# Trite SDMB arguments and John McCain. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374 "2008-04-07T19:57:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374/81 "2008-04-09T16:32:52Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Actually, Buchanan [left the Pubs in 1999](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#2000_Reform_Party_Presidential_Run) to join (and try to take over) the Reform Party; and after the RP broke up, he formed his faction into the new [America First Party.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Party_(2002)) [/QUOTE] Not much difference there. Your Wikilinki says the AFP’s ideology is _paleoconservatism_. On fiscal policy, they’re _right-wing_, and on social policy, they’re _right-wing._ It looks to me like it would be nonsense to say that Pat Buchanan is not _right-wing._ I’m not sure what _paleoconservativism_ is. Maybe it means that, like McCain, they first attended the Senate clad in animal skins. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374/82 "2008-04-09T16:40:55Z")
Paleocons are isolationists. They aren’t into running around the world, toppling other governments. Other than that, they’re not much different from other conservatives, AFAICT. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374/83 "2008-04-09T16:55:42Z")
[QUOTE=AskNott] Not much difference there. Your Wikilinki says the AFP’s ideology is _paleoconservatism_. On fiscal policy, they’re _right-wing_, and on social policy, they’re _right-wing._ It looks to me like it would be nonsense to say that Pat Buchanan is not _right-wing._ I’m not sure what _paleoconservativism_ is. Maybe it means that, like McCain, they first attended the Senate clad in animal skins. 😃 [/QUOTE] [Paleocons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative) are religious and social conservatives; they are nativist and anti-immigration, often verging on racism (if only in veiled language); they are isolationist WRT foreign and military policy (and especially U.S. support for Israel, which separates them from both the [neocons](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative) and the [Christian Zionists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionist)); and they are economic populists, as suspicious of Wall Street as they are of liberals and other Commies. That last, more than anything else, sets them apart from the Republican Party’s mainstream as currently constituted. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374/84 "2008-04-09T18:32:47Z")
[http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml](http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml) Is the Keating 5 scandal a trite argument. He will have to explain it again. That will be hard to do. He escaped but did wrong ,wrong,wrong. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374/85 "2008-04-09T18:33:08Z")
Well, I’m convinced! I will not oppose McCain because someone says he isn’t \*really \* a hawk, or an insincere hawk, or a hawk who is unwilling to “walk the walk” that his talk demands. I oppose him because he is an entirely sincere and committed hawk, without any taint of hypocrisy. Yes, that’s much better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trite-sdmb-arguments-and-john-mccain/444374.md?page=4)