All Mod Cons

The American Spectator's Philip Klein reports from a meeting of the conservative movement's old Reaganite hands in Virginia.

There's a strong feeling, [Spectator Editor R. Emmet] Tyrrell said, that social conservatives, free market conservatives, and national security conservatives will all be able to work together.

He also said that "there's a sense that the Republicans on Capitol Hill are freer of wobbly-kneed Republicans than they were before the election."

[Spectator Publisher Al] Regnery said, "The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right. The overriding fear was that the Republican Party does not represent conservatives," and there was a desire to get behind genuinely conservative candidates.

Isn't it striking how the two parties react to defeat? In 2004, Democrats agonized about how the loss of "values voters" was a problem they'd have to overcome, that they needed a new Southern governor to win, because that's the only way they'd won since the 1970s. Late in the year Democratic leaders tried to anoint pro-life former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer as DNC chair on the harebrained theory that this would satisfy Republican voters somehow.

Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party’s congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

Democrats spent much of the next two years in that box. Phil Bredesen, the conservative Democratic governor of Tennessee who has all the charisma of Stephen Wright at 4 a.m., was looked at as a prospective president because he cut spending and was, uh, from the South.

Flash forward to today, and the Democrats have elected a black senator who was raised in Hawai'i and Indonesia and who was accused by his opponent of being a socialist who befriended terrorists and voted for infanticide. So you can see why conservatives are skipping the "how do we change?" part and going right to hoping that Obama screws up. But this part of Klein's report doesn't make sense to me.

Although polls show that "conservative" is a more popular word than "Republican," it turns out that "Democrat" is a more popular description than "liberal," and the sentiment was that tougher language needed to be used to define Barack Obama and other Democrats as liberals.

Tougher? How about "socialist?" Oh, wait.

Language used to work for Republicans. Indeed, one of the more mockable exercises that Democrats tried from December 2004 to November 2006 was "reframing" their policies, because they were so in awe of how Republicans had popularized terms like "death tax" and made "liberal" a curse word.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • zoltan||

    There's a strong feeling, [Spectator Editor R. Emmet] Tyrrell said, that social conservatives, free market conservatives, and national security conservatives will all be able to work together.

    The first and third are pretty much oxymorons. I just read this a few minutes ago on CNN and laughed.

  • ||

    Just sit back and wait for the democrats to fuck up and pick your spots. It is not long before the jackels will start fighting over the caracus. Opportunity number 1 will be if Obama is crazy enough to try to put RFK Jr. in at EPA. There is so much bad tape on that nut you could fill CSPAN for a week.

  • ||

    The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right.

    Of course, "this is a center-right country" was the reason why Obama was going to lose.

    Ever Google the phrase "referendum on socialism?" Illuminating.

    Just sit back and wait for the democrats to fuck up and pick your spots. Now THAT'S the sound of a partisan who's confident that his party's affirmative message is popular among voters.

    No, seriously, just think how well that strategy worked for John Kerry. Nobama couldn't win when he was a rookie Senator running for an open seat against a war hero; it's supposed to work when he's the incumbent president?

  • ||

    Can you somehow hook these guys up with your earlier, "Why didn't Barr do better" thread? There's some real fun to be had there.

    Also, I think you're missing a link to the relevant article at AmSpec. The best line? "Much of the discussion focused on taxes, spending, judges, values issues and how libertarians and social conservatives could work together." That must have been some discussion.

    Anon

    Anon

  • palouse||

    "death tax" and made "liberal" a curse word

    That reminds me, how's ole Teddy Kennedy doing?

  • BDB||

    So, McCain lost because he wasn't a TrueConservative?

  • ||

    I was calling Obama a socialist before Palin was nominated....and I am not a republican but a libertarian and i am not a conservative but a liberal.

    Weigel can go fuck himself and his candidate, the socialist Obama, can go fuck himself as well.

  • ||

    "Just sit back and wait for the democrats to fuck up and pick your spots. Now THAT'S the sound of a partisan who's confident that his party's affirmative message is popular among voters."


    With the fuckups that are coming, it will be very popular. What positive message did the Dems have in 2006? None. They waited for Katrina and Iraq to get tough and for the Republicans to have a series of scandals and took advantage of it.

  • duderman||

    "Just sit back and wait for the democrats to fuck up and pick your spots. Now THAT'S the sound of a partisan who's confident that his party's affirmative message is popular among voters."

    I have trouble thinking of any electoral shifts that didn't occur due to antagonism against the party in power. 1980, 1992, 1994, 2006, 2008.

    These pols are apparently looking to harness future BO antagonism. You seem startled by this idea.

  • Mike M.||

    The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right.

    Of course, "this is a center-right country" was the reason why Obama was going to lose.


    Take a look at the results of those state referendums. Gay marriage once again got clobbered everywhere.

    It's obvious to anyone with a shred of intellect that Obama won because the nation wanted to repudiate George W. Bush and the sorry ass Republican party, not because center-right values have been deemed obsolete.

  • ||

    national security conservatives


    Why do you keep using that phrase? I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • ||

    From Change.gov

    Jumpstart the Economy

    Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.


    How again is this not socialism?

  • Nigel Watt||

    What are "excessive profits"?

  • Bingo||

    Pathetic response from the conservatives. The Socons realized that they have no problems with huge, over-reaching, and intrusive government... just as long as the right people are in charge. They've taken over the GOP and, as a voting bloc, make up enough of the population to not go away.

    We're boned if this is how the conservatives are reacting to this election

  • nj||

    Libertarians can't work with neocons, let alone social cons.

  • ||

    BDB | November 7, 2008, 12:43pm | #

    So, McCain lost because he wasn't a TrueConservative?


    You know, this time, they have a plausible case to make that the losing Republican actually wasn't a conservative.

    That's not why he lost, though.

  • ||

    duderman,

    I'm not saying that opposition to the party in power isn't part of a winning electoral strategy, just that that can't be all there is.

    In all of the years you mentioned, the challenger party articulated a clear alternate vision of how they would govern, in addition to slagging the incumbent party.

  • ||

    Mike M.,

    It's obvious to anyone with a shred of intellect that Obama won because the nation wanted to repudiate George W. Bush and the sorry ass Republican party, not because center-right values have been deemed obsolete.

    I think it's a little from Column A, a little from Column B. There has been a longstanding, tectonic movement of the electorate towards the left, as laid out in "The Coming Democratic Majority." It was just cloaked by the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the fact the Bush was an incumbent wartime president.

  • ||

    you know, now that ExxonMobil's profits will be in the toilet when the next quarter's numbers come out, I expect that the Obamatrons will STFU about their idiotic "windfall profits tax".

    Do we see, now, why oil companies earn profit when they can?

  • ||

    "Do we see, now, why oil companies earn profit when they can?"

    In Democrats' minds they don't earn anything. They just borrow it from the state and steal it from the working people.

  • Scott66||

    Since the dictionary does not give a percentage of ownership by the proletariat in its definition of socialism we should use intent to determine if someone is a socialist is or not.

    Obama talks about raising taxes not to balance the budget or some such pratical and mundane reason, but out of a sense of fairness. Strikes me a socialistic.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Stephen Wright at 4 a.m.



    That's Steven Wright.

  • ||

    Maybe, MAYBE, we've gone from center-right to center...temporarily. Young people are overwhelmingly Democratic. Young people also don't work, so who cares what the hell they think anyway?

  • ||

    John McCain is the poster boy for the center-right. He built his reputation on being the pragmatic, but still conservative, maverick who takes on the wingnuts in his party. If there was anyone who could appeal to center-right voters without being tagged as too Republican, it was John McCain.

  • ||

    Why don't we every see Democrats call for a "windfall profits" tax on trial attorneys, entertainers, etc?

  • shrike||

    Hilarious about the "center right or left" notion.

    The small ant farm known as the 'Reason.com' posters can't even be pinned down with such a simple designation.

  • ||

    In some ways these guys are right. McCain lost because his policies were to similiar to Obama's. It's hard to attack a guy's policies when they are essentially the same thing as your's just tweaked. So since you can't argue policy, people have to decide on other less objective qualities such as political bearing. In the last weeks of the campaign McCain started to look a little crazy and Palin looked less and less ready for the job. In that electoral environment Obama was an easy choice.

  • ||

    joe, I agree. That's the reason he didn't lose 60-40. I think any other Republican would have.

  • ||

    What conservatives are left other than socons and neocons? In any numbers, that is. Since libertarians should have nothing whatsoever to do with either, the "conservatives" can go fuck themselves.

  • highnumber||

    I'll you what - I got you sussed.

  • Ska||

    Why don't we every see Democrats call for a "windfall profits" tax on trial attorneys, entertainers, etc?

    They don't net $10 Billion per quarter, nor are they as evil as oil companies. Not even the lawyers.

    Not that there is a point where profits become excessive, or that earned income is a windfall.

  • ||

    joshua corning | November 7, 2008, 1:00pm | #
    From Change.gov

    Jumpstart the Economy

    Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.



    How again is this not socialism?

    Well, it may be socialist but it's certainly more mild than this atrocity by the current administration do you not agree? Oh, and didn't McCain vote for that bailout whereas Sen. Obama merely voted "present"? I think between the "lesser of two evils", Weigel made the right choice.

  • ||

    Cab, I think Huckabee would have had a shot.

    Not too closely tied to the Iraq War, or the DC Republicans, excellent speaker, and an economic message that would have appealed to people freaked out by the economy.

    But yeah, McCain's reputation kept this close.

  • New||

    A profit becomes "windfall" when it is generated on a product that is needed by everyone, and those profits disproportionately negatively affect the poor.

    If your municipal Waterworks Department made 10 billion a quarter in profit, you would call that "excessive" and "extreme."

  • Bingo||

    I feel kind of bad for the paleocons. My dad is just now realizing that his party has left him, but he still voted for McCain anyways. Really, the only thing left of the GOP is the unholy alliance between social conservatives and neocons.

  • ||

    Ska,
    I don't have the numbers for the most recent quarter, but last quarter Exxon earned $11.68B in profits, but also paid $32.36B in taxes. You think thier customers should pay more?

  • ||

    Sorry, forgot the link http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2459357&title=Exxon_Posts_Record.html

  • ||

    Oh, and didn't McCain vote for that bailout whereas Sen. Obama merely voted "present"?

    Obama (D-IL), Yea

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14196.html

    Nice of you to defend a socialist with a lie.

  • ||

    Not too closely tied to the Iraq War, or the DC Republicans, excellent speaker, and an economic message that would have appealed to people freaked out by the economy.

    Hey, joe, you could say all that about Mittens too!

  • .||

    That reminds me, how's ole Teddy Kennedy doing?

    Tick, tick, tick...
    Good thing there's John-John to carry the mantle...oops.

    Stupid airplane!

  • Zeb||

    Both Democrats and Republicans seem desperate to give up everything that is good about their respective platforms.

  • ||

    If the Republicans are too stupid to figure out what they are for, they can start by figuring out what they are against. Obama will help them along by proposing any number of crackpot policies.

    On foreign policy, they can now realize that wars are really hard and unpredictable. The first time Obama wants to go to war for this or that cause (and he will), they can say "we have some experience in this and things don't always work out as easily as you think they will. We better have one hell of a good reason to do this."

    As far as all of the people on here who want to throw the evangelicals over the side, you might want to think about that. What if you get your way and the Republicans give them the finger. Okay, you can make a really good religous argument for big government and welfare. They could very easily go to the Democratic side. Rahm Emmanuel is a religous Jew who spent 2006 recruiting socially moderate Democratic Congress candidates. They are already throwing the gays over the side on gay marriage. In Europe they are called "Christian Democrats" and they are the ones who implimented the socialist states that now exist in Europe. Libertarians better figure out a way to talk to Evangelicals about small government and a way to live with them or there is going to be a whole lot more big government.

  • ||

    TAO,

    Nobody thinks Mittens is "an excellent speaker." He is dreadful as a speaker.

    Also, his economic positions would have killed him - C-I-L "kill" - in this economy.

  • Ska||

    Al -

    No I don't. If you would like that then increase the taxes. We'll (consumers) get to cover those taxes through higher prices or lower production (which leads to higher prices).

    Exxon operates at a gross profit margin of around 10%. Their net income (so called bottom line net income) comes from volume of sales, not because their revenue is 50% higher than cost of sales.

    You could always buy some XOM if you want a cut of the profits. Just don't go looking to penalize them for being a gigantic, well managed company.

  • ||

    The first time Obama wants to go to war for this or that cause (and he will), they can say "we have some experience in this and things don't always work out as easily as you think they will. We better have one hell of a good reason to do this."

    But will they? In the 1990s, there were some Republicans who opposed Clinton's Balkan interventions on America First grounds, and others - the neoconservatives - who supported him.

    Since then, the neocons have gained power, and the isolationists have declined. 9/11 changed everything, docha know, and it was McCain imperialist "National Greatness" as foreign policy position that convinced the Republicans to set aside all of their differences with him.

    I think Obama is going to get a lot more flack from the Republicans for being too dovish, rather than too hawkish.

  • ||

    Oh, and didn't McCain vote for that bailout whereas Sen. Obama merely voted "present"?
    Obama (D-IL), Yea

    Nice of you to defend a socialist with a lie.

    You will note my question mark. Thanks for the correction but how does this make Obama any more culpable than McCain or Bush in this state power grab and how would McCain's winning the election have changed this, hrrm?

  • ||

    Big Cluesticks to the Republicans: Obama won because the voters overwhelmingly rejected the big government policies of the last eight years. It doesn't matter at all that Obama will in all likelihood accelerate the growth of government, because voters vote their pocketbook, and it was big government conservatism that overspent, overmonetized and overmanaged the economy, and who were first in line pushing big-banker-welfare.

    If Republicans want to get back into congress and the White House, they need to throw the big government "conservatives" under the bus.

  • ||

    "I think Obama is going to get a lot more flack from the Republicans for being too dovish, rather than too hawkish."

    I think that depends on the war. If he is going to go into Dafur or some other place without any real US interests for humanitarian reasons, they will be all over him. If he goes after Iran or North Korea or some other place where the US has interests, you are right they will back him and the flack will come from the left.

  • ||

    Oh and Joshua, if you think that was "defending" you have got a serious problem reading people. That or you are a douche, but I will give you a benefit of a doubt.

  • ||

    Sadly Joe I think there might be a real no shit war in the next four years and we will long for the days of the small affairs we have been fighting the last 20 years. I don't say that because I think Obama is a war monger. I say that because we don't get to determine if we live in peace, our enemies do. I am not optimistic about the future in that regard.

  • ||

    Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families: Barack Obama and Joe Biden will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on the Obama-Biden long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

    If they called it a "resource rebate" like Palin did, does it cease to be socialism? Or is Palin a socialist too?

  • ||

    I will only vote for conservatives if they join the facebook group for impeaching obama

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=13200515790

    it is 5000 strong already!

    and can prove they have read "War is a Racket" by Marine General Smedley Butler

  • ||

    I think that depends on the war. If he is going to go into Dafur or some other place without any real US interests for humanitarian reasons, they will be all over him. If he goes after Iran or North Korea or some other place where the US has interests, you are right they will back him and the flack will come from the left.

    You draw the line wrong. Republicans could be counted to support any war of conquest, or war to overthrow an enemy. They would declare anyone in our gunsights to be the most importantest interest ever.

    On the other hand, if the mission is peacekeeping, they'll balk. But then, the assertion you made was The first time Obama wants to go to war

  • ||

    Joe,

    They should balk at peace keeping missions. If Obama's idea of foreign policy is to put US soldiers into dangerous areas with restrictive ROE (like Reagan in Lebenon) or heavy weapons (like Clinton in Somalia) he needs to be stopped. At least initially that is probably what he will do and we can see some Ranger dragged around by some mob in DAfur because they couldn't send in heavy weapons for political reasons and our enemies can get the impression that we are an easy mark. Wonderful.

  • ||

    Well, John, I understand you have a different view of foreign policy, and are down on peacekeeping missions.

    I think that the experiences in Lebanon and Somalia have influenced people's thinking, though, and that any such missions would be undertaken with prudent rules of engagement and adequate firepower.

  • Bingo||

    John:

    I hope you're wrong about an upcoming war, but Russia's saber-rattling and the world economy in the shitter it wouldn't surprise me.

  • ||

    I think the same people are going to back in power that were there under Clinton and will make the same mistakes. They begged for Armor in Samalia. One company of Bradleys would have changed everything and they wouldn't give them to them. Even then, something like 1800 somalie gunman were killed to get 18 Rangers. The Army didn't want to leave Somalia. They wanted revenge and would have gotten it had Clinton not cut and run and gave Bin Ladin a huge propeganda coup.

  • Just Plain Brian||

    I don't say that because I think Obama is a war monger. I say that because we don't get to determine if we live in peace, our enemies do.



    To quote Sun Tzu, "The supreme art of war is to defeat the enemy without fighting"

    Maybe Obama won't be up to the task, but you seem way too quick to count him out based on what the Straw-bama in your head will do.

  • ||

    Bingo, so do I. So do I.

  • ||

    "Maybe Obama won't be up to the task, but you seem way too quick to count him out based on what the Straw-bama in your head will do."

    That assumes that every war is avoidable and somehow the President's fault for not avoiding it.

  • Bingo||

    joe:

    Uhhh, what about blow-back? The last thing we need to do is stir up even more hornets nests.

  • Just Plain Brian||

    That assumes that every war is avoidable and somehow the President's fault for not avoiding it.



    No, it doesn't, it simply allows for the possibility that someone skilled at diplomacy might have other options.

    "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"

  • ||

    John,

    Look at the peacekeeping missions in the Balkans. They've got armor.

    People learn from mistakes.

    Bingo,

    Blowback is a problem. It's something that needs to be considered and weighed, no question.

  • ||

    I think the same people are going to back in power that were there under Clinton and will make the same mistakes.

    Except those same Clinton people learned their lesson a few years later in the Balkans and were successful.

  • ||

    Hawai'i

    One of the things that really roasts my potatos is this kind of faux-inclusive multi-culti spelling. Its Hawaii, Weigel.

  • Daniel Reeves||

    What are "excessive profits"?


    Liberal drivel. And to add insult to injury, taxes on "excessive profits" aren't even that Pigouvian unless everybody is taxing "excessive profits"; they just give an upper-hand to non-American-based corporations. Ironic considering all that overseas rhetoric, but who ever said politics was about logic in the first place?

  • ||

    If they called it a "resource rebate" like Palin did, does it cease to be socialism? Or is Palin a socialist too?

    There's a difference between excise taxes and windfall profits taxes, you know.

    There's also a difference between taxes on resources extracted from a state and taxes on income.

    Taxes that are designed and intended to redistribute wealth are not the same as taxes that are not.

    That said, I'm not real excited about Alaska sticking up the oil companies with an excise tax. But the reasons and justifications for it are somewhat different than the explicitly redistributive/punitive windfall profits tax.

  • ||

    One of the things that really roasts my potatos is this kind of faux-inclusive multi-culti spelling. Its Hawaii, Weigel.

    Wouldn't the Hawai'ians be the ones to decide that?

  • Franklin Harris||

    One of the things that really roasts my potatos is this kind of faux-inclusive multi-culti spelling. Its Hawaii, Weigel.



    It's also "Steven Wright," not "Stephen Wright."

    Is anyone paying attention?

    Hello? Is this thing on?

  • LarryA||

    If your municipal Waterworks Department made 10 billion a quarter in profit, you would call that "excessive" and "extreme."

    The municipal waterworks are run by the municipal government. Tax-supported monopolies should not make any "profit."

    My municipal water plant serves about 25,000 people all of whom live in or near the same town. The average oil company provides gasoline, diesel, heating oil, etc. for millions of people all over the U.S.

  • ||

    "That assumes that every war is avoidable and somehow the President's fault for not avoiding it."

    So many of our wars ARE avoidable. The war in Iraq for instance. Bush took the initiative to create that war. Iraq was never a threat to us. The neocons promoted that war for the sake of rearanging the Middle East for Israel's sake.

  • Don the libertarian Democrat||

    "The consensus was that this was not a mandate for Democrats, that this country is still center-right"

    It might be more useful if this consensus was among the citizenry, rather than a small group of biased ideologues trying to make themselves feel better.

  • ||

    "If he goes after Iran or North Korea or some other place where the US has interests"

    What are our interests in Iran and North Korea?

  • ||

    "I will only vote for conservatives if they join the facebook group for impeaching obama"

    On what grounds should Obama be impeached? Has he committed any crimes or misdemeanors?

  • ||

    "we don't get to determine if we live in peace, our enemies do."

    John, which enemies will lead us into war and what will they do that causes us to go to war against them?

  • ||

    "If Republicans want to get back into congress and the White House, they need to throw the big government "conservatives" under the bus."

    And the neocons with their costly unecessary wars.

  • economist||

    I would say that the neocons should definitely get thrown under the bus, even just from a political standpoint. For every vote Rebublicans get from neocons, they alienate on average 2.7* rational voters.

    *This number was extracted from my colon during my annual colonoscopy. The doctors were afraid, at first, that it might be cancerous.

  • ||

    joshua coming,

    It's okay for us libertarians to call Obama a socialist, because we're so nuts we can call pretty much every political figure in America a socialist. So go ahead and knock yourself out.

    GOP conservatives, however, have to stop using that word in a negative way. After all, they absolutely love war socialism and corporate socialism. Redistribution of wealth to huge arms manufacturers? Heaven.

  • ||

    Wouldn't the Hawai'ians be the ones to decide that?

    Since its hard to know what the residents of the State of Hawaii think, individually or en masse about this question, and consistent with the recent affirmation of the state as the Final Arbiter of All Things, lets ask the State of Hawaii State of Hawaii.

    Whattaya know. They spell it both ways. (Note the use of the link, there, joe. Its fun and easy!)

    I still think the apostrophe is an annoying affectation, though. Which I guess makes me some kind of racist.



  • ||

    GOP conservatives, however, have to stop using that word in a negative way.

    no...first of all anyone can call a socialist a socialist and second it is good for the republicans to use it cuz that allows us (libertarians) to call them on their own hypocrisy.

    "Yes Mr Republican, Obama is a socialist for redistributing other's profits....now lets talk about your positions that also are socialist."

  • ||

    ...social conservatives, free market conservatives, and national security conservatives will all be able to work together.

    Yeah, we all saw how well that worked the last, oh, eight years or so. Fact is, sociocons (and, to a lesser extent, the neocons) have made it clear that they have no interest in sharing the tent with those wacko libertarians.
    The Social Democrats are looking better all the time...

  • ||

    That said, I'm not real excited about Alaska sticking up the oil companies with an excise tax. But the reasons and justifications for it are somewhat different than the explicitly redistributive/punitive windfall profits tax.

    Uh, she raised the taxes after oil prices rose sharply and immediately turned them into a rebate for the citizens of Alaska. It looks, quacks and walks like a duck redistributive/punitive windfall profits tax.

  • ||

    R C Dean | November 7, 2008, 3:18pm | #
    Hawai'i

    One of the things that really roasts my potatos is this kind of faux-inclusive multi-culti spelling. Its Hawaii, Weigel.


    First, it's potatoes.
    Second, umm what?

  • b-psycho||

    Josh: "Yes Mr Republican, Obama is a socialist for redistributing other's profits --"

    Typical Republican, cutting him off: "WEWIN?!?OKTHANKSBYE!"

    Like it or not, that's what happens. Realizing that their criticism is hollow yet leading with agreement just makes it easier for people to equate you with them.

    Besides, it'd be more accurate to call it corporatism. No real socialist would support the finance bailouts, the sops to common folk are just bribes so people will go along with it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement