Unless you have any evidence for that, I'm going to call it nuts. I also want to know who you really are and where you have buried Darth Rotor's body. This is not like you.
The only evidence I have is that Neo Con radio shills like Hannity are going out of their way to point out any and every foible in Hillary's campaign, and did the same versus McCain over the past two months, before Romney dropped out. This tells me that the original definition of a neoconservative is being reasserted. (Yes, Dr A, I am guessing)
Irving Kristol, in an overquoted remark on the neoconservative movement:
"A liberal mugged by reality."
Granted, the weakness of this idea is that Senator Obama is most certainly liberal, no question. It's not a trivial weakness.
But politics is about survival to fight another day. That is a trademark of the neoconservatives, whose liberal/leftish origins in the sixties/early 1970's demonstrates a driving aim of survival and relevance.
You are not relevant if you don't have an "in" with those in power.
Helping folks get into power allows for an in, some ins being more significant than others.
The idea is to win, or be connected to the winning side.
So, based on the tactics I have seen over the past four months, I am trying to do some out of the box thinking. It's not air tight, certainly, but I am completely tired of the endless false dichotomy presented as "differences" between Dems and GOP. Pols are pols, and what get their rods erect is power. Power is it.
Another data point is an article about a year and a half ago by a Bush insider covering the way the Evangelicals were used by the Bush team, cynically, for their political purposes. (Wu or Yu, I'll have to look it up.) He later wrote a book on the topic. LIttle bits and pieces are adding up.
I'd say more, but I am listening to the Dubliners singing
Whskey in the Jar, and it has me distracted as I sing at the top of my voice, scaring the dog.
I'll think a bit more on this and see if I have anything further to add.
DR
