’ foreign-societies. The difference between neocons and Wilsonians is that the former believe in unilateral use of force – while the latter prefer multilateralism and the UN-toolbox.

        During the cold-war it was driven by the idea that the US had an obligation to counter-act the spread of communism; during the post-cold-war period, Neocons felt that there was a opportunity to use that sudden vacuum to “re-take” regions of the world where former soviet-allied dictatorships on the verge of collapse.

        I do not think you would find anyone in FP circles today that believes that US military power could accomplish anything positive by itself; particularly in ‘Arab spring’ countries that are still violently unresolved. Neo-con theory had their big-shot with Iraq, and failure there pretty much discredited it completely.

        1. There’s a reason Colin Powell refers to them, in private, as “the fucking crazies”.

          1. I think his specific objection with them was with the “How to do it” part of Invading Iraq, not so much the basic idea.

            Which is fair enough – there were plenty of non-Neoconservative arguments for getting rid of Saddam.

            *(which is my basic grief with everyone who uses the term = its become the go-to terminology for anything “interventionist” or “hawkish” when it actually means something very specific and includes a wide range of ideological assumptions)

            The so-called “powell doctrine” was the same as the Weinberger doctrine (*a series of tests for the use-of-force), with the added components that… once use of force is deemed needed, it should always be a) overwhelming & comprehensive, and b) including as wide a coalition as possible

            It was the “light footprint” and “small as possible coalition” parts he was so irked by.

            He felt that Rumsfeld’s idea of ‘flexibility and speed’ was foolish and left open huge gaps where problems could (and did) emerge.

            also, re: the ‘comprehensive’ part – he felt they were ignoring lots of needed expertise in transitional governance, NGOs, humanitarian aid, infrastructure repair, etc. – the stuff derided as ‘nation building’ which the neo-cons believed interfered with the ‘core mission’… which in fact powell thought was necessary in order to *allow* the military to leave.

  8. Neocons should be on Team Hillary. “Yes, bomb.” That was my takeaway quote from her softball interview on the “town hall meeting.”

    1. But bomb with love and kindness. That’s what separates her from Team Red.

      1. I’m surprised John’s car isn’t sporting a Ready for Hillary! bumper sticker.

        Bernie just mumbles something about putting together a coalition for the bombing, but immediately glides over to BILLIONAIRES and PACs! Maybe he’d be even more violent, it’s hard to tell, but he does yell a lot.

        1. Of course you are surprised. You are a complete moron who has little or no understanding of anything I say. How could you not be surprised?

          1. Awww, that’s the concussion talking.

          2. And I know you were checking out her ass, don’t deny it.

            1. You said you were surprised I am not. You said it I didn’t. The only way someone could be surprised by my lack of support for Hillary is because they either have never heard, or if they did, not understood anything I have ever said.

              You clearly have read my thoughts on these issues. So, that narrows it down. Maybe someday you will be smart enough to understand what I am saying, but I am not optimistic.

        2. Communists do have a tendency to get a bit violent when they get a chance to be in charge.

          1. The usual solution for the problem of running out of other people’s money is to invade another country and take theirs. That is what revolutionary France, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia all did.

    2. “Neocons should be on Team Hillary””

      I think this is probably right.

      She’s the one who actively promoted intervention in Libya and Syria, both in the misguided belief that we’d somehow “get rid of the bad-dictators and magically be rewarded with US-friendly allies”.

      Her experience in the Clinton white-house was one where the US stuck its dick in a lot of different pies (*in so many ways). Her time as SoS was pretty much an extension of that. She’s the only candidate with an actual track record of “Action” in foreign affairs, where she had her hands on levers of power and made decisions aiming to micromanage the planet. I have little reason to believe that there is any candidate more ambitious about meddling-internationally than Hillary.

  9. As Trump rides into the yawning sunset on his golden pony show the political corpse of Cruz will be wiggling at the seams with snarling neocons battling over organs, sticky blubber, and old cocaine inside a musty cavern of bluish skin.

  10. To start, it’s Cruz’s pedigree. With degrees from Harvard and Princeton, some think he can’t possibly be serious about some of his more extreme statements.

    And his blond wife works for Goldman Sachs. The neocons will like them just fine.

    1. Since when does working for Goldman Sachs have anything to do with being a NEOCON? Is that some kind of “JOOOS” are behind everything statement?

      1. This is something I have been sick of hearing from the fringe left (and the paleo-cons on the right). Neoconservative has a definite meaning. It turns out that many of the intellectual leaders (but certainly not all) of that branch happen to be Jewish. When Pat Buchanan and Katrina vanden Heuvel get together on something, you know it isn’t good.

        1. I know it has a meaning. And it means a group of intellectuals who came out of the 60s as leftists but later became internationalist conservatives. What I don’t understand is what any of that has to do with Goldman Sachs.

          1. Goldman Sachs is a big enabler of this international managerialism. If only we had the right manager in place to steer the economy, health care, or the Iraq war.

            1. Okay. I can see that. And the national building and international order is done in the name of managed trade and economies.

  11. My conspiracy theory: the closer Hillary comes to being indicted, the closer Obama comes to being assassinated.

  12. Trump is the “peace” candidate.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.