You foolishly defer to quantity rather than quality in your opening statement. It is about the quality of the sources, not how many there are, and seeing as the most verifiable sources from your point of view have already been put forward here ad nauseum, your case that there is widely accepted verifiable and neutrally based evidence of the late Senator's neo-conservative legacy is seriously flawed. The citations you highlight at the forefront of your case are agenda-based so heaven knows how superfluously irrelevant the other sources are. Your very deference to the quantity of sources in your opening gambit reflects the tenuous nature of your argument. I refer you back to my vegetarian analogy. The tide of truth is flowing against you, desist from your misinformed unreliable agenda-based pigeon-holing of the late Senator or risk being swept away to the sea of ignorance. I refuse to let the late Senator's name become besmirched and mislabelled by a case built on subjective sources. Those who propagate such skewed sources on WP, some would suggest are merely the "agents of ignorance".