Tim Gracyk: President Richard Nixon's- Emotional, Historic, Powerful Farewell Speech (August, 9th 1974)

Source:Tim Gracyk- President Nixon's 1974 farewell address. 

Source:The New Democrat

Just on a personal note first and then I'll get into President Nixon's farewell speech here. I was I guess bored last night and trying to take a break from the news even as a news and political junky and it suddenly occurred to me that I have YouTube on my TV ( thank you, FIOS ) I went to that on my TV and first saw Dick Cavett's PBS documentary about Watergate which came I out originally I believe in 1979 and they did a 35th anniversary special about that documentary in 2014. So I watched that first which was very good which then lead me to the network news coverage of President Nixon's farewell speech from 1974 and saw about two hours of CBS News's coverage with Walter Cronkite. That is and probably the only reason why I'm writing this post about Richard Nixon today, because I've had this keen interest on Watergate the last few days and have YouTube on my TV.

Source: Fams Sound- President Richard Nixon's mountaintop 

Richard Nixon, gave several great speeches in his long and I would at least argue great political career even with all his criminal baggage from Watergate and his little criminal intelligence operation in the The White House. His 1968 RNC acceptance speech, was a great speech. His 1969 presidential inaugural was a great speech. His so-called silent majority speech from 1969, as well as his Vietnam War speech from that same year were also great speech. His 1972 inaugural speech was a great speech. His 1974 resignation speech was a very good speech. We're talking about a man who as brilliant at he was and I believe the smartest and most knowledgeable President we've ever had ( not the best, which is different ) and yet somehow he was underrated as a speech giver. Maybe it was his voice, presence, who knows, but the man was very good at communicating what he believed and making a great case for it and yet was able to do it in a way that most Americans should understand.

Source: IZ Quotes- One of President Richard Nixon's best quotes 

If I had to rank President Nixon's speeches or just Richard Nixon the man, I would have to go with his 1968 RNC nomination speech where he gets renominated by the Republican Party to be President in Miami. His 69 silent majority speech as President. And his farewell speech as President in 1974 and I'm not sure which of these speeches are his best. I'm not a fan of President Nixon in the sense that I believe he's one of our best President's and got a raw deal as President and should've never been forced to resign by his own party, which is exactly what would've happened at he not had resigned with the House and Senate Republican Leadership's telling him that he needs to resign or will be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate, which means Congress would remove him from office. He was as Carl Bernstein has said a criminal President who ran a criminal organization inside The White House and had to be removed either voluntarily or through force.

I'm not a fan of Richard Nixon and I believed he did a lot of bad things, but I'm a fan of a Redskins ( even though Dan Snyder tests that everyday ) and I'm not a fan of the Dallas Cowboys or New York Giants, but I respect talent when I see it and I respect Richard Nixon's abilities, talents as a politician and leader, his knowledge, intelligence, and foresight. The man was a big fan of President Theodore Roosevelt and regularly referred to him as TR and quoted Teddy Roosevelt on a regular basis. And you see that all through his farewell speech here. It was a very ironic speech and with that old saying that irony can come back and bite you in the ass fits perfectly here.

President Nixon saying and I believe this is his best line here in a speech that he personally wrote himself that, "only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." Translation: that you can only know what it's like to achieve the highest level of success when you've first started at the bottom and struggled, work hard to, started in the valley and worked your way to the top. If Nixon didn't start life in poverty in rural Southern California, you could certainly see poverty from where he grew up. He had a very modest upbringing and joined the Navy to get way from that and to get himself a college education, he was a World War II veteran in the Pacific and rose to Lieutenant Commander. We're not talking about a unaccomplished bum, but someone who achieved real success in life after starting out with almost nothing.

And then President Nixon's other great quote being, "Remember, always give your best. Never get discouraged. Never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you. But those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself." Translation: meaning that when you let people who don't like you and even hate you, but I would add are not even worth your time and effort even thinking about them let alone your respect that is when they win because that is what they want. Which is a negative reaction from you and to know that you don't like them either and they know that you know they don't like or hate you. I would add to that, that people should spend more focus on what they already have and achieved instead of focusing on what they don't have and probably will never have or what they've lost. Which I realize is a lot harder than it sounds especially when you're talking about losing loved ones, but life will be much better for you if you do that.

The irony of President Nixon's speech is that he spoke from personal experience in both parts here. He was a man that came from practically nothing and achieved great things in life. That is the Richard Nixon speaking from positive personal experience. His negative experience that he personally spoke from was about pettiness and hate. You won't find a politician who was more hateful of the people who opposed him than Richard Nixon even though Donald Trump I believe is probably at this point a damn close second. And it's President Nixon's pettiness and hate, lust for power that destroyed his presidency and administration and why he gave a resignation speech and a farewell speech two and a half years before his second term was up.
Source:Tim Gracyk

Commentary Magazine: Yuval Levin: 'Congress is Weak Because Its Members Want it To Be'

Source:Commentary Magazine- Our do nothing U.S. Congress. 

Source:The New Democrat

"Congress is weak because its member want it to be": I completely agree with Yuval Levin on this, but I would put it and phrase it differently.

The last 10-20 years perhaps longer Congress's ( both House and Senate ) approval rating has been somewhere around 10-20%. ( Depending on what poll you look at )

And the people who tend to approve of the job of Congress tend to either be Anarchists who don't want government do to anything.

Alcoholics who don't know what they want and believe and perhaps aren't even sober enough to understand the question do you approve or disapprove of Congress.

Or mental patients who believe they're being chased by flying Martians.

The rest of the country tends to be sane, sober, and in some cases even somewhat intelligent so of course they don't approve of the job of Congress, because Congress doesn't do a damn thing every year.

I mean, if Congress avoids a government shutdowns, that's considered an incredible accomplishment.

If Congress passes a budget even though according to the U.S. Constitution that both Democrats and Republicans now just view as an advisory documental and suggestions for how Congress should behave and what they should do, Congress passing a budget now is considered extraordinary.

Passing all 12 appropriations are now considered to be a miracle if Congress ever does that. Even though again under law and under the Constitution, Congress is required to pass an annual budget and all 12 appropriations bills.

Imagine being a public school teacher and your department head or principal told you that if your students do their work and learn the subject matter and pass your course, that would be considered a positive thing, but it's optional and you don't have to teach them anything, just give it your best shot. Wait, bad example because public school teachers in many cases aren't expected to teach their students and their students aren't expect to learn, but give it their best effort and show up.

But imagine running a grocery store or some other business that you don't own and your boss tells you that you're not expected to sell the products there and make a profit, but those things would be great if you did. What kind of business manager would that person be if they knew they would have a job in the future regardless of the job that they're doing and the success of their business. Well, that's how Congress operates and is judged. Americans are so fed up ( to be too kind ) with Congress now and politicians in general that they don't expect Congress to do their jobs. They just want their Representative and two Senators to repent their values and what they believe in and tell them what they want to hear. They do those things and stay out of legal trouble and avoid scandal, they'll probably get reelected over and over again.

What other job and profession in the world outside of politics and in Congress can you get paid and be guaranteed a job just for showing up. Again, public school teachers unfortunately and there are some good public school teachers, but too many bad ones and of course the largest verbal and physical punching bag in the world our U.S. Congress that houses the House of Representatives and Senate. Where a non-leadership member and not even a committee leader makes 150,000 dollars a year plus a generous benefits and retirement package. Which would be a good compensation package for an associate at a good law firm where people there are expected to actually work and represent clients well and win cases or at the very least give their clients the best legal representation possible.

Congress is weak, because there members are weak. They're in Washington about half a year on a good year, they're not expected to actually pass bills and in many cases are just there working to get reelected. And working to get reelected and governing are too different things. Working to get reelected now is about raising a lot of money and having your base behind you so you don't have to worry about getting primaried. Governing is about working with your colleagues in both parties at least when the margins are tight in both chambers ( especially in the Senate ) to pass needed legislation. And members of Congress are weak because that's what their voters want or expect and are tired of complaining about it and campaigning and voting for people who'll actually go to Washington to represent their state or district and work to pass good legislation.

The National Review: Kevin D. Williamson: 'FDR's Nationalism Presaged Donald Trump's'

Source: The National Review- Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd POTUS, Progressive Democrat 

Source: The New Democrat

I don't want to sound like I'm trying to offend, but Kevin Williamson's who I tend to respect at least politically, has nationalism and progressivism, mixed up with a what I call unitarianism and not the religion, but in governmental sense.

Source: Wall Street Journal- Donald J. Trump first Nationalist POTUS 

The United States unlike the United Kingdom and like the Federal Republic of Germany is a federal republic. We have decentralization of governmental power in America. We have checks and balances, as well as branches of government. National, state, and local, and in many cases Americans tend to live under two local government's. County and city and if you live in the City of Los Angeles, or in Chicago, to use as examples you know exactly what's that life. Since the City of Los Angeles is part of Los Angeles County and Chicago is part of Cook County.

Source: IZ Quotes- Truer words have never been said than what Sydney J. Harris said here

In a country that has a unitarian government or is a unitarian state like Britain, most of the governmental power, but not all is centralized with the national government in London. The U.K. Government runs the education system for Britain, as well as health care and health insurance for the entire country. Whereas in America each state even city, county has their own public education system and make their own governmental decisions for all other local matters that go on in their local jurisdiction and state.

President Franklin Roosevelt, was neither a Nationalist or a Unitarian when it came to government policy. The man led us along with our allies through World War II and saved the European Jews from ethnic destruction from the German Nazis. If he was a Nationalist, we would've stayed out of Europe and perhaps Japan as well, especially if he were truly a Democratic Socialist who didn't believe in government force and a strong military during World War II.

According to Wikipedia

"Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland. The political ideology of nationalism holds that a nation should govern themselves, free from outside interference and is linked to the concept of self-determination. Nationalism is further oriented towards developing and maintaining a national identity based on shared, social characteristics, such as culture and language, religion and politics, and a belief in a common ancestry.[1][2] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve a nation's culture, by way of pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism, which, in some cases, includes the belief that the nation should control the country's government and the means of production."

President Franklin Roosevelt, was a Progressive in the true sense of the term. Someone who believed in progress and that progress could obtained through government action. That government could be used to promote and achieve progress in the country. He inherited the Great Depression and believed government should be used to help Americans through the Great Depression with things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security, but that government could also be used to help us get out of the Great Depression and back to strong economy health. Pre-New Deal, there was no public safety net or a national infrastructure system of any kind and with President Roosevelt we saw the Federal Government pay for the financing of American roads and other infrastructure projects in America.

If FDR was a Unitarian or Socialist, he would've nationalized the public education system in and all public welfare policy would be complete run by the Federal Government. No more local public hospitals, because now the Feds would be running those hospitals, as well as public housing, no more private health insurance.

Under FDR the Federal Government got a lot bigger and spent more money than it did before especially as it related to the economy, but our National Security State was also created under FDR and we became a world economic, military, and diplomatic power under FDR. Because he was a liberal internationalist who believed in a strong America both at home and abroad. Unlike Democratic Socialists, who tend to be very dovish on foreign policy and national security. FDR, was a Progressive Democrat in the truest and best sense of the word, he did put limits on what government should do and try to do and who also believed in individual success in America.

Commentary Magazine: Noah Rothman: The New Left is Coming For You'

Source:Commentary Magazine- Socialists coming for you.

Source:The New Democrat

"The New Left is coming you:" when I read that I'm thinking they're coming for Republicans ( especially in the House ) and everyone who supports Donald Trump. This election cycle reminds me a lot of what happened in 2006 for Democrats and 2010 for Republicans. Even though in 2006 I don't believe activist Democrats hated President Bush and Republicans, as much as Tea Party Republicans hate Democrats and President Obama in 2009 and 2010 or Democrats hate President Trump and Republicans in 2017-18. That might be debatable, but I believe Democrats and Republicans are more divided now than they were 12 years ago.

Source: Left Forum via Twitter- The New Left Forum?

The last two years of the Bush Administration when President Bush had a Democratic Congress, they actually managed to pass some major legislation together. Including the bank bailouts and even a minimum wage increase. Whatever biparrtisnsahhip that we saw in the late 2000s is basically gone now. If a Democrat or Republican, is even caught by an activist in their party, being friendly to someone from the other side especially in Congress, they risk getting primaried in their next election. That wasn't the case in 2007-08.

And what I'm getting to is what happened in 2009-10 for the Republican Party, is now happening to the Democratic Party. The parents left the house to go on vacation basically to escape their 10 kids and left no one in charge at home and now you have the kids running the house. Using the couch as their trampoline, eating cake and cookies for dinner, skipping school, because their parents aren't home.

There is a vacuum of leadership in the Democratic Party now that was in the Republican Party 8-9 years ago and every Democrat that thinks highly of them self whether they're currently in office or not, believes they can be the leader of their party or at least a major player in the Democratic Party and is now making their play. Even if they have no government experience previously or don't even have much of a professional background at all. We saw activist lawyers, radio talk show hosts, bloggers, getting elected to the House of Representatives in 2010 and now we're seeing the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's of the world who was bartending in order to help herself pay her bills just a year ago, who'll probably be representing New York City in the House next year.

In 2010, you saw a whole wave of in some cases Conservative-Libertarian Tea Party Republicans. The Rand Paul's, Ron Johnson's, Mike Lee's of the world who got elected to the Senate and Justin Amash in the House. But you also saw some Far-Right Nationalist populist Republicans who make up a lot of the House so-called Freedom Caucus and represent the Donald Trump base, who oppose things like birthright citizenship, or voters being able to elect their own Senators instead of state legislatures, the Steve King's of the world in the House.

In 2018, what were going to see in the House of Representatives, assuming Democrats not just ran back the majority but do it in a big way and have 15-20 or more seat majority in the next Congress, is fringe base of the Democratic Party looking less fringe and more like mainstream Democrats. Not mainstream to the American electorate as a whole, but more normal inside the Democratic Party. With Socialists getting elected to the House especially in the Northeast, but in California as well, and perhaps in big Midwestern cities like Detroit, Chicago, perhaps in other cities.

And that the House Democratic Leadership will need these members to not just keep their majority, but to pass anything in the House. We already have a so-called Progressive Caucus in the House, who are actually Democratic Socialists ideologically like Maxine Waters and next year you might see this group actually use the label Democratic Socialist and be proud of it and not hide from it especially with all these Socialist Democrats getting elected to the House this year, assuming House Democrats win back the majority in 2018.

If you want to know why American voters be enlarge aren't fans of either the Democratic Party or Republican and why their approval ratings are so low and why 4-10 or more Americans voters now view themselves as Independents regardless of their political ideology, is because the parents aren't home in either party and have escaped from their children and are perhaps living it up in the Caribbean and perhaps living in hotels that don't allow children, while their children are left home by themselves. American voters, tend not to like the fringes of either side. The Nationalists on the Far-Right in the Republican Party and the Socialists on the Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

Bernard Goldberg: Donald Trump Is No Ronald Reagan

Source: Bernard Goldberg- Donald Trump, meeting Vladimir Putin in Helsinki 

Source: The New Democrat

To say Donald Trump, is no Ronald Reagan, is like saying it gets hot in South Florida during the summer. You would be so guilty of stating the obvious that you would have to plead guilty if stating the obvious was illegal and beg for a plea bargain or mercy from the court. As much as today's Republicans claim to love Ronald Reagan, they don't because they love Donald Trump instead who is very different not just politically, but in tone, temperament, character, or lack of character on The Donald's part.

Source: Bernard Goldberg- Classic Bully Donald Trump, taking on a disabled reporter in 2016

Whatever you think of Ronald Reagan's politics and his presidency, most people tended to give him the benefit of the doubt that he at least believed what he was saying. Unlike Big Don, where 3-5 Americans depending on what poll you look at don't like the man and tend not to believe him when he's speaking. What Republicans like about Ronald Reagan is his popularity and the fact that he's a Republican, his supply side or as Democrats call borrow and spend economics, he was tough on crime and believed in large defense budgets.

Source: Mike Russo Expose- President's Donald Trump, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington & Ronald Reagan 

But beyond that today's GOP doesn't like The Gipper's politics, because he believed in immigration, diversity, multiculturalism, America is a city on a shining hill that welcomes everyone that is willing to work and contribute to America. In today's Republican Party if you're not of Western-Northern European, especially British Protestant background, they don't want you and see you as Un-American, shit holes. ( To use President Trump's own words) Reagan, Saw big government as a threat whether it interfered into either economic and or personal affairs. Not only was Reagan not in bed with the Christian-Right on social issues, he wasn't even in the same room, floor, home, neighborhood, city, zip code, county, state, etc. Unlike the Christian-Right that goes to bed politically with Donald Trump every night as he tucks them in.

Reagan, hated authoritarianism in all forms whether it was communism, nationalism, or religious fundamentalism. Unlike Donald Trump, who has tried to become friends with at least two Communists in President Xi Jinping from China and President Kim Jung-Un from North Korea. And wants President Vladimir Putin from Russia, to be his best friend, perhaps has a poster of him in his bedroom, running to be President of the Vladimir Putin Fan Club, if his current gig doesn't work out. And yet you always here Tea Party Republicans today talk about Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, as if they're the same man both politically and as far as personality. When they're as different as weather reports from Seattle, Washington and Miami, Florida in January.

Source:Fox News

The John Birch Society: Solution To Big Government

Source: The John Birch Society- Who is this? 

Source:The New Democrat

Keep in mind, this video is from The John Birch Society, which is sort of like The National Enquirer or The Star when it comes to political and governmental news. Not exactly award winning when it comes to news, because they tend to be made of antigovernment Libertarians and Far-Right conspiratorial Nationalists, who believe the 9/11 attacks were made up or an inside job, the CIA murdered President John F. Kennedy, etc, not exactly people with a good deal of judgement and perhaps even honesty.

Source: Renew America - Big Government, in need of Weight Watchers 

Having said all of that the speaker in this video ( whoever she is ) did make some good points about big government and the solutions to big government. I don't agree with her that current makeup of the U.S. Government is unconstitutional, misplaced and at least in some areas doing too much and overwhelmed and doing things that should be left up to the states, sure! But that's different from being constitutional or unconstitutional.

Source: Tenth Amendment Center- Say no to big government 

If you want to get rid of big government, you should at least know what it is. And I know what you're thinking, that sounds like some crazy commonsense that anyone with half of a brain could understand. But the two words big and government get thrown out a lot by people who think they know what they mean together, but in a lot of cases don't know what big government is and believe in a form of big government themselves and perhaps aren't even aware of that. So, before you bash big government, make sure you know what you're bashing. Which sounds as crazy as making sure your parachute works before you jump out of an airplane 20,000 feet in the air. But try it and you might see the benefits from that of actually knowing what you're talking about before you actually talk about it.

Source: Freedom and Prosperity- Outlaw big government 

According to Wikipedia

"Big government is a term used to describe a government or public sector that is excessively large and unconstitutionally involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used in the context of the United States to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions—an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]"

Big government is not just government that's too big, because why is it too big in the first place, because it does too much and has too much authority in areas that should be left up to the states or localities, private sector, or involved in areas where it has no business being involved in, in the first place.

Like telling consensual adults who they can sleep it or live with.

Regulate how people communicate with each other because they're worried about people being offended.

Telling consensual adults who they can marry.

Or trying to prevent people from a certain religion from even entering the United States.

Telling people where they can get their health care and health insurance.

Taxing people to the point where it makes it hard for them to run their business or even pay their bills on their own, because their taxes are too damn high. ( Pun intended )

These are all examples of big government which is government either doing too much or being involved in areas where no level of government should be involved in the first place like being involved in free adults private affairs and lives.

So, now that we know what big government looks like let's then look at how we get it and can get more of it. The easy answer to that and something that a layman might say would be that big government comes from our politicians and the government itself. Well, that would be partially true, but that would be like saying food comes from the grocery stores, but without farms growing and producing the food that we eat, the grocery stores wouldn't have food to sell at all.

Big government doesn't come from our politicians and government officials, but where do they come from? To paraphrase the great political satirist George Carlin, they didn't just suddenly appear from Mars or the Moon, they came from the communities and states that elected them. In order words big government comes from the people who vote for the politicians who support big government and then back it while they're in office. If a solid majority of people in a community, state or country wants big government, then that's exactly what the people will get in a representative democracy, at least until it gets thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, if you don't like big government and don't want it, I have another commonsense solution for you which might give you more reason to believe that I'm not only crazy but have my very own mental institution or at least ward that was built just for me and others who also believe in commonsense. If you don't want or like big government, don't support it, don't vote for it, and campaign against it. Know the people you're considering for public office before you actually vote for them. ( Another commonsense solution )

No more blind voting and vote for people that share your political and national values, instead of voting for people who you think sound cool or look hip. Vote for people who actually represent your values and if that means you believe in individual freedom and free choice and you do your homework, you're going to vote for people who believe in those things as well and against big government. And as a result you'll get less big government in the process.
Source:John Birch Society

FOX News: Kirsten Powers VS Charles Krauthammer On Neoconservatism

Source:Andrew Yezen- Then Fox News political analyst, Kirsten Powers.

Source:The New Democrat

“Kirsten Powers: Charles Krauthammer knows he’s a Neocon. Sign the petition to arrest Marxist collaborator Marco Rubio at:MofoPolitics.com.”

From Andrew Yezen

"Political analysts Kirsten Powers and Charles Krauthammer got into a tense exchange last week, arguing over the definition of the term "neocon."

Krauthammer asserted on the Fox News "Special Report" panel that the term is meaningless and challenged someone to provide a definition for it.

"Charles, you know what a neocon is," Powers told him. "I mean, this is kind of silly—."

"It is not," contributor Steve Hayes interjected.

Source:The Blaze- Kirsten Powers vs Charles Krauthammer on neoconservatism. Perhaps you can tell for yourself which one is which.

From The Blaze

“In a post-show discussion posted online, Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” got heated when Kirsten Powers called out fellow panel regular Charles Krauthammer for being a pro-war neoconservative. Krauthammer denies it and Steve Hayes goes on the attack.” 

Source:Real Clear Politics- then Fox News political analyst Kirsten Powers in 2015.

From Real Clear Politics

From Dictionary on neoconservatism: "relating to or denoting a return to a modified form of a traditional viewpoint, in particular a political ideology characterized by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy." 

"Neoconservatism is a political movement that began in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party and with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s, particularly the Vietnam protests. Some also began to question their liberal beliefs regarding domestic policies such as the Great Society. Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and political radicalism." 

From Wikipedia

Kirsten Powers, even though it took her a while to get there, definition of Neoconservative is pretty good: "Someone who is very hawkish on foreign policy and national security and believes in using American military force to advance democracy around the world." 

And yes, Neoconservatives gave us the 2003 Iraq War because they wanted democracy to come to Iraq. And as it turns out weapons of mass destruction, was really just an excuse for sending America to war in Iraq. The real Neoconservative objective here was to eliminate the Saddam Hussein Regime and replace it with an American friendly, democratic government and state. 

Kirsten Powers, also made another good point here when she says that Charles Krauthammer knows he's a Neocon. Krauthammer is one of the fathers of the American modern neoconservative movement. Former Liberal Democrats, (meaning people who believe in liberal democracy) who are very hawkish on foreign policy and national security. They're still let's say, right-progressive on economic policy as far as what they believe that government should do as it relates to the economy and helping people in need help themselves and believe in things like the a public safety net, but that the safety net should just be there for people who truly need it. And aren't Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists ( people like Bernie Sanders ) who believe that public social insurance programs should be universal.

It's weird to see Charles Krauthammer denying his neoconservatism and that he's a Neoconservative, because again Krauthammer is one of the original Neoconservatives in America. But it was also great to see Kirsten Powers call him out on that just flatly say that he knows he's a Neoconservative. She literally called ( excuse my language ) bullshit on him and did it on national TV.

My simple definition of a Neoconservative is someone who is a Right-Progressive. Someone who is not anti-government and believes in the safety net and a basic regulatory state and things like equal rights. But who isn't a Social Democrat and puts real limits on what government should try to do for people and is very hawkish on national security, foreign policy, and law enforcement. What they were talking about in this segment, had to do with Neoconservatives as it related to national security and foreign affairs, but there's a broader political philosophy to neoconservatism.