Should we treat the Paleoconservatives as allies?

We all know what the neo-cons stand for: American empire, militarism, interference everywhere in the world in the name of "American interests", etc. The paleoconservatives have a different vision. While they are solidly conservative on the economic issues (though they are often protectionist and opposed to free trade) and on the social issues (sometimes more so than the neocons), they are firmly opposed to the neo-con foreign policy of global conquest and frequently look with skepticism upon governmental efforts to restrict civil liberties in the name of national security, whether it be the USA Patriot Act or gun control. They believe the US should only intervene when our national interests are explicitly threatened. Unlike our side of the aisle, they tend to distrust international institutions and they are not big fans of humanitarian foreign policy missions like Somalia or Rwanda.

The increasingly failed occupation of Iraq may strengthen the paleo-cons in conservative circles, and I regard that as a good thing. I see it this way, the paleo-cons have a bad issue domestic issue agenda, but the neo-cons are more dangerous because they want to spread their filth all over the world, making the US less safe over the long run. I feel a lot more confident about our ability to defeat the Right if their side is led by the paleo-cons, rather than the neo-cons. But if the paleo-cons must win, they are a hell of a lot less dangerous than the neo-cons.

We need all the help we can get. We don't always have to agree but I think they are basically good people.

Their enemy, the neocon, is our enemy!

This is potentially more dangerous: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/

But this bill hardly espouses paleoconservative values. Limiting the authority of the Supreme Court is inherently unconstitutional, and the sponsors of HR 3920 are more closely aligned with the neocons. I think introduction of legislation of this sort reinforces the need to seek alliances with 'true conservatives' - and not just for the short term. This doesn't mean having to march in lockstep with them, but allies are needed to defeat the neocon agenda when it rears its ugly head.

I believe that a majority of republican legislators fall into the neocon category, however; alliances should be formed only with those republicans who have demonstrated opposition to the neocon agenda. The votes of even a handful of strategic paleoconservatives could prevent passage of neocon legislation.

I don't think we can enter into a permanent coalition with them, but for right now we should make room for them.

Lay off of them when they're useful, but don't count on their sense of principle overriding their fidelity to the Republican party. McCain is still stumping for Bush's reelection isn't he? And Pat Buchanan, whose cogent, pithy criticisms of Bushco has caused so many to swoon, did this on Scarborough's show recently:

Pat was much more amazing. After writing columns for months about the errancy of the invasion, and maintaining now that it was a mistake, Pat said Bush needs to straighten up and fly right: be honest about the cost of bringing off the occupation, and adding the hundreds of thousands of troops and billions of dollars necessary. He emphasized that a failure in Iraq would mean a meltdown of the Republicans, true enough, but this leads him to urge the Administration to double down. In other words, Bush's political survival is more important than a U.S. debacle in Iraq.

http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/000489.html

He's still a Republican, even when he's not. Be wary of these guys, they're not allies.

They are not allies to the left but it's a good thing that they are finally seeing how screwed up the Neocons are and speaking out. The split between the BushCo Cult and real Conservatives is a sign of sanity.

It is these paleo repukes who have empowered the fascists for years in this country. To think that Bushco is an unexpected anomaly from the GOP is rather naive IMHO.
To be blunt, he is the fruit of mainstream Republican policies in this country. Simply defeating W, will change little in America until the entire Conservative agenda is exposed for what it is,a incubator of Neo-fascism in America.
At risk of repeating myself, I will say that the only good pukes are the ones who are going down to the local election board and changing their party affiliation.

The paleocons are pseudofacists.

The old-fashioned conservatives I know hunger for the days when their political opposition consisted of liberals, when the main argument was the proper role of government. Their continued support for Bush is predicated mostly on a notion that he will be OK if he has a different set of advisers. When you point out that Bush had to sign off on the policies that they find most troubling, and that it was Bush who picked his own advisers, they re-think their stance. They will likely not vote for Kerry, but the chances are growing that they will stay home or vote third party.

They are the domestic equivalent of the Saudis.

We will cooperate on issues. Namely are mutual hate and loathing for the neo-cons.

Once the neo-cons are eradicated, we can go back to hating each other ;-)