Greetings and Salutations,
There is a common misconception among many paleoconservatives that those in the Republican party who support - at least in theory, if not in current practice - the policy of preemptive military engagement in the Middle East, are largely accepting of most of the policies embraced by the current Republican party leadership. This is entirely untrue, and in my estimation, downright silly. As a representative (of sorts) of the Republican Revolution network on this fine forum, I can assure you all that the vast majority of those Chimpsy conservatives with which I have had the pleasure to become acquainted over the years are anything but pleased with the direction of the Republican hierarchy... especially as that direction pertains to government spending, border security, free market autonomy and the cancer of political correctness.
I would also like to add that while there are many devout Christians within the Chimpsy movement at this time, few of them seriously believe that one's religious perspective should overshadow one's obligation as an American to adhere to the foundational principles of our Constitution in matters of governmental policy. That is to say that while religion and politics can never be severed entirely in the minds of leaders - nor, in my opinion, should they be - one's faith is only a guiding factor in one's decision-making process, and should never nullify the necessity for sound Constitutional prerequisits in these respects.
Clearly there remains a deep divide between the aforementioned Chimpsy conservatives (or Chimpsyites, as we like to be called) and Ron Paul-supporting paleoconservatives (or Paulies, as we oft' refer to you). This chasm lies between those of you who adhere to a strict non-interventionist view relative to American foreign relations, and the rest of us who think you folks are entirely full of shit. This gulf I fear will not be bridged anytime soon, but hey, my own sister has never really forgiven me completely for calling her an insufferable bitch back in 1973, and we still manage not to throw food at each other during Thanksgiving festivities, so I figure there's always hope for reconciliation.
By the way, we Chimpsyites take great offense to being called neocons, and would rather our Paulie conterparts just kick us squarely in the nuts instead. In our collective estimation, the word neocon is a derogatory term used mostly by leftists as a means of demeaning all conservatives, regardless of their foreign policy views, and if future positive relations between our two camps is to ever become a reality, I would strongly urge everyone who reads this post to refrain from referring to me or my Chimpsyite brethren as such.
Oh, and just in case you were wondering, we're also not Zionists merely because we have decided to side with Israel over a pack of hate-filled, notoriously anti-Semitic, and completely despicable Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians and single-mindedly seek the ultimate destruction of the only pre-Iraq War democracy in the Middle East. If giving billions of dollars in aid to that tiny Republic is something that you believe America shouldn't do, then I say FAIR ENOUGH, but please do not pretend that the Israelis and the "Palestinians" are somehow moral equals in this fight. The "Palestinians" wouldn't recognize moral decency if the concept were water and they were dying of thirst.
But then, that's just my opinion. I welcome yours.
Most sincerely,
Edward - your humble Chimpsy ambassador
