Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore on the 2012 Election

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore on the 2012 Election

Reason TV's Nick Gillespie asks economist Stephen Moore how candidates' economic policies will affect the outcome of November's election.

Moore, former president of the Club for Growth and current member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, says President Obama does not understand how the economy works. At the same time, Moore continues, Republican challenger Mitt Romney's resume of successful business is being used against him.

Held each July in Las Vegas, Freedom Fest is attended by around 2,000 limited-government enthusiasts and libertarians a year. ReasonTV spoke with over two dozen speakers and attendees and will be releasing interviews over the coming weeks. For an ever-growing playlist, go here now: 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1ECFFDA94AA8AA05

Duration: 5:45

Camera by Paul Detrick and Alex Manning; edited by Mark Wagner.

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notification when new material goes live.

Gamblers Blues (Miodrag Marjanov Quintet) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

Comments

[Apostate Jew]

Club for Growth tool says toolish things.

Not particularly interested.

[Hollywood]

Then don't watch, tool.

[darius404]

Wow, some Youtube commenters are like Nega-John:

Reason is completely and utterly in the tank for the Republicans/conservatives. They pretend to be libertarian but they are not really. The only true libertarians I have seen in the public eye is Penn Gillette? and Jesse Ventura...Gillespie is a complete hack! I tried to read reason, but they are so right-wing it's pathetic and sad.

[Calidissident]

Yeah, it's always hilarious to watch different TEAM supporters talk about libertarians. To Democrats, we're Republicans who smoke pot and don't believe in God, and to Republicans we're Democrats who like guns and hate paying taxes. And of course each side accuses libertarians of secretly supporting the other TEAM

[darius404]

When I replied to the person, one of HER replies assumed I was going to vote for Romney, and that I had voted for McCain. Her response pretty much confirmed her as a non-libertarian:

Most Libertarians have the same voting record, and yet they walk around pretending to be superior and above partisanship. It's a freaking joke.

[RBS]

The one that told you a vote for Johnson is a wasted vote? She's either a bitter Paulbot or retarded.

[Calidissident]

From the conversation, it seems she's a TEAM BLUE hack. So in other words, she's retarded.

[juris imprudent]

That is unkind - to the retarded.

[RBS]

I liked this response:

Dead on, since Matt WElch took over, it's been more and more pro republican. They're attempting to? get more readers from the free republic, tea party crowd. Reason is doing what most republicans are doing, which is to act like they did in 90s, rage, rage, freak out, freak out cause a D is in the White House. This is also the magazine that tried to deny there was a crisis brewing, and when they couldn't deny it anylonger switched to crying about "antibusiness" rhetoric, pathetic.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Welch was a pal of ultra-wingnut Bratbitch.

[The Bearded Hobbit]

Is there an English translation to this babble?

... Hobbit

[Generic Stranger]

I believe he's saying that he loves team blue cock, and that he'd enjoy it even better if Obama were a sheep. I think. Hackish is an extremely difficult language to learn.

[Calidissident]

Do you have anything beyond slogan epithets like "wingnut?" All you do is repeat those words thinking it justifies your mindless devotion to TEAM BLUE. It doesn't. Just because they call themselves liberal doesn't mean they have anything in common with classic liberals. And nice guilt-by-association btw

[darius404]

Geez PB, you're such a wingnut. Penn Jillette is friends with Glenn Beck, but I don't act like THAT'S an insult.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Andrew Bratbitch was a far-right wingnut and Penn Jilette is not.

Who they each consorted with is irrelevant.

[darius404]

You've got it turned around, wingnut. And if who they consorted with is irrelevant, don't act like it's relevant and then try to walk back your comment when you're called on it.

[Calidissident]

You can't make this shit up. This what that side thinks, and then the Hitandrunpublicans think Reason is a bunch of liberaltarian cosmos in the tank for Obama and excessively criticizing Romney

[VG Zaytsev]

Well several reasonoids did openly talk about voting for Obama in 08. And several reasonoids have shown more skepticism towards Romney than they have towards Obama. And some of them reflected outrage towards Romney over the 47 percent comment.

[darius404]

Well several reasonoids did openly talk about voting for Obama in 08.

This is true. But a LOT of people were tired of Republican governance at that point. Obama seemed relatively benign, while McCain seemed to offer more of the same. Those perceptions don't exactly justify the notion that Reason people just LOVE them some Democrats.

And several reasonoids have shown more skepticism towards Romney than they have towards Obama.

Not really. It's just that the stuff Obama bullshits about has been covered before, while Romney is only now becoming relevant. They're going to do a lot of pieces on him. And the stuff they do on Obama dings him much worse than Romney, simply because Obama has actually had more opportunities to do terrible things, as opposed to just talking about supporting them.

And some of them reflected outrage towards Romney over the 47 percent comment.

More like distaste for the "economic determinism" in that statement. The idea that this one number more or less predefines how people will vote is pretty insulting. I'm one of those people who don't pay any taxes right now, by the way. I've been on foodstamps before, and I have student loans. Guess who I'm still not voting for?

[SIV]

Obama seemed relatively benign, while McCain seemed to offer more of the same.

LOL

I'm one of those people who don't pay any taxes right now, by the way. I've been on foodstamps before, and I have student loans

Best you invest in a shine box, urchin.

[Bill Dalasio]

It's just that the stuff Obama bullshits about has been covered before, while Romney is only now becoming relevant.

And if it were just the one data point, I might agree with you. But, this data point fits into a general pattern. No moves toward more libertarian policies by Republicans are ever given any credit, while the failure to implement absolute state control of everything by the Democrats is a sign that there may be hope for the "liberaltarian" canard yet. Fox News is treated as moron television, even though they're the only major outlet that has put on people like Stossel or Naplitano.
Look, I get it. By and large, Reasonoids tend to have a lot more cultural affiliation with people from Team Blue than Team Red. Team Red are squares. They're people who are more likely to go church on Sunday morning than out clubbing on Saturday night. Most of us would rather go out with the chick who wants to make us pay for her birth control than the one who wants to tell us about her personal relationship with Jesus.
But, the reality is that a Democrat who simply isn't an over the top statist is going to get a lot more benefit of the doubt around here than a genuinely libertarian Republican.

[RBS]

How's that collectivism treating you?

[Bill Dalasio]

Is this in reply to me or darius404? If me, I'm not quite clear where I'm being collectivist.

[RBS]

You, and your comment about non statist dems getting more benefit of the doubt than a libertarianish republican could not be more wrong. Just search the archives instead of arguing with the "liberaltarians" in your head. Anyway, congratulations on proving the point that Team Red morons think reason is in the tank for Team Blue while Team Blue morons think reason is in the tank for Team Red.

[Bill Dalasio]

Well, first off, I guess I'll have to explain to you that collectivism has a specific meaning and that meaning isn't "something RBS doesn't like". Secondly, I did provide specific examples and cases in my argument. If you'd care to rebut them, you're more than welcome to do so. But, so far, you haven't bothered to do so. You've simply responded with a string of sneering, badly-thought-out slurs. You're free to do so, of course. But, it really does make it very difficult to take you at all seriously. Finally, an empirical observation that one side is accorded more credulity than the other because of cultural affinity does not amount to an accusation that anyone is "in the tank". That is, unless maybe that remark hits a little too close to home for you.

[wareagle]

actually, that's a pretty good point. Any Repub who even hints at libertarian ideas is mocked for not going whole hog, and no Dem is expected to even lean. Can't imagine why the LP candidate keeps doing so well in elections.

[darius404]

Any Repub who even hints at libertarian ideas is mocked for not going whole hog, and no Dem is expected to even lean.

It's in line with reality is what it is. When Reps "hint" at those things, it's always a bunch of fluff, no substance. Meanwhile, Dems don't even hint at those things while in power. Why SHOULD we expect Reps to own up to their rhetoric, or for Dems to even use their old rhetoric?

Meanwhile, the only party that Reason EVER expects any change from is the Republican Party, almost entirely because of the Tea Party and Ron Paul crowds. The libertarian influence, while only weakly felt in the Republican Party, hasn't been felt at all since Obama came into power.

[Bill Dalasio]

So, you're arguing you should be more hostile to a VERY imperfect ally than someone openly hostile to you?

This makes sense to you?

[darius404]

I argued nothing of the sort. I argued that the idea that Reason "favors" Democrats is ridiculous. It's CLEARLY unhappy with both. The Republican Party establishment is no more our ally than the Democratic Party establishment. It's the ousted minority groups in the Repubs that are worth anything to us.

But saying a bunch of shit without backing it up with action should be called out. That happens more with Republicans today than with Democrats, who've largely abandoned their previous anti-war, pro-civil rights rhetoric.

[darius404]

I fully expect things to flip again the moment a Republican is back in the Presidency.

[SIV]

Reason is a bunch of liberaltarian cosmos

They admit to this:

reason

FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS A BUNCH OF LIBERALTARIAN COSMOS

[wakeup]

This is nothing. There are massive communications and power outages planned for the next coming months. Blame will be put on Solar Storms.

[Corning]

hey watch this and then freak the fuck OUT!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhWCC1xPRF4

[Corning]

Crap this was a response to wakeup's comment.

[Il Padrone]

Typical of Reason's typical slight incivility which occurs at the end of all their videos when they don't let the interviewee say anything in response. Here Mr. Moore, not being aware of Reason's policy, attempts to graciously comment on how he appreciate's the fact of Reason's existence, and Frankengillespie verbally ignores him. Good job, Stoneface Nick.

[darius404]

I'm not sure how Moore saying something at the end supports the idea that Reason doesn't "let the interviewee say anything in response". They respond plenty of times throughout the interviews, but interviews always end. Typically the interviewer speaks last to sign off, which is exactly what happened here. They just started talking at the same time is all. Get over it.

[jason]

This interview shows that how much wall street involved in the US politics.

[Bill Dalasio]

If you want to get Wall Street out of U.S. politics, get U.S. politics out of Wall Street. The reality is that even an honest, non-crony, financial services business can't avoid massive and increasing levels of interaction with the federal government on a daily basis. Not surprisingly, this creates an environment where the ability to interact with the government becomes a valued skill. Not surprisingly, this leads to a situation where the surest path to success on Wall Street is being able to play the "Washington game".

[wareagle]

this is like a chicken and egg argument. Who says pols are not the ones going to Wall St with their hands out? Campaigns cost money and, like Willie Sutton, candidates go where the money is.

There are a million agencies regulating the financial sector. I'm pretty sure Wall St put none of htem in place.

[Agile Cyborg]

Stephen, you instantly glossed over Romney's corporate involvement in sending jobs overseas while expressing ire over Romney's inability to showcase his remarkable skills as a superduper businessman. You mimicked Romney's approach exactly.

How is that particularly bright considering the blinding reality that American jobs ARE, IN FACT, being subjected to outsourcing?

[darius404]

American's don't "own" jobs. Companies do, and they reserve the right to hire who they want for them.

[Staup]

Say what you will about Obama or Romney, but many get some facts incorrect.

First off, Romney was successful in running businesses, which are exceedinly less complex than an economy the size of US. Yes, he was Mass governor, but a state is a whole different ball game, especially when 2/3 states have laws on the books preventing an unbalanced budget year to year, thus preventing the hell storm we are in right now on the federal level.

Second, who are we kidding saying Obama or Romney doesn't understand the economy? I agree, there's no way they do. But they have world experts from some of the best universities in the world advising them everyday. I am not necessarily agreeing with them, and you may disagree with their political ideology, but spare me with the "he doesn't understand argument." I like to see this guy speak to Obama's world class advisers and tell them they don't understand.