He’s ohnly part way there, Richie. ‘N if’n ye thank Prager is th’ cat’s meow as far as conservatism is corncerned, so are you.

But keep diggin’, bro. The Orthurdox Faith will show you th’ way. Jus’ as lohng as ye pay close attenshun.

What a restored Christendom wud look like, please God (though, admittedly, it wudn’t look like-iss in a free Dixie). A music video from Serbia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KwsN4tnvnE&feature=related

I say “sumthin’” of an aside. It very much relates t’ th’ issur at haind. Ever’thang that is good, noble ‘n pure ’bout th’ Orthurdox Faith, Richie, stainds in stark contraist t’ th’ neocon mindset. Please try t’ understaind-att.

But wudda you say? Inquirin’ minds want t’ know.

You have my e-mail correspondence, bro. ‘N you know where I’m-a comin’ from. Wut say ye?

I’ve forgotten more ’bout neoconservatism thin ye know. Forgive me fir bein’ blunt, but thar it is.

No, thangs wud be ’bout th’ same, far as I kin tell. See, it’s a cultural issur as much as it is a political one. You necons put yir misguided trust in th’ arm of the flesh, whin, ultimately, the arm of the flesh won’t deliver th’ Christian culture ye seek. Like Israel dependin’ ohn pagan Egypt: you put yir hope ohn-att, but yir days are numbered.

“Christian faith is in agreement with Republican values.” Ha! Wut a joke.

No dearie, Christian faith is in agreement with TRULY CONSERVATIVE values, but the GOP has long deserted th’ latter. Wake up, Ma’am.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ns0NlUgcsY

Th’ GOP has abandoned true conservatism, ‘n I dohn’t believe it is intersted in a return to it.

Your Obedient Servent,

S. Jones

http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2008/08/pastor-believes-gay-is-mark-of-gods.html

http://www.dixienet.org/rebellion/2008/08/orson-scott-card-versus-neocons.html

So never mind ’bout that lesbian. We’re dealin’ with th’ paleocon criticism of neocons here, ‘n the entry linked above deals with-att.

As fir th’ Southern Avenger, dohn’t matter how old he is. Wut matters is whether or not his assessment is sound. ‘N I say it is. Thar’s a reason, after all, it’s called *neo*conservatism. Means it’s new. ‘N if it’s new, th’ question is naturally prompted as-ta how it differs from th’ old. The Southern Avenger ably distills it all fir ye. The kind of conservatism you support, Miss Sharon, is a new, usurpin’ kind. Thar’s tomes of analysis out thar, online and in print, ’bout how neoconservatism came ’round in the 60s and 70s, and how, under Reagan, it largely displaced th’ paleocons, ‘n thin went on t’ infect the admins of Bush I and Bush II. Read, fir instance, ’bout the M.E. Bradford incident here (the seckshun ohn th’ NEH nomination):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Bradford

But this neoconservatism a-yourn is really an ekklectic mix of Straussian politicurl filosofee, old Hawk Democrat thought, Trotksyism, Likudism, Zionism, n’ big gummint/big business symbiosis posin’ as a commitment t’ th’ “free market”. As the SA shows, howeverm neoconservatism is really jus’ a form of liberalism that stands somewhat t’ th’ right of liberal/leftism. ‘Att’s why yir tawkin’ heds such as Hew Hughitt continually refers to yir stance as “center-right.” ‘L, I say it’s much more “center” thin it is “right.” Fact is, I dohn’t think neoconservatism has anythin’ t’ do with rightism wutsoever. Ohnly reason it’s commonly called “right wing” or “conservative” is cuz liberalism has moved so far t’ th’ left, that it seems cornservative by comparison.

So dohn’t you sell short the Southern Avenger. He’s a-tellin’ ye th’ truth, Ma-am.

My point with linking the Prager article wasn’t to compare my politics with his, but to bring up the thesis of his article. Ever one of those points used to be considered liberal but are now fundamental to a conservative position - be it neo- or paleo-con (or whatever other name has been bandied about for a modern conservative position).

Key to his article is the point that there are so many liberals now that hold on to the title of “liberal” and associate that with the Democratic party, when the beliefs they hold - the beliefs stated by Prager - are part of the Republican party. My boss and my mother come to mind. They hold beliefs that are fundamental to the Republican party but would never consider voting for a Republican. The irony is thick.

Also, well said, Rich. I agree many Democrats hold basically fundamental Republican beliefs, but can’t bring themselves to ever vote for a Republican.
The irony IS thick.