Can you have a "movement" when you're just a bunch of think tank staffers talking to each other and the public didn't show up?
Last week I spent some time at the National Taxpayers Conference in Crystal City, just over the river from Washington DC, trying to figure what the hardcore fiscal conservatives of the National Taxpayers Union had on their agenda in this era of out-of-control spending and government war on free enterprise. To my chagrin I found the event to be a shadow of what I understand it was in previous years. It was under-attended, with a weak schedule of speakers and an air of resignation which was almost palpable. I saw too many people talking about how to live with the excesses of the Obama era and too few discussing ways to fight back and preserve our most basic economic freedoms.…
Article comments
26 - roger nowosielski
Is the code word inaccurate? One could take exception, though, to "spend[ing] the country into total economic destruction," if only because some might view it as a stopgap - to avert the economic destruction (and crisis) which were already upon us, and therefore inherited, because Wall Street was allowed to run rampant.
And that viewpoint may well prevail, even if the remedies will fail to work, for no other reason that they just may have been conceived "in good faith." Whereas it would be kind of difficult to argue that point on behalf of the past regime.
27 - Clavos
Oh what a relief! We'll go down the tubes "in good faith."
28 - Bliffle
Clinton was a better conservative than reagan and Bush rolled together.
29 - roger nowosielski
#27
Good intentions may not be enough to get you to heaven. But bad ones may be a sure way to hell.
30 - Dave Nalle
Bliffle, let's accept that Clinton was a better conservative than Bush or Reagan -- mostly by pure luck. His administration produced relative prosperity by those methods. Right? So by doing the exact opposite, Obama's intention is then to produce? What, exactly?
Dave
31 - roger nowosielski
Dave,
"Bliffle, let's accept that Clinton was a better conservative than Bush or Reagan -- mostly by pure luck."
What do you mean "pure luck"? Isn't that YOUR shorthand for something - like the circumstances being different?