I ain't gonna lie, I'm not even sure what the Neocon Agenda is. It kinda sounds like some movie with Matt Damon in it...

Sure, by all the left-wing zealots, it has. What has truly been rejected is the collection of all the things that made this country great: limited government, controlled government spending, law and order (you're not going to tell me that the six tax cheats in the Obama administration, confirmed by the democrat Senate, are irrelevant, are you?) , lower taxes, strong defense and the encouragement of commerce through free markets. We have elected . . . and adopted the agenda of . . . the most left-wing collection of government tinkerers and big (make that HUGE) spenders ever empowered. It will be interesting when all of this gets de-regulated. I hope health care won't need to be.

But, all of the history is on my side, the side of aghast horror at what is being done in the name of "this is what the American people want. " Never has it worked, never has any function been improved, or made more efficient, or less corrupt, or more fair, or better run, when the government took it over. What you are certain of has never happened before although time and time again, government has polluted or destroyed whatever it sought to improve, as the associated costs rose geometrically. Go ahead, look it up.

For a neo-liberal agenda? I'm sorry, but there's not much difference between the two. Neo-liberals like to talk about the use of "soft-power" in achieving foreign policy aims--all what that means is that we use cultural, economic and political incentives to achieve objectives. It is a question of emphasis and means. Neo-conservatives like to use the stick to push for change while the neo-liberal likes to use carrots to create incentives for change.

The ends are almost exactly alike. Very generally speaking, Neo-conservatives think that the Middle East is the most important region to secure while the neo-liberals think that South Asia, Russia, and China are all regions to watch for. Those in the "realist" and "neo-realist" camps might belong to both groups, but have been leaning more neo-liberal in recent years. The Brent Scowcrofts and Colin Powell's of the world are examples of these types. Either way, both groups don't have a lot of qualms about using military force if need be. In fact, a prominent neo-liberal, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright once said during the Balkans War "why have this great military if we can't use it?" What a justification to go to war! And some call Bush's people warmongers.

Having read the reviews of fitman and irishgit, this listing might better read "The results of the neocon agenda have been rejected". The term "neocon" was origianlly used to describe liberals who had supposedly moved right. Neocons favor open markets...so-called free trade policies...and interventionist foreign policy. On the Bush model- and this includes McCain- neocons could now be described as liberals pretending to be conservatives. Remember Bush 41 with "kinder, gentler nation". Remember Bush 43 with "compassionate conservatism". There was no need for one to be genius or psychic to see that these men were saying that true conservatism is flawed and in need of redefinition. I for one am hopeful that this agenda has been rejected; though we will live with the negative effects for some time to come.

Well, I suppose one could say that results of the neocon agenda (endless war, a dying economy, hyper inflation, etc.) convinced swing voters to go with Obama for a change.

Whether or not Obama can repair the damage remains to be seen.

If you think this, or any other election was based on the voting public's profound analysis of the issues, or of political agenda's, I have some fine oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you.

Which agenda is that? how much are things actually going to change now that we have exchanged one group of monkeys for another?

And the neo lib socialist agenda has won. Either way, America lost.