It seems pretty clear as one reads through the various articles in neocon online rags such as Commentary, The Weekly Standard and National Review Online, that the neocons still haven’t firmed on backing any particular runner in the race for Republican nomination for the 2012 presidential elections.
They have, however, made it fairly clear who they don’t want - and that’s Ron Paul, the candidate who ran an extremely close second to Michelle Bachmann in the recent Ames straw poll. While Paul’s ideas about ending the wars goes down well with many war-weary Republican – and, indeed, Democrat – voters, it would be a complete anathema for the neocons who see the wars against Islam as essential for the long-term objective of Israel’s expansionist aspirations into the occupied territories and elsewhere.
Paul Ryan, who hasn’t said he’d run yet, apparently doesn’t cut it with the neocons either. In this case, it’s Ryan’s domestic policies that seem to be at odds with what the neocons advocate.
For the neocons – and also much of the commentariat of the mainstream media as well as at least one poll – the three main contenders at this stage of the game are Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
There does seem to be a distinct trend toward favouring Rick Perry inasmuch that there is nothing being said by neocons that is critical of him – though, having said that, most comments about him are more simple observations about him rather than open support.
It may be that the neocons are still holding their cards close to their chest in case someone more favourable decides to throw their hat into the ring or they may think that it’s simply too early to put all their weight behind one candidate just to find that he or she later backs out.
One thing’s for sure; right now there is no one in the running who has really impressed the neocons. There is no George W. Bush or Dick Cheney combo anywhere on the horizon and, certainly, none of the current frontrunners could be framed as ‘neoconservative’, though all support certain aspects of neoconservative ideolgy and all have taken advise from neoconservatives. They still all have to fully prove their foreign policy credentials, particularly in relation to the Middle East and Israel, before the get the full unconditional support of the neoconservative movement.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
3 comments:
Damian mate,
I have an earnest question you may be able to help answer based on your knowledge.
Is it really true that the reason the yanks (especially the neocons and their religious acolytes) back Israel in ways that defy rational explanation is because the're trying to 'engineer' the fruition of biblical prophesy with the return of Christ?.
Being so pompously narcissistic in their self importance, they see themselves at theonly ones at having some ordained role in dealings with God?.
Do they really subscribe to this 'belief system'.
Thanks for your indulgence on this matter.
All the best,
Nylon Shirt
G'day NS
The Christian right and the neocons have a somewhat symbiotic relationship with each other. Both have an interest in ensuring Israel survives; the Christians for purely religious reasons, and the neocons for geo-political reasons. While Israel remains threatened (as they both see it) by their Arab neighbours and the Palestinians, the Christians and the neocons will stay allies. However, beyond their very specific interests in ensuring Israel's survival, they have little in common with each other. Few neocons are actually Christians (there are some); most are secular orthodox Jews; some are atheists and a few are even Muslims.
Of course, neocons also maintain other symbiotic relationships; most noticably with business generally and the arms business particularly. They also have a strong relationship with the mainstream media which is dominated by Murdoch.
My thesis is about how all these dots join up.
Cheers
Damian
Thanks Damian for that clarification.
So from what you say, it seems its mainly the 'Dalek-extreme Christians' who meddle, promote and fund activities in Israel as part of some fulfulling prophesy
belief where they of course so big headed think they are the ones that should be rightly meddling around over there such is their self serving belief in themselves.
Arrogant dolts, so the neocons are more 'convienient travellers'.
Lets just be thankful that 'Israel' wasn't established in south west tasmania as was one idea post ww2.
By now they'd have taken over Tassie completely and likely all of Australia too!.
We were lucky there methinks!.
thanks cobber,
Nylon Shirt
Post a Comment