New Deal Democrats borrowed a lot from Fascism and Communism, and were quite right to do so. The system would not have survived if it had hung on to what it was when Roosevelt got elected.

Both the USA and USSR were intent on imposing their own system on the rest of the world. There was no intention of allowing anyone to live differently from the USA in the long term. The USA prevented elections in Vietnam because the Communists were likely to win them. Democracy was never respected when it involved people choosing to move away from the USA.

New Deal Democrats also had no wish to end the domination of society by people who were mostly white, mostly male and almost all rich.

As the main article says, this does flow very naturally into Reaganism. Except Reagan depended heavily on white-racist votes in the formerly solid Democratic states of the US South. 'Neoconservatives' are embarrassed by this, of course. They want everyone to be an identical 'unit of the individual'. But that is the reality.

'Free Market' is also misleading. The USA has kept the vast mass of subsidy, guarantee and regulation that the New Deal imposed. The 'neoconservatives' show no faith in their own creed when it would cost them money if it were not so. No one said 'let the market find its own level' in 1987, when a crash threatened to bring down the system. Only when it comes to taking things away from poor people is regulation suddenly wicked.

'Classic Capitalism' failed in the early 1930s. What the New Deal created used to be called the 'Mixed Economy' and should still be called the 'Mixed Economy'.

I comment on wider matters because the main article does. I take it to be written by some of the 'Henry Jackson Society' crowd. Fine, so long as they allow 'right of reply'.

--GwydionM 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed part of the content to accurately reflect what actually happened in the above-referenced name reversion by the politicians. This came right out of his biography by Kaufman.

1. The actual name of the airport is Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. "Sea-Tac" is just a nickname everyone calls it.

2. The public was actually against changing the name back. They loved Scoop. It was business leaders, civic leaders & politicians in the two cities (Tacoma in particular) who were afraid of losing convention business without the name of their city in the airport title.--Hokeman 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8BitJake, please provide a source for the bit about the Democratic Party denouncing the neoconservative "posthumously adoption" of Jackson's legacy. You saying it happened is not verifiable. (And please, please tell me that they used better grammar than that...) -- Jonel | Speak 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It currently reads: The Washington State Democratic Party officially denounced neoconservatives' posthumous adoption of Senator Jackson’s legacy in oral arguments speaking for a 2006 WSDCC resolution.

This makes no sense. I've also Googled for it and can't find anything. It's not clear, even from the sentence, whether the resolution was even passed. Can 8BitJake address this problem please? I don't want to delete it without giving him a chance to fix it, but right now, it flunks WP:V as well as basic grammar. -- FRCP11 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading this, I see that this question has been pending for two months and 8BitJake has refused to answer it. I'm deleting the statement as violating WP:V; it's likely 8BitJake's confused interpretation of his own personal experience. -- FRCP11 05:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said it was a part of an oral discussion at a quarterly meeting so it did not make it into the papers and it did not make it into Google. --8bitJake 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it flunks WP:V and WP:NOR. -- FRCP11 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Jackson was not a neo-conservative and the neocon appropriation of his legacy did not happen in his lifetime and we don’t know how he would have reacted to it so I don’t see a point of mentioning the Neocons in this article on Senator Jackson. I propose removing all references to them from this article and will do so.--8bitJake 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore them if you do so. It's an important part of his legacy. Even today, Wolfowitz calls himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat. -- FRCP11 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should mention that on the page on the Neocons. Since Senator Jackson was NOT a neocon it has no place on this page. I am fully prepared to fight and win this edit war. I don’t give a rats ass what Wolfowitz calls himself that does not change one damn but that Senator Jackson was not a neo-con. --8bitJake 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does the page call Jackson a Neocon. It correctly states that he was influential in the Neocon movement. This is a historical fact that is relevant to Scoop Jackson, and belongs on his page, as well as on a Neocon page. It's notable, verifiable, and you give absolutely no reason for deleting it. -- FRCP11 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sullens his image and it is tantamount to revisionist historical slander and it has no place in a NPOV article. If you want to mention it go do it in the neocon page. NOT HERE! Go look at the official bio on the Henry M Jackson Foundation website. There is not one mention of him being a Neocon. --8bitJake 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "sullies" his image? Even if these facts do "sully" his image (which they don't--rather, they show that Jackson has had important influence beyond his lifetime, something very few politicians will ever be able to claim), that's not a reason to delete it. You greatly misunderstand what "NPOV" means if you think including additional facts (whose truth you have yet to dispute) violates NPOV. The Wikipedia biography is not supposed to be identical to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation website biography. There are many references to Scoop Jackson's influence on modern neoconservatism, all of which you deleted from the article. -- FRCP11 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Neocon twisting Senator Jackson’s legacy is on the article on the Neocons so it does not need to be here nor does it deserve to be here. --8bitJake 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every statement in the article that you deleted is WP:V, and you have yet to point to anything otherwise. The article never calls Jackson a neocon, so I have no reason to accept your challenge. The argument that verifiable notable information that has nothing to do with whether Jackson called himself a neocon needs to be removed because Jackson didn't call himself a neocon is a non sequitur. I'm restoring the text, since you have yet to give a valid reason for unilaterally deleting material that was added by several other editors. -- FRCP11 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made my case and I defended it. You do not have a consensus and your changes to the article will be removed. --8bitJake 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times:

"a new generation of Democrats wants to dust off and rehabilitate those traditional Democratic principles, which they believe were hijacked by the Bush administration.

They want, in essence, to return to the beliefs that originally brought the neocons to prominence, the beliefs that motivated old-fashioned Cold War liberals such as Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. -- Jacob Heilbrun, "Neocons in the Democratic Party"

See also Peter Beinart's new book.

I suppose it's too much to expect an apology, but can you stop your nonsensical revert war now? In your passion to censor the article because of a misperceived "sullening" [sic], you deleted the link to the "Scoop Jackson Papers" at the University of Washington. I'm making a substantive edit to the article to reflect the Beinart book. Please don't violate WP:3RR. If you really care about Wikipedia and Scoop Jackson, why don't you try to translate your addition to the neocon section into the English language and find a cite for it? -- FRCP11 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Scoop Jackson Papers" at the University of Washington was a Dead link that I just fixed. This is not an article on Peter Beinart, Jacob Heilbrun or any Neocon and text about them will be deleated. I hope you do respect WP:3RR and note that you reverted first and have all ready violated WP:3RR--8bitJake 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have respected 3RR. I made substantive edits in an attempt at compromise, and you reverted each time, vandalizing twice. (It's not a violation of 3RR to fix vandalism.) You are in violation of 3RR. If you want to report me, I'll be happy to defend my actions, because I have adhered to Wikipedia standards and you have not. You have not attempted to compromise. You have not attempted to explain your position. -- FRCP11 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your complaint about consensus was just phantom, since you're now on your fifth revert of two different editors. -- FRCP11 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the disputed edit, the text a single editor wishes to censor from the article is both notable and verifiable. The editor's argument against including it is the argument that Jackson was not a neoconservative himself, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to the fact that Jackson's political philosophy was highly influential over the modern neoconservative movement by the accounts of outside observers as well as neoconservatives themselves. -- FRCP11 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Censorship. I am removing POV slander against the late Senator. --8bitJake 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You greatly misunderstand what "POV" means in Wikipedia. What's POV about the fact that Wolfowitz worked for Jackson, and says that Jackson influenced his political beliefs? I see you don't dispute that this is a notable fact, and don't dispute that this fact is verifiable. You thus have no basis for removing it. -- FRCP11 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what? That is completely moot. If you can find proof that the late Senator claimed he was a neocon straight from his own mouth then you could include it but you can’t so it does not belong here. --8bitJake 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, this isn't Argument Clinic. You have to give reasons for deleting factual verifiable information in Wikipedia, and you still haven't justified it. -- FRCP11 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my reasons. Senator Jackson was not a Neocon and you can not prove otherwise. Thus the Neocon fantasy has no place in the article about my late great Senator.--8bitJake 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a verifiable cite calling Jackson a neocon forerunner. You deleted it without explanation. -- FRCP11 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 8bitJake, neoconservatism and the left wing or the Democratic Party or liberalism are not polar opposites; they are not oil and water (Wolfowitz is a noted liberal on domestic issues for instance). The evolution of political movements is never as simple as that. *Please see Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Drift_away_from_New_Left_and_Great_Society and Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Left-wing_roots_of_Neoconservative_organizations.
• Also see the Amazon review of a major Jackson biography which links him with neoconservative admirers: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0295979623/103-6680571-9244660?v=glance&n=283155
• The article does not call Jackson a "neoconservative" (since the use of the term as we know it today begins a decade or more after his death, we're hardly going to find a quote proclaiming himself as one) (the origins of the term as used to day is still a bit murky to me) - it points out that his foreign policy policy positions have been publicly admired by neoconservatives who regard him as an early forerunner.
• Finally, Wikipedia is not a place for dogma and refusal to engage in reasonable argument. Bwithh 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8bitJake repeatedly complains that Jackson is listed as Category:Neoconservatives. But he's not. He's listed in Category:Neoconservatism, which is a different animal, and is relevant, since Jackson's political philosophy is the father of neoconservatism. Just because the Sunnis and Shia disagree with each other doesn't mean that they're not both descended from Mohammedan Islam. -- FRCP11 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a load of revisionist crap. Leave my late Senator alone. --8bitJake 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You don't get to choose who admires Scoop Jackson. Maybe you should look more closely at neoconservatism as a personal philosophy if you're really a Scoop Jackson fan? The modern Democrats have betrayed his legacy. -- FRCP11 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really I met with my Congressman Norm Dicks last week who served with Scoop and he supports Congressman Murtha solution Iraq.--8bitJake 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with Jackson? And anyway, the article is not suggesting that if Scoop Jackson was alive today, he'd be a Rumsfeld ally. Its noting his influence on neoconservatives. And neoconservatives are not one monolithic camp of thought - Francis Fukuyama has notably distanced himself from the Iraq invasion for instance. Bwithh 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 8bitJake, here is the lead paragraph from a review of one of the first major histories of the development of neoconservatismin Foreign Affairs magazine - possibly the most reputable American journal of international relations: Article link]. Lead: "For 14 years, from the 1973 Jackson-Vanik amendment until the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a group of intellectuals known as neoconservatives shaped, and sometimes dominated, American foreign policy. They wrote for Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, and later The National Interest. They acted through organizations like the Committee on the Present Danger and the Committee for the Free World. They held important positions in the AFL-CIO leadership and in the office of Senator Henry M. Jackson, then the most powerful Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And during Ronald Reagan's first term, they occupied influential posts in the State and Defense Departments."
• 8bitJake, you are in danger of losing your editing privileges if you continue vandalizing the article. Please take some time to discover more about how Wikipedia works Bwithh 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to remove the vandalism and right wing libel about my late senator that were on this page. They failed to prove that Senator Jackson claimed he was a Neocon so there is no reason to disgrace his article with mentioning this cult.--8bitJake 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You greatly misunderstand the definition of vandalism and libel when you delete factual and verifiable statements that have cited sources. Please read the FAQ. -- FRCP11 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to RfC: While I do have some issues with portions of the deleted edits and think that they could be cleaned up, I do agree in principle that Mr. Jackson was a forerunner and an inspiration to SOME neocons. He was, after all, hawkish on foreign policy. The discussion on the neocons not taking his stance on domestic issues provides balance. IMO, there is room for compromise. youngamerican (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have be offering a compromise of keeping the listing of the Necon worship of Senator Jackson on the Neocon page but keeping it off this page since it can't be proven if he would approve nor can it be proven to have endorsed any of the policy and world views that the modern Neocon cult subscribes to. --8bitJake 23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realize how much you hurt your credibility when you can't string a sentence together? Have some respect for your readers. Also, repeatedly asserting something and refusing to respond to evidence contradicting your assertion doesn't help your credibility, either.

Finally, can you answer the question about the WSDPP already? Where is this reported? -- FRCP11 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By listing the late Senator as a neoconservative or as an influence on the band of liars and war-criminals it implieD that he condones the current bloody war. It read as guilt by association and it should not be here. --8bitJake 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually only cites his influence on neoconservatism, and does so with a plethora of sources. Your statements "band of liars," "war criminals," "implied that he condones the current bloody war" and "guilt by association" are all POV statements, and should not be - and are not - reflected here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as has been pointed out multiple times now, the article does not call Jackson a neoconservative. That 8bit continues to insist otherwise -- even as he ignores the more important question in Democratic Party denunciation -- makes it difficult to discuss this rationally. -- FRCP11 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson was not a neoconservative so the inclusion of neoconservativism in this article is slander. It is guilt by association of a beloved member of my state political party. I have written the Henry M Jackson Foundation in regards to this article.--8bitJake 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, I've had a look at it and it's verifiable and pretty much beyond dispute. I rewrote the intro accordingly.--Zleitzen 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that the neocon cabal had falsely appropriated my beloved Senator and are trying to re-write history to fit their twisted world view. It is a proven fact that he never clamed to be a Neocon and it is unfair to associate him with them. Look the Nazis loved Wagner but the page on Wagner should not be covered with Nazi rants.--8bitJake 15:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the Wagner article has, surprise surprise, a whole section on the Nazi information. If Wagner was intended to demonstrate how this article should look per Scoop and neo-conservatism, then I agree: the factual, sourced information regarding the neo-conservative movement's citation of Scoop belongs here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is Jake that you appear to have pre-conceived and negative connotations associated with the term "neo-conservative". But that is not the fault of the encyclopaedia if it chooses to apply it. It may be wiser though to cite the influence individually to Wolfowitz and Perle and remove reference to "neo-conservatism" - which is a fairly turgid term at the best of times. Then you could remove the clause stating that Jackson was and has never been a member of the Neo-conservative party! Keep the category at the foot though for reference. By the way avoid Godwin's Law at all times!--Zleitzen 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff I thought an Admin has already warned you about Wikistalking me.--8bitJake 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have the 3RR noticeboard watchlisted and saw the dispute from there. No admin has done such a thing anyway, and that still doesn't address your POV editing here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to remove un just POV from this article and you are still Wikistalking me.--8bitJake 17:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Jake, we haven't crossed paths in months and I'm stalking you. Whatever. Meanwhile, you continue to POV edit here as you have in other places in the past. Stick to the topic - Scoop's cited as a neo-conservative influence. Can you deny that? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?)

It does not matter because he was not a Neocon and did not subscribe to the twisted modern Neocon beliefs of lies, propaganda and wars of aggression. I wish they would stop pissing on the grave of my Senator.--8bitJake 18:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my compromise. You get a link to the Neocon page but no mentions to specific people since Jackson was not directly involved with the modern Neocon Cabal.--8bitJake 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately after returning to Wikipedia from his 24-hour suspension, User:8bitJake deleted all of the language from the article that four out of five editors agreed was notable and verifiable. He dishonestly titled his edit as Restore consensus version. This is poor sportsmanship at its worst. -- FRCP11 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess I’ll just have to go get more editors that care about the honest legacy of my Senator to counter this Freeper Gang Bang. Jackson was not a Neocon. I have truth on my side. You do not.--8bitJake 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying very hard to assume good faith, but 8bitJake's comments exhibit a severe reading comprehension problem, since nothing in the article calls Jackson a neoconservative. He also has a strangely blinkered definition of "truth" since he hasn't identified an untrue statement in the article. -- FRCP11 19:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is not the place for the mention of the Neocon cult or it’s beliefs since he was not a member and did not subscribe to it’s un-American beliefs. Jackson is a beloved member of my Washington State Democratic Party and his legacy deserves better than to be subverted by this gang of radicals.--8bitJake 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC):8bitJake, please read WP:NPOV. Your vandalism of the article in retaliation for your suspension for multiple reverts will not be tolerated. -- FRCP11 19:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on improving this article and enforcing NPOV. That is only your view and you do not own this article.--8bitJake 20:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8bitJake deleted a paragraph about a 2006 book that relies heavily on Senator Jackson on the grounds that the article isn't about (liberal Democrat) Peter Beinart. (8bJ presumably did so because the paragraph contains the word "neoconservative," and he didn't read carefully enough to note that the paragraph was added precisely to address his concern that there is a difference between Jackson's philosophy and neoconservative philosophy.) However, 8bitJake also added multiple paragraphs about Norm Dicks and Dicks's political stands, even though Dicks has absolutely nothing to do with Jackson other than the fact that they're both from Washington. 8bitJake mysteriously thinks that PNAC is an insult, and has added it to multiple names, even though it's irrelevant to the article. I'll wait until his latest temper tantrum is over and clean up the article then. I do wish an administrator would step in and discipline this persistent abusive editing, though. -- FRCP11 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congressman Dicks knew Jackson and served with him in our congressional delegation. We in the Washington State Democratic party consider him to be the political heir to Senator Jackson. He is also my congressman and a friend of mine.Neocons in general are irrelevant to the article and my late Senator. I too grow tired of your persistent abusive editing. --8bitJake 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake, please read WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL before you dig yourself a hole you're not going to be able to get out of. While I'm glad you're grudgingly accepting that consensus is that he was a major player in what became modern neoconservatism, your edits are not showing any of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff I thought the Admins told you to stop harassing me? Senator Murray is a part of Senator Jackson's legacy much more than some former lackey that got him coffee and carried his books.--8bitJake 21:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never happened, and I have just as much a right to edit here as you do. Senator Murray is irrelevant, and I must say the current version is among the best it's looked since I've been wathching. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic, but apropos of the last week's comments on the talk page, I was entertained to see a photo of 2002 Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson Distinguished Service Award winner Paul Wolfowitz standing with Senator Jackson's son, Peter. Wolfowitz's speech is worth reading. -- FRCP11 02:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Murray doesn't sit in Jackson's seat; she sits in Magnuson's seat. So the Murray paragraph is doubly irrelevant. -- FRCP11 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the intro to the article is the place to address the basic facts of Jackson, rather than his political philosophies.

• Most of the predecessors and successors to Jackson's seat are simply identified as Democrat or Republican in the into to their Wikepedia articles. Additionally, they are also void of any modifiers such as "Cold War Anti-Communist".
• To ensure NPOV I would consider moving the disputed sentence to another subsection, such as Legacy and change it to something along the lines of,"Though Jackson self-identified as a Democrat, some of his political philosophies and positions influenced portions of modern American neoconservatism."
• Whether or not it was Jackson's intent to influence any part of neoconservatism does not change the fact that some principal neoconservatives believe that some of his views did.--Wordy McWordWord 05:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro to the article is the place to put the most important information about an individual. Jackson's predecessors and successors are largely insignificant beyond their Senate service. Nobody quotes Senator Cain or Senator Evans for anything. Where Jackson is most important is because of the influence he had on political thought a quarter-century later. -- FRCP11 06:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most other Senators don't have such a unique situation as Jackson does. It's hard to compare him to other Senators because an entire political philosophy wasn't partially credited to them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bull. It is insane to atrribute the radical belief of neoconservatism purely on my late Senator. You can't ignore Leo Strauss and the many neocons that follow his questionable views on policy and the truth.--8bitJake 19:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's more insane to deny that he's consistently cited in numerous books, articles, and by many neo-conservatives as an influence. It's not in dispute. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally Henry M. Jackson believed in the truth and justice and the Strausian Neoconservative policy of the “Noble Lie” (See the Power of Nightmares,the films did not mention Senator Jackson one. It is the definitive documentary on the Neocons and their questionable rise to power and the film makers did not see fit to mention my late Senator. ) in order to manipulate the public does not correlate with the honesty of my late Senator.--8bitJake 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Power of Nightmares didn't mention Jackson is just further evidence that that movie was fundamentally inaccurate about the history of neoconservatism. The movie was a conspiracy theory out of Lyndon LaRouche, and that 8bitJake is citing it is further evidence of how unhinged he is on this topic. -- FRCP11 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British television documentary producer Adam Curtis is not a LaRoucheie. Do you allways slander everyone that has a different political view as you? Sad actually.--8bitJake 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Curtis was a LaRouchie. I said his conspiracy theory was. Its "Strauss is worse than Osama" blather was indistinguishable from the ravings of the EIR. -- FRCP11 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a conspiracy theory out of Lyndon LaRouche" Come on you can't deny what you said right above here. I for one trust the BBC and appreciate their foresight in creating and running such a hard hitting and important piece of political analysis.--8bitJake 22:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the definition is necessary anyway, I'm unsure, but here's what 8BJ's article has to say:

The fledgling neocons of the left are based at places such as the Progressive Policy Institute, whose president, Will Marshall, has just released a volume of doctrine called "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty." Beinart's book is subtitled "Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." Their political champions include Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and such likely presidential candidates as former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council.

This new crop of liberal hawks calls for expanding the existing war against terrorism, beefing up the military and promoting democracy around the globe while avoiding the anti-civil liberties excesses of the Bush administration.

He doesn't label Beinart a fledgling neo-con, and to state it outright as if this author is an authority (which he isn't, and it's merely an opinion poorly interpreted by 8BJ) is a violation of NPOV as well as a violation of standard verifiability. Please stop adding it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the credo of the new Democratic hawks is eerily reminiscent of the neocons of the 1970s, who ran a full-page ad in the New York Times called "Come Home, Democrats" after George McGovern's crushing defeat, in a play on his campaign slogan "Come Home, America." In it, early neocons such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Norman Podhoretz called for a return to the principles of — you guessed it — Truman and President Kennedy.

This is entirely appropriate and applicable. The author for JewishWorldReview.com writer Jacob Heilbrunn is writing a book on neoconservatism. That sounds like an expert on neoconservatism if you ask me.--8bitJake 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So because it's "reminiscent," it makes him one? Jake, you're making my point, not supporting your own. He's calling them Democratic hawks, not neocons. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he used the terms interchangeably and did not make a difference between Neocons on the right and the left. He made a point to specifically not to.--8bitJake 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it, this is impossible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it's a surprise to anyone who has followed these edit wars, but 8bitJeff is being completely irrational here. Beinart is a liberal who's criticized the war in Iraq and the neoconservative movement. He's not a neoconservative.[1] -- FRCP11 20:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beinart is a member of the Progressive Policy Institute a neo-liberal and neocon think tank aligned with the DLC. He is about as "liberal" as Joe Lieberman --8bitJake 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, Beinart has written about this. The Americans for Democratic Action, one of the older liberal lobbying groups, rate Lieberman as more liberal than John Kerry or his Democratic primary opponent. [2] Jake, to be blunt, your POV regarding Beinart, Lieberman, Scoop, etc. appear to be clouding your ability to neutrally edit the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jeff I am not convinced a neo-neocon like yourself is such an impartial source. The ADA has not been a notable or significant influence on the Democratic political movement for decades.--8bitJake 21:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating to watch hard-core Deaniacs demand that 90% of the Democratic Party be expelled as insufficiently pure.

In any event, it's irrelevant whether Jeff is an impartial source (though I have no idea where he stands politically, which is a pretty good sign that he is impartial). What's relevant is whether his edits meet the standards of WP:V and WP:NPOV, and they do.

Clinton and Gore were DLC members, 8bJ: are they also neoconservatives? Sheesh. -- FRCP11 22:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Clinton still supports the lies of the Iraq war and want to send more troops over to die. She is a leader in the DLC and I fail to see a policy differance between her, Lieberman and the right-wing Neocons on this issue.--8bitJake 22:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a neo-con, either, Jake. I don't know if you're capable of recognizing them. Your current edit is still inaccurate, for the record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to you a "neo-neocon" as in a neocon enabler or apologist. --8bitJake 22:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you call Hillary Clinton a "neoconservative" it shows that you understand the word to be a pejorative, rather than a word with definitional meaning. I recommend Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" before you continue to participate in political debates. -- FRCP11 22:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the Iraq war she still supports the Neoconservative stance thus she is one. I am sure this 1+1=2 political logic might be a bit cutting edge.--8bitJake 22:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Al Gore is a "neoconservative," too. You've admitted that your definition of the word to mean "anyone to Howard Dean's right" is meaningless. Sorry: Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and you don't get to change the meanings of words. Read some Orwell. -- FRCP11 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how just two guys can be a “consensus” and can get around Three revert Rule restrictions by stretching the rules. This sort of biased-gang bang editing can be used to prevent and insert all sorts of wacky text.. Such practices almost encourages a Wiki user to go to a site like Daily Kos or Democratic Underground and encourage more editors to help against Biased-gang bang editing.--8bitJake 22:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you want to send this little war to RfC too, be my guest. I won't complain. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What wacky text? Beinart isn't a neoconservative, and we're protecting the article against your edits. And you're so irrational you don't even see that Beinart is on your side in the debate of "Is Scoop Jackson a neoconservative?" (Not that anyone on this page has said Scoop Jackson is a neocon, but your lack of reading comprehension has prevented you from seeing that.)

You will be very disappointed if you go to Daily Kos and ask for help. They hate Scoop Jackson there.[3][4]