Election 2012

Conservatives Keep Voting

More writers reveal their ballots.


I'd love to vote for the Illuminati, but you just *know* Congress will be pulling the strings behind the scenes.

Since I blogged The American Conservative's list of how the magazine's contributors plan to vote this year, I should note Friday's follow-up featuring five stragglers who didn't participate in the first round. A quick summary: Winston Elliott and John Vella are endorsing Mitt Romney, Clark Stooksbury is backing Barack Obama, Samuel Goldman is supporting Gary Johnson, and Daniel Larison didn't register in time to vote but if he did he would probably go for Johnson too. The only one of those five who has written anything for Reason is Stooksbury, so Red Team loyalists should be sure to bring him up the next time they want to tell us that Reason is in the tank for Obama.

Bonus link: Us Reason writers have revealed our ballots too.

NEXT: Defense Contractor Ordered to Pay National Guard Soldiers $85 Million

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.

  1. I don’t recall anybody here saying Reason was “in the tank” for Obama. Did I miss something?

    1. I’m guessing its just a variation on this “A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama*” meme.

      *Romney safe state? What’s that?

    2. That John guy, not?

    3. He’s using hyperbole to be an asshole make a point.

      Not a very good one, but a point nonetheless.

    4. I don’t recall such a thing, either.

      I do recall a surprising number of people in 2008, saying they would, on this site. Few of us could understand why, and it seemed that some Reason types and fellow travelers were as deluded about the Rorschach candidate as lefties were.

      But I still want to know: What happened to Craig Newmark? I haven’t seen his wisdom blessing these pages in a long time.

      1. Yes, it does bear mentioning that three prominent members of the Reason staff voted for BO (Bailey, Cavanaugh, and Weigel). Cavanaugh has pretty openly ripped on BO since then so we can assume he’s not a repeat offender. Bailey doesn’t seem thrilled with BO either and has been open about not really being a libertarian himself anyway, he’s just a science writer who happens to hang around here. Weigel, well, we know about him.

        1. Whatever happened to Cavanaugh? Did he formally quit when I was on hiatus?

          And why is Lucy still on the staff page? Cathy Reisenwitz, I’m looking at you!

          1. Did Lucy quit?

            What did you jerks do?

            1. Shit went down at Reason HQ. Not sure what.

            2. Not sure and no idea, respectively.

              Reason is keeping us in the dark. It’s scary.

              1. Can’t you guys use the internet? Welch fired her. She ought to sue that Uinversity for granting her a degree in “professional communications” without teaching her how to spell, or failing that, use spellcheck.

                1. “Can’t you guys use the internet?”

                  Dahel’s an “Internet?”

                2. I thought she just failed to meet her weekly quota of anti-Romney articles.

                    1. That second link is a graveyard of ex-Reason writers. I’m surprised we didn’t see Kerry Howley.

                    2. If you had I wouldn’t have posted it.
                      Good to see Wilkinson actually hates at least one flavor of statism.

        2. The only surprise there is Bailey.

          1. Bailey’s reason was that the republicans needed to be punished.

            Really the best case that can be made for voting for Obama in 2008.

        3. Bailey doesn’t seem thrilled with BO either and has been open about not really being a libertarian himself anyway

          What the fuck are you talking about?

          1. Isn’t Bailey always the token libertarian at science forums?

            1. Yeah tulpa is being insane again today.

              1. “today”?

            2. Compared to the other scientists, yes.

              When confronted as to why a libertarian was pushing federal funding of stem cell research so hard, he stated that he wasn’t really a libertarian.

        4. It’s not like there were any good options in 2008. The LP candidate was Bob “Baby Doc’s lawyer” Barr and WAR.

          1. There was always not voting. Plus, Barr wasn’t running on Mike Huckabee’s tax plan as GayJay now is. Chuck Baldwin was probably a better “libertarian” option than Barr in 2008

    5. Any criticism of ROMNIAC or his ilk is secretly an endorsement of Obama.

      1. Bull. I criticize Romney too.

        The problem is nitpicking Romney/Ryan to death on economic issues, while only criticizing BO when he says or does something earth-shakingly stupid on economics.

        1. Bull. They’ve criticized his shit for 4 years straight, you just don’t have a memory longer than a few months.
          And noting Romney gives next to no details about his “plans” isn’t nitpicking.

          1. Does Romney get credit for being criticized in the 2008 primaries?

    6. Yeah, nobody has said this.

      Reason is in the tank for Johnson and not voting… which could obviously lead to Obama winning certain states.

  2. Jesse,

    An amazing number of reason writers seem to turn hard left when they leave here.

    I mean, yall fucking hired Weigel, who was obviously a leftist.

    1. They also sometimes mirror liberals in their writings. If calling them on that is considered an accusation of being “in the tank” for Obama, so be it.

      1. Well liberals are usually right about things. Maybe if you stopped being the bias police and started looking at the real world, you’d know that.

        1. When’s mom going to start charging you rent? The basement’s big, you know.

        2. Now that’s funny!

        3. Don’t know why you are bragging about liberals being right Tony.

          When you said two days ago that “Women should be forced to take birth control” you pretty much exposed yourself as a fascist, not a liberal.

          1. Don’t forget the classic “all rights are subject to debate.”

          2. you pretty much exposed yourself as a fascist, not a liberal.

            Forgetting the classic definition of a liberal and inserting the current political definition of a “liberal” meaning progressive, isn’t that really the same thing as fascist?

        4. “Well liberals are usually right about things.”

          Just the important things, like telling citizens how large their sodas can be, or stopping black women from braiding hair without a license.

  3. Sort of OT: Mormon Solidarity Bolsters Romney in Nevada

    No mentions of Gary Johnson, so it’s hard to know if he’s just completely, utterly irrelevant or they’re ignoring him.

    Either way, my hopes for a significant percentage in Nevada are taking a hit.

    1. Much better article:


      1. you cant say that too often about the borderline commie Guardian..

    2. I’m pretty sure the Mormon community won’t be voting for the pro-pot, pro-gay marriage Johnson.

      And I tend to think the only people who break ranks because of those issues are Ron Paul supporters (Romney liability) and college-age liberals (Obama liability). Since there are less of the RP supporters I’d say GayJay could screw over Obama in two Western states.

      1. Really, this is just me being frustrated again because the Mormons are voting solely based on religion, rather than on principles of said religion.

    3. Mormons are as in the tank for Romney as blacks are in the tank for Obama.

      What matters is turnout. And LDS members are trying to get massive turnout.

    1. What the hell did she expect? Obamacin is a suppository!

  4. so Red Team loyalists should be sure to bring him up the next time they want to tell us that Reason is in the tank for Obama.

    If the shoe fits, it could belong to someone else. After all, there are hundreds of millions of people with your shoe size. You are not so special.

    1. Fess up. You’ve got a shoe fetish, don’t you? Stilettos?

      1. It’s not like I write about shoes every day! There are some days where I don’t even have time to spare for posting.

        . . .Nancy Sinatra thigh high boots lover . . .

        1. Personally, I’m more into uniforms:



          1. You know who else was into uniforms?

            1. This girl?



              1. Yum.

  5. f GayJay loses, I’m gonna start a motherfuckin’ riot!

    1. If you feel so empty
      So used up, so let down
      If you feel so angry
      So ripped off so stepped on
      You’re not the only one
      Refusing to back down
      You’re not the only one
      So get up

      Let’s start a riot, a riot
      Let’s start a riot
      Let’s start a riot, a riot
      Let’s start a riot

      If you feel so filthy
      So dirty so fucked up
      If you feel so walked on
      So painful so pissed off
      You’re not the only one
      Refusing to go down
      You’re not the only one
      So get up

      Let’s start a riot, a riot
      Let’s start a riot
      Let’s start a riot, a riot
      Let’s start a riot

      1. Sounds more like the Occutards.

      2. White riot – I wanna riot
        White riot – a riot of my own
        White riot – I wanna riot
        White riot – a riot of my own

        Black man gotta lot a problems
        But they don’t mind throwing a brick
        White people go to school
        Where they teach you how to be thick

    2. Oh we’re not going to take it, No, we ain’t going to take it. We’re not going to take it, anymore.

      1. Get-up aside, that could easily be the anthem of the Ron Paul REVOLution

      2. Also:
        You know who else isn’t going to take it?

  6. There is also Slate, which has not yet revealed whether its staff’s support for Obama this year will be unanimous or merely overwhelming,

    So is this going to happen or did Jesse just put that into the article for fun?

    1. IIRC, when they did it in 08 everyone but some dude who works on webdesign voted for Obama.

      And I’m just going to assume said dude has been purged so it’ll be straight Obama this time.

      1. Maybe there’ll be an intern or two who vote for Stein. Wouldn’t that be exciting!

  7. Voting is your civic doody, a means to take a shit on your fellow citizens.


    Obama made the remark at a Friday rally after supporters booed Romney. “No, no, no. Don’t boo. Vote,” Obama told a crowd in Springfield, Ohio. “Voting is the best revenge.”


    2. I have to give the Romney people credit. They turned that into a commercial within 24 hours. What a fucking bumbling moron Obama is. He can’t even lie properly. Is there anything he does well?

      1. My guess is the Republicans learned from their sound trouncing in ’08 the importance of media and having a good marketing team.

    3. The Obama campaign said Saturday that the president’s comment was made in the context of Romney’s “scare tactics.”

      Spokeswoman Psaki said a Romney TV ad running in the state that suggests Chrysler was moving production of Jeep models to China was an attempt at “frightening workers in Ohio into thinking, falsely, that they’re not going to have a job.”

      You, see it’s not about our guy lowering the office of the presidency with his common mendacity, it’s about the big bad wolf at the door.

      1. “The Obama campaign said Saturday that the president’s comment was made in the context of Romney’s “scare tactics.””

        Oh, nevermind then. That makes it all better.

    4. LaBolt also took a shot at the Romney campaign for focusing on the comment.

      “It’s interesting that that’s the closing argument that the Romney campaign is making. I think that it seems very small,” LaBolt said.

      Unlike the current PA Obama ads harping on Romney paying 14% in federal taxes, I suppose?

  8. Clark Stooksbury

    I already voted in Tennessee. After two decades of protest voting for various third-party alternatives from Ron Paul to Ralph Nader, I pulled the lever for Barack Obama this time. I did so with some reservations, but with no doubt about whom I prefer to see in office.
    I’m concerned primarily with temperament and competence. Mitt Romney and the GOP have shown themselves to be so contemptuous of reality that they can’t be trusted with the levers of power.

    I would like to see any number of serious political changes in this country, including but not limited to a non-(or less) interventionist foreign policy, a reduction in the dominance of corporations and the very wealthy, and an effort to deal with climate change and other serious environmental challenges. Seeing no prospect of meaningful reform on the horizon, I am willing to settle for a flawed president and party who actually care about governing.

    The stupid really burns in that one. What exactly has Obama done that would indicate he “actually care(s) about governing”? I suppose there are reasons to vote for Obama, most notably the desire to see the current system collapse a little faster in hopes that the Dems will get the full blame and it will be replaced by something better. But these “Obama cares” sorts of justifications are really the height of stupidity.

    1. If you’re strictly voting for temperament and competence, I don’t know why you wouldn’t vote for either Romney or Johnson. Both men have records of excellence in the area of managerial ability, and both men appear to be stable, known quantities.

      If that’s all you were looking for in a candidate without regard to ideological content, you’d not be voting for Obama — especially given his appointees and botched reactions to several easy-to-handle crises.

      1. Obama has held one executive job in his life and has fucked the job up from day one. If you take ideology out of it, Obama finishes a distant third and maybe fourth among the choices available.

        1. Seriously. Obama started with a 69% approval rating and supermajorities in Congress. After barely getting through an extraordinarily unpopular healthcare bill that didn’t resemble what he advocated on the campaign trail, he’s lost all of that. As the kids say, and nothing else happened. Clinton did far more to further his agenda and maintain his popularity than Obama did, and Clinton had far less of a mandate and honeymoon period.

          I thought Bush was a serial incompetent when I examined his record back in 2000, but man — Obama really takes the cake.

          1. Bush worked with a hostile Congress and got a ton of things through with support from both parties. Obama has three accomplishments; Obamacare, the stimulus and Frank Dodd. All three were passed by brute force through the 08-10 Congress. He has done nothing else since then. He can’t even get a budget to pass.

            Take ideology out of it for a second. A President’s job is to work with Congress and the country to make sure the government runs properly. Obama cannot do the basic things that a President is supposed to do.

            1. Bush was a dupe who got rolled by established entities very easily, and had pretty much no managerial talent whatsoever. Failed at business, and quite frankly neither “his” foreign nor domestic policy ever had that much input on his part. NCLB, for example, was mostly the creation of Ted Kennedy — and much of the response to Iraq was crafted by Blair loyalists and various Clinton-era liberal interventionists and a handful of neo-conservative thinkers for good measure.

              That record definitely pales in comparison with Obama’s — but it wasn’t a very good record, either.

              I think that whatever else you can say about him, Romney is competent and will have both more control over the process and a better idea of what he’s doing than the last two incumbents.

              1. Take the wisdom of those things out for a second. If you are totally not ideological, the President’s job is to work with both parties and get things passed and problems solved. By that standard Obama is a complete and total failure.

                1. I think the President has some responsibility to make sure that his appointees are competent and of good character. Bush did a very slapdash effort on that count.

                  A President also has the responsibility to make sure that the legislation he publicly supports and spearheads has meaningful input on his part. IMO, Bush fails on that count as well.

                  OTOH, Bush did have a few appointees that were competent and professional (even though I disagreed with them ideologically): Condi, for instance. He also did have a rapport with the other party and, as you say, was able to pass things in Congress. I can’t think of any Obama appointee for whom I can say the same. It’s not an exaggeration to say that while Bush was a failure, Obama broke the federal government because he was too damned stupid to know how it worked. At least you get the impression that Bush thumbed through the instruction manual before revving up the engine.

                  1. Trouser, Bush had people like Cheney and Rumsfeld who at least understood how Washington worked. Obama has morons like Biden, Sibileus, and Napolitano, and Chicago hacks like Axelrod and Jarrett. There isn’t a single competent person in the administration.

                    1. Yeah, that’s kind of what I was getting at. Bush at least had a handful of folks who knew where the light switches were and who could clean up other people’s messes. I cannot think of a single Obama appointee like that who wasn’t a Bush holdover. (I was gonna go with Bob Gates, but he was a Bush holdover.)

                      There isn’t a single person you can point to in the Obama administration and say, “see, Obama knows how to hire the Right People”.

      2. And what does it mean to “actually care about governing”? That has to be the dumbest most meaningless statement you could make about the race. It is like Stooksbury is too stupid or too arrogant to even give the question of who to vote for any serious thought.

        1. Stooksbury is voting for candidate Obama, 2008 version, not Obama the president, or the 2012 candidate. He is a sentimentalist who doesn’t think, and that shit about ‘an effort to deal with climate change and other serious environmental challenges’ is exactly what a lazy minded person says when he is posing as one.

      3. several easy-to-handle crises.

        Are you suggesting his Beer Summit was nothing short of masterful? If Romney or Bush, instead of Obama and his ace in the hole, Biden, there would have been mayhem in the streets.

        1. That’s another thing. What is having Biden as your Number Two supposed to say about your intelligence, competence, or the care you take in governing?

          Besides turning oxygen into carbon dioxide, what does Joe Biden do that a potted plant could not do just as well?

          1. Make people laugh?

          2. Well, to be fair to potted plants they turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, which is useful to mammals.

    2. Just curious, is Stooksbury the dumbest motherfucker who ever wrote for Reason or is there someone worse I’ve never heard of?

      “dominance of corporations and the very wealthy” – “deal with climate change” – “president who cares about governing.”

      He voted for Uber-statist, 90% tax rate Nader AND libertarian Paul? Wow.

      I just can’t decide myself. Should I vote Libertarian or the Socialist Workers Party? You know, as long as I’m for meaningful reform.

      1. Is he worse than Steve Chapman?

        1. There’s always Terry Micheal…

          1. I thought we were going for “stupid” here, not “liberal”. And no they’re not the same.

    3. This guy is supposedly a conservative? No wonder that the only people who read The American Conservative are liberals.

  9. I’ll just leave this OT article here:
    A Liberal Ayn Rand


    1. Don’t read the comments.

      1. Why not? You might be able to learn about how her ideas are invalid because she took Social Security.

        1. I am sorry Warty. I forget you hunger for idiocy.

          “Because liberals believe in the existence of other human beings, which is fundamentally anathemic to Ayn Rand.

          Next question. ”

          How can I deprive you of that kind of idiocy?

          1. Because liberals believe in the existence of other human beings, which is fundamentally anathemic to Ayn Rand

            The note other people the same way muggers do. It doesn’t make them more social and definitely not more compassionate.

      2. Why not? The Randroids are out in force knocking down the liberals who are defensively lashing out against the Great Satan Ayn Rand. It’s very fun to read.

        1. They are. It is really not fair. The Randroids are not given that target rich of an environment very often. But the idiocy of the liberal comments is so bad.

        2. Too busy to read HuffPo comment thread.

          1. Best one, in response to the claim that Rand was hypocritical for taking Social Security and that Dagny Taggart wouldn’t be able to climb the corporate ladder in Mitt Romney’s America:

            Dan Downes:

            But today’s liberals already are profoundly hypocritical, so that shouldn’t be an issue. Example: you make loud noises about ‘keeping the government out of the bedroom’, when you do this you are in agreement with Ayn Rand. However, you then say the government should pay for birth control – thus inviting it into the bedroom – and this is quite aside from the fact that you also invite the government into every other room in your house (e.g. saying what lightbulbs one can use, what washing machines you can buy, etc.), as well as your doctor’s office (via medicare/aid, the FDA, the regulation of health insurance companies) and your place of work (e.g. minimum wage laws, regulations on hiring and firing employees, etc.

            1. Thanks.

              No mention of Romney in there though. Did Mittens really buy out the Objectivists with Paul Ryan?

              These guys weren’t:

      3. Read the first few and conjectured there would be no positive value of reading the remainder.

  10. While reading the Wikipedia entry for Conan the Barbarian, I found this gem.

    Robin Wood, a film critic, suggests that in most cases, there is only a thin veneer between individualism and fascism; he also said that Conan is the only film in that era to dispense with the disguise, openly celebrating its fascist ideals in a manner that would delight Riefenstahl.[193]


    1. I think film critics might actually be more stupid that sports writers. They really are bottom feeders.

      1. My calico (well, tortiseshell, same thing) has decided that I’m not allowed to type. She’s walking back and forth on the keyboard and demanding that I pet her. Has yours learned this fun game yet?

        1. I was just wondering about John’s calico this morning at breakfast. I hope you/your cat is not psychic…

          1. My calico is crazy. And has decided I am her person. That is bad news for my wife.

        2. My calico has decided that my hand and arm are her toys. Her favorite game is to get on my bed and attack my hands until I wrestle with her. If I roll her across the bed or off the bed, she returns and leaps at my wrist and arm grabbing with her paws and biting. It is like WWF for kitties.

          1. Looks like you’ve got yourself some wild pussy.

          2. This sounds incredibly violent and yet all I can think is “d’awwww!”

            1. Only a cat can manage to be cute while trying to hurt you.

              1. My hamsters would temporarily loose their abject adorability when they’d decide to chomp down on a finger.

          3. Got a Calico, a slate grey and a white fluffy Siamese mix that live (quite comfortably) on the covered porch in the back. They get in and out as they please, but are not allowed in due to the wife’s allergies. She can even pet them out there, but once inside with them her nose turns red, as does her face.

            Favorite trick is to lean against the rails and Slate (btw, fluffy mixed name is Whitey Bulger) will get behind me and paw on my back to get my attention. But once pissed from being ignored, he’ll bat at my ears.

    2. So does that mean there is a similarly “thin veneer” between liberalism/progressivism and communism?

      1. More like a thin film.

    3. South Park reference FTW!

    4. Pretty much anything written in the 30’s had “only a thin veneer between individualism and fascism”.

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. That doesn’t really make any sense. Except for Hayek and Von Mises, and others in the classical liberal camp, individualism was loudly denounced in the 30’s by those in the mainstream, and not promoted as a goal in common with fascism.

        1. True. Progressives in the 1930s expressed now-embarrassing admiration for the likes of Mussolini. FDR was no individualist, and he was elected 4 times (i.e. indicative of the mainstream). If anything was promoted as having some commonality with fascism, it was progressivism in the early 1930s. A line was drawn only when it became clear that we’d soon be at war with the fascists and friends — just like all of a sudden, Joe Stalin was a great guy in the American political narrative, since the USSR joined the allies.

        2. I should have specified that I meant ‘pulp fiction’ like Howard and his buddy Lovecraft.

        3. It also makes no sense because Fascism is, at its heart, a collectivist ideology. Its name is a direct allusion of this fact: a fasci is a bundle of sticks, which is supposedly collectively than individually, as the allusion goes.

          Anyone who confuses Fascism with individualism is a simpering moron who can’t understand simple concepts.

          1. *stronger collectively than indivually

        4. There’s a different kind of individualism inherent in “superman” fascism; the individual achievement of the superman himself (whereas, in socialism/communism, even the leaders are supposedly subordinated to the collective). This is, of course, strongly present in Conan; scant concern is paid to the individual pursuits and desires of all the meat puppets Conan slays on the way to his glory.

          It’s easy for lazy/biased thinkers to confuse this narrow individualism with the broad individualism of libertarians, for whom every person is a superman to the extent they can handle it.

  11. Conan is the only film in that era to dispense with the disguise, openly celebrating its fascist ideals in a manner that would delight Riefenstahl.


  12. What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

    1. Something something Reagan is a Nazi, I think.

    2. It means the critic would have been happier if Conan accepted his life of pushing that donkey wheel.

  13. It means the critic would have been happier if Conan accepted his life of pushing that donkey wheel.

    Oh, I get it. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

    1. That, and, if you’ll recall, Conan killed a political leader who was a minority–black snake people.

      1. Not to mention the gay priest and the endangered-species giant snake.

  14. Bill Maher on HBO’s Real Time Friday :

    “If you’re thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you”

    1. That’s the kind of thing you would expect from a guy who has missed a few too many vaccine shots.

    2. What is this, kindergarten?

  15. Sometimes dude, you just have to roll with it.


    1. I knew it! The bot is actually Steve Winwood!

  16. “Us Reason writers…”

    Ugh, it breaks this English major’s heart when professional writers and editors so flagrantly flout basic grammar. Come on, Jesse.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.