The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Neocommunists

By on 3.28.10 @ 3:13PM

Neoconservatives got all the attention for the last ten years or so as a consequence of being seen as the biggest cheerleaders for military adventurism in the Middle East.  

I think the next movement deserving a lot of publicity and focus is Neocommunism.  Neocommunism isn’t full-force Communism, but it definitely embraces the redistribution of wealth through the mechanism of coercive state action.  Taking control of private sector healthcare would be a good example.

We should call the members of this group the Neocommunists.  Or, for short, the Neocoms.

I hope to see a vigorous election season fought out between conservatives and neocoms.

*Credit for the idea to tweeter carlhk1.

View all comments (71) |

Scott | 3.28.10 @ 3:29PM

The only problem with this is that Obama's actions with regard to the economy don't look like communism (or socialism) so much as fascism, in that the underlying control of the economy by government is covered with a veneer of private ownership.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.28.10 @ 4:30PM

Hi Scott,
Forgive me, but .....what is the difference...except that fascism always had a "nationalistic" flavor ie:
"We Germans are so much more efficient than dumb slavs at killing people."

They are both murderous government takeover of a country and the people by government coercion just as Mr. Baker suggested.

Besides, most of our readers here can't really identify with "fascism". Not really. Too long ago when it was in vogue.

Instead of nit picking, help us fight both, OK?
(see my post below.)

Scott | 3.28.10 @ 9:17PM

Before I try to answer, it's important to note that I'm only addressing the economic realm; if I had to guess, I'd say Obama is probably the least nationalistic leader the U.S. has ever had (I won't say he hates the U.S., but he doesn't seem especially attached to it).

This is a quick and dirty explanation, but with regard to economics, fascist economics, rather than advocating state ownership instead favors state control of the different aspects of economic life. Rather than puree the different classes, etc., into a uniform mush, the idea of fascism is to recognize the different components but organize them with the intent of compelling all those components to work together for the greater good of the state. When Obama gave the unions partial control of Chrysler, for example, that's out of the fascist playbook. It's not communism, where the workers control the means of production, because, ultimately, Obama's solution involves the state having the ultimate control over both workers and management.

Why does this matter (or, to use your term, why is this not "nit picking")? One of the principal failings of liberals is that they refuse to deal with the reality of conservatives; instead, they keep going after the caricature of conservatives that they've constructed in their minds. From a conservative standpoint, that's fine; liberals are so busy punching at shadows that they can't come up with a genuine critique. By mischaracterizing liberals as socialists or communists, we're making the same mistake (and we're setting ourselves up to look like fools, because all they have to do is point out that there's still private ownership).

It's really hard to stop your opponent if you refuse to understand what they're really up to. Contrary to what they claim, liberals don't really give a damn about the common man. Their agenda is rooted in their desire for the aggrandizement of the state, and through that, themselves (since they think of themselves as natural rulers by dint of their innate superiority to the rest of us).

If you don't like the term "fascism" because it's too long ago, I don't know what to tell you, because there's no other modern term that comes close. If you asked the Founders, which all conservatives probably should, they might have called it "oriental despotism," which is probably even more accurate than "fascism"--especially since we now all bask in the glow of The One-- but I suspect that "oriental despotism" would have even less cachet than fascism.

Liberal Reader| 3.28.10 @ 3:37PM

Mr. Baker,

I think you need to study up a bit. Before you label anyone a "neocommunist," you probably should get a better handle on what communism is.

The intellectual laziness -- combined with frothy hysteria -- on the right these days is unbelievable.

OneForTheGipper| 3.28.10 @ 4:50PM

The only intellectual laziness and frothy hysteria present in America today is coming from the Left. Perhaps you would be better served, dear Liberal Reader, in studying up on Communism yourself. Although, then you would have to admit that you are wrong about Obama and the Dems, something NO Liberal wants to have to do- or isn't capable of mustering enough intellectual honesty to do it - at least not publicly, and on a Conservative blog, no less....

Homer Simpson| 3.28.10 @ 5:09PM

Mmmmmmmmm, frothy hysteria. Frothy, frothy hysteria. Ahhhhhhhhgggggggg

Frothy Hysteria| 3.28.10 @ 6:43PM

Liberal Breader (More breading than Fish):
"The intellectual laziness"

Intellectual Laziness?!?

The only intellectual laziness around here, is YOU!

What's that olde sayinge?
If the Shoe Fits?

Must be true, cause you've got a size 10 shoe for a size 11 mouth.

No body has more allegations without evidence than you.
You're all assertion without facts.
All breading and NO fish!

JmsA| 3.28.10 @ 9:42PM

The mere fact that you refer to other's well reasoned opinions, based not only empirical (as it developing right in front of their eyes) as intellectual laziness does more to illustrate your own intellectual laziness than anything else. This I base on the fact that the actions by the present administration and the congressional majorities you so vehemently defend are most consistent with long failed Marxist/Leninist communism in not only the former Soviet Union, as well as the whole of the former Warsaw Pact/Comecon nations, but also presently in N. Korea, Cuba, and soon to be Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, et cetera. Communism in Red China, however attenuated by its adoption of partial capitalist principles, would otherwise remain no more than an oppresively retrograde system, soon no doubt also rendered a complete and utter failure were it to be solely left to own communist devices without our consumer support. So before you deign to reply to this, as you are usually wont do in a wholly unspecified, ad hominem manner, please take this into account. I have lived and seen Marxist/Leninist communism first hand in Cuba, and also so-called fascism under Franco in Spain. And let me just tell you this, insofar as progress and personal freedom are concerned, nothing hitherto compares to that in the U.S., while Franco's Spain was at least 1000% better than Cuba, and by extension the rest of those communist countries I mentioned. Yes, socialism or communism, or whatever anyone else migh wish to call it, is what's going on here in the U.S., albeit only in its infancy.

Steve| 3.29.10 @ 10:15AM

When its the left its patriotic dissent. When conservatives have substantive issues with by which they are very disturbed, its "frothy hysteria". Intellectual laziness? Seems like the pot is calling the kettle black here.

Margie| 3.28.10 @ 4:06PM

Frothy hysteria? Is that what you have in your morning latte?

Neocommunists! I'm sure the Leftists will enjoy enduring that label possibly just as much as we've enjoyed their labeling of us as Neocons. LOL. Though I do prefer the truth straight up, "neat" so to speak, with no dilution~Communists.

Steve| 3.29.10 @ 10:17AM

Frothy hysteria in the morning latte. Very witty, Margie.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.28.10 @ 4:07PM

OK, Liberal Reader
...Will you define for us specifically what "communism" is?

Thank you.

JmsA| 3.28.10 @ 11:36PM

He can't because he does not know what it is.

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.28.10 @ 4:16PM

Mr. Baker,
I postedthe comment below this morning. I sorta' like your term. I think you are on to a good something. I remember a phrase from my youth..."creeping communism". Heh, yours is more "hip and so 21st century".

Folks,
I sorta like the convenience of the talking points of the communists, (pardon the shorthand), being presented here in open forum.
Heh.
We can hold up clean mirrors to them on the spot.
I also get some chuckles when you guys take the time to heckle the guys that present those communist, (pardon the shorthand), empty talking points here.
I rarely take the time anymore. I would rather tend to our own knitting.
Wlady,
Thanks for the heads up. And you know, common sense does seem extremist to the "useful idiots" on the Left. Sadly, they can't and won't wake up to reality, (common sense), until each one of them personally is marched off to destitution...or worse.
One would think that they could peek at history in the unforgiving grey light of dawn and see the pretty obvious failures of every ...every...socialist attempt at running a country and/or an economy.
One would think that each of the "useful idiots";
(by the way, idiots, that is your own leaders' term to describe you, not ours.)
...that many of them would try to peer into the future and apply common sense to see that if their leaders win...they lose, just like we do.
They can't or won't though. It is simply too frightening to them to be a free independent person.
Liberty and freedom ARE frightening... to all of us.
Let me repeat that:
Personal Liberty and Freedom ARE frightening...to all of us human beings.
After 40 years of successes...and failures...as an adult free agent ...I wake up with fears every single morning. My personal "crutch" each morning is a quiet prayer for courage...and wonderfully, it is always answered..."Granted".
That quiet prayer is my method of NOT "crutching" on the backs of my fellow men, or on some "broke-johnson leader" or political chimera of the moment.
Wlady,
In the final analysis, Leftist pawns are simply frightened; seemingly too frightened to stare life, and their inevitable death, square in the eye.
My prayer is that they each could gather the courage to do so.

Mark G| 3.28.10 @ 4:48PM

Surely we can come up a better moniker than NeoCommunist.
NeoCollectivist is a much more accurate description of their agenda and philosophy. While the core political philosophy of the American public is a bit squishy, they certainly reject collectivist and socialist solutions, when identified as such. The problem is that the Right's embrace of a mixed-economy (See "Compassionate Conservatism" etc) has obliterated the bright lines. Those of us who understand where a mixed economy inevitably leads need to have to courage to call a spade a spade. With apologies to Mr. Hayek, we are On the Road the Serfdom. Now is the time for real leadership.

evergreen78| 3.28.10 @ 10:12PM

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm pretty new to this political thing, so I had to look up "neocon" on wikipedia (motto: "We make the internet not suck.") & it said some stuff about that neocons don't really mind a welfare state that much, along with some other stuff. Also, I've heard that "A neocon is a Liberal who got hit with a dose of reality" or something like that. So, is a neocoM really that different from a neocoN? I think I like this "NeoCollectivist" idea. I'll do some more research.

Margie| 3.28.10 @ 11:22PM

Hi & welcome, evergreen78!

Now hopefully I won't confuse you and I will try my best not to. So here goes~ NeoCon is what the Left, aka Liberals, mostly Democrats, like to call us conservatives. There is also a group of people that are trying to say that "they are the true conservatives" and call us neo-Cons as well. They call themselves Paleo-Cons. Yes indeed, Paleo-Con. They are against going to war outside of the U.S. and especially despise Israel. Some Libertarians also call us that because they believe that to be conservative means you should be for the legalization of drugs, abortion, and well, just about everything. (Not all libertarians think this way though.)

In short, Neo-Con is used as a pejorative, or an epithet.
In other words they don't mean it in a good way at all. We are just conservatives who believe in the rule of law, as embodied in the Constitution, a strong Military Defense, free market enterprise, are pro-life, lower taxes, and limited government. So, when you hear someone using the term Neo-Con it is toward those of us who believe in these things.

So now, it's their turn! Neo-Communists are those on the Left, they are in the Democrat party and don't mind Socialistic policies and voted for Obama. Although some are sorry they did, now. They believe that the government ought to run things, including our health care, and they think we ought to "share the wealth", that others ought to have their taxes raised in order to pay for all kinds of big government programs, entitlements and giveaways.
Hope that helps.

ahem| 3.28.10 @ 4:53PM

Dear Drive-by Marxist Commenter with Lofty Dismissive Tone--er, "Liberal Reader": Yeah, tell us unwashed masses what communism is. We await with baited breath.

Hunter Baker| 3.28.10 @ 5:07PM

Mark G, this is a great term. Can't you see the resonance? From Neocon to Neocom . . .

And I, too, await the wisdom of Liberal Reader.

MarkG| 3.28.10 @ 6:20PM

Catchy....but they aren't really communists. And I think everyone knows they aren't and when you label them as such people just think you are engaging in slander -- and stop listening. Again, our side needs to be clear and truthful. They are Collectivists. They believe in big government. Their agenda is a leviathan that regulates huge portions of our lives. We need to identify what they are doing and explain where it all leads. Leadership does not consist of catchy (but misleading) phrases. If our side offers real analysis then we have a chance. Otherwise the forces of bread and circuses will win every time. This is serious folks....let's act accordingly.

Patriot| 3.28.10 @ 6:30PM

People don't know what a 'collectivist' is, so your term is useless. Marxist/Communist and/or Fascist all work for me; at least people have an idea what they are. And they're all bad.

And, yes, we know this is serious.

Buster| 3.29.10 @ 1:03AM

People don't know how to Google 'Collectivist' to find out what the term means?

Buster| 3.29.10 @ 1:04AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 1:50AM

Why use a term that's nebulous at best for most people when the old standbys work better?

Collectivist doesn't have the same bite the others do.

Deborah D | 3.29.10 @ 6:17AM

Mark Levin calls them "statists." Just to throw another word in the mix.

Scott | 3.29.10 @ 7:10AM

The problem I have with statist/collectivist/whatever is that there can be right wing statists as well as left wing statists (Otto von Bismarck? Not a liberal).

Of course, that reflects a larger problem, namely, the tendency to conflate policies with philosophies. For example, we have a tendency to say that conservatives believe in small government. True, but so do libertarians, and libertarians and conservatives are not the same thing, and they arrive at their support for small government from entirely different directions (I would argue 180 degree different directions).

Margie| 3.29.10 @ 12:08PM

I wouldn't call out friends the libertarians (snall l) Neo-Coms! Just the ones who think we're Neo-Cons. :^)

Margie| 3.29.10 @ 12:09PM

*our, not out.

Scott | 3.29.10 @ 12:42PM

I would never call libertarians Neo-Coms. I also wouldn't call them conservative; conservatives and libertarians aren't the same, even if both groups often support the same policies.

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 7:43PM

I agree. Conservatives believe that true freedom comes with responsibilities--otherwise it's just licentiousness.

Scott | 3.30.10 @ 12:57PM

I agree with that, but the underlying reason WHY conservatives believe in the need for responsibilities is a crucial point of distinction. Libertarians view humanity as fundamentally rational beings guided by reason. Conservatives, while not denying that human beings have the capacity for reason, believe that they are more often guided by other considerations such as emotion and habit. Consequently, conservatives are far more likely to believe in the likelihood of licentiousness than libertarians, and, therefore, more likely to believe in the need for checks on human behavior, such as responsibilities.

Patriot| 3.30.10 @ 2:10PM

Social Conservatives believe that men are fallen creatures; thus the need for self-control.

Freedom starts with and depends on self governance. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." Ben Franklin

Hunter Gatherer| 3.28.10 @ 10:50PM

Libby Reader is mad ay us because we are gaining so much ground these days. He is a bit beside himself. Literally-he sometimes posts as other people.

Come out come out wherever you are!

Bill S| 3.28.10 @ 5:14PM

Funny, Hunter - I was going to start using that exact same name for them, but figured I'd have people arguing the meaning the same way they have with "neocon". I think I will now, anyway, and reference your bit here. :-)

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.28.10 @ 6:12PM

Ahem,
No I did the baiting breath. You can only do the bated breath.
Hmmmmm, Liberal Reader where are you?

Sorry, folks, Mr. Soros is on the phone shorting the dollar and Lib reader can't get a way to weasel out by changing subjects. He could go to a thesaurus, or a dictionary...oops, no help there. Hey Lib, try a Russian dictionary..."dictatorship of the proletariat", or perhaps the chinese dictionary....."power from the barrel of a gun".
There...does that help?

Bill S,
You could try "nihilist", or perhaps "soul-killers", or maybe even "looters". Nah...use ".........", (all of the above, pardon the shorthand), (grin).

danny| 3.28.10 @ 6:57PM

hunter baker, if you are waiting on wisdom from liberal reader hope you got some time on your hands.

danny| 3.28.10 @ 7:09PM

mark g, call them what you want. what they want and what they are doing ends in communism. just because they haven't killed anybody yet doesn't mean they won't.

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 1:51AM

I agree, so why wait to call them communists?

breffnian| 3.28.10 @ 7:40PM

I'd go with neo-statist or, even better, neo-corporatist as more and more of our lives are controlled by unions, big government and their pet corporations. I would say that perfectly sums up Obamacare. Corporations that don't toe the line are summmoned to Congress by the like of Henry Waxman for a dressing down.

Neo-Sporin| 3.28.10 @ 8:46PM

How about Neo-Sporin? Nah. That's that stuff your Mother used to put on your nostrils to help you breathe when you had a cold, isn't it? Remember that stuff in the yellow tube? ..what's that you say? How old am I? None of your business.

But the truth is the Liberals do have tiny spores that get all over you when they talk to you so I think we could use the stuff. Yep.

gail| 3.28.10 @ 9:29PM

You're thinking of Vicks Vapo-Rub. Neosporin is what mom puts on boo-boos.

Neo-Something| 3.28.10 @ 9:47PM

No. Wait a second, I know there's Vick's-Vapo-Rub, but honest to goodness there was something else, Neo something I'm not kidding. Was it called Neo- sinefrin or s/thing? Really, it went on or under the widdle noses. Ah well.

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 1:53AM

Neosinefrin helps stuffy noses, so I think you're right.

Pingback| 3.28.10 @ 9:13PM

TwittLink - Your headlines on Twitter links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…all News news Images pics Video video Upcoming Upcoming emg Popular day Last week week Last month month Home all Technology it Entertainment en Games gm World&Business wb Sports sp Everything all Search search Tweets about this great post on TwittLink.com Search Headlines Twitter client Give your website the power of Twitter! Integrate a fully featured TwittLink Twitter client on your website and bring your Twitter community…

Nick| 3.28.10 @ 9:15PM

I prefer the term neo-racist.
Liberals have destroyed the inner-cities of America, where most minorities live.

Or, neo-nazi.
Everyone knows that today's liberals are fascists.

Or, neo-pagans.
Progressives/liberals are Molech worshiping idolaters. Satan is their master.

Yosemeti Sam| 3.28.10 @ 11:03PM

LOL.

You think 60 stray cats are hard to round up?

Try pushing 300 million Americans into one
kitty litter reserve.

Neocoms - come and get your catnip pellets!

Notta Neo Anything| 3.28.10 @ 11:27PM

Man, such vitriolic hatred toward fellow Americans! Neocons would probably label me a liberal simply because I am not a neocon, and liberals would probably label me an independent because I do not march lock-step with their beliefs. But to attempt a mass demoralization of a significant portions of Americans undermines your own credibility and integrity! Don't you understand this? When you make these cheap attempts to belittle others, it only makes you look like cowards and bullies! Just trying to help you out. If you expect to win the hearts and minds of fellow Americans, offering solutions instead of spewing vomit would be a step in the right direction. Turning off the hate media mongers would make your arguments more feasible, as well. Everybody can tell when you inject their drivel into your argument (drive-by, Obamacare, any use of the term "liberal" as a vulgarity.)

Buster| 3.29.10 @ 1:15AM

This is the first intelligent, non hate spewing comment I've seen so far on this thread!

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 1:59AM

Sorry, Buster, we know the truth hurts; even commies like you and Notta have feelings, I guess.

No hate here, just facts. Better get used to it, troll.

Frothy Hysteria| 3.29.10 @ 1:38AM

Whole Notta Nuthin':
"(drive-by, Obamacare, any use of the term "liberal" as a vulgarity."

Drive by refers to the way that the Media reports on anything related to conservatives: they stop, they shoot(their talking points) and drive away.
"Liberal" is what you guys are and is used to describe WHAT you are.
"Obamacare" is what OBAMA ran on: the single payer system, i.e. government control of health care.
The only "vitriolic hatred toward fellow Americans!" comes from your side, my boy.
We just like to call a spade a spade.
PS, nice try at being an "objective" poster LR.

Patriot| 3.29.10 @ 1:55AM

Frothy--LOL!

Yosemeti Sam| 3.29.10 @ 12:26AM

Yo - Leftoids!

Have y'all taken a look at, say, Americas' economy?

Note I did not use the word ya - it was offensive
to some.

We all who pledge allegiance to the Republic
should express - gratitude for a trampling
of the US Constitution by you Neocoms in the HR and Senate for your ipso facto machiavellianism shrouded in glib egalitarianism speak?

Be nice?

Up yours!

Scat - peddle your indignation elsewhere.

Do y'all really not fathom the hornets' nest
you Leftoids have disturbed!

Button up Leftoids - y'all are careening toward
your destiny.

Notta Neo Anything| 3.29.10 @ 5:16AM

See? You couldn't help it. I still know that Limbaugh gave you the 'drive-by' definition, and I was correct when I pointed out that the neocons would label me a liberal simply because I am not a neocon! Pretty predictible stuff. You see, I listen to Limbaugh on occasion. I watch Matthews on occasion. I chat with neocons on occasion. I chat with bleeding hearts on occasion. Like a MAJORITY of Americans, most of my beliefs fall somewhere in between. It is the extreme psychos from both parties that will end up twisting in the wind, while the rest of us continue to find ways to get along together. Good luck, you great dividers, you! Let me know how THAT strategy works for you......

Deborah D | 3.29.10 @ 6:25AM

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice."
Thomas Paine

Ken (Old Texican)| 3.29.10 @ 7:09AM

Notta,
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and observe that you are one who "just wants to get along together".
Admirable.
So do most of us here.
The problem we have is what we feel are mass confiscations of our freedoms going on in DC and some States where the govts. there are driving their economies into the ground.

I personally am from Texas so the latter is not so much of a problem here. For instance, we have limited medical liability laws here...and therefore the lowest insurance costs in the country....and no shortage of great doctors.

We are not dividers. We are pretty much where we grew up and (smile) some grown old. We see ourselves driving right down the center as always, but observe that a tight coterie of media types and government types have yanked our whole country off into the LEFT hand ditch while positioning themselves "above it all".
So maybe instead of communists, (pardon the shorthand), maybe we could label those folks "Kamikazis"...because to get into the Left hand ditch, one has to cross the lanes of oncoming traffic.
...But see, we are not mad at the folks along for the ride in the "bus"..........heck, we are in the busses as well. We don't like the "drivers".....and the navigators in charge right now.

Tim| 3.29.10 @ 10:17AM

"And they that rule in England, in stately conclaves met, alas, alas for England they have no graves as yet. "

Gilbert K. Chesterton

Jeff Perren | 3.29.10 @ 11:31AM

I respectfully submit that this neologism is a bad idea.

It's too close in sound to "neocon" (though the similarity is clever). Worse, it's inaccurate, as Scott explains above. Worse of all, it's simply unnecessary and therefore muddies the water.

The popular (and accurate) term "Progressive" (not to be confused with the inaccurate term "advocating progress") is all that's needed.

Modern so-called liberals often now self-identify as Progressives. They, in fact, have a very clear historical connection to the movement that began in the late 19th century and blossomed for through the 1930s, and all their fundamental ideas are exactly the same.

As for emotional content, most conservatives (and libertarians) who have even a passing familiarity with those ideas already despise them, and those who advocate them.

As those ideas become better known, the moniker will take on the same cache as "child molester" or "Nazi" - and deservedly so.

Margie| 3.29.10 @ 12:02PM

Of course, you make excellent points. The thing is~ they so love calling us Neo-cons because it just sounds so awful.. and they love doing it. So while they are definitely Progessives, it just sounds too lovely of a word, too nice. Don't they actually like being called that?
Neo-Com angers them. It hits home. And there's nothing so fun as angering a Leftist. :^)

Pingback| 4.3.10 @ 2:06PM

These are the words of a man who should be President | RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…elect someone with executive experience, or we’ll wind up with another disaster like Barack Obama.  But the problem with Obama has nothing to do with a lack of experience; it has everything to do with a neo-Communist ideology that has lurched this nation’s policy-making far, far to the left.  I am much more interested in a President who has the ideas that can move this country in the right direction.  And…

Pingback| 4.3.10 @ 4:03PM

Bill Seubert » Blog Archive » These are the words of a man who should be President links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…must elect someone with executive experience, or we’ll wind up with another disaster like Barack Obama.  But the problem with Obama has nothing to do with a lack of experience; it has everything to do with a  neo-Communist ideology that has lurched this nation’s policy-making far, far to the left.  I am much more interested in a President who has the ideas that can move this country in the right direction.  And Congressman Ryan…

Pingback| 4.5.10 @ 7:02PM

Robin Carnahan - Shoveling More Bull | RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…“. The video was released today from Rep. Roy Blunt’s campaign for Senate. It does a nice (and funny) job of illustrating how Robin Carnahan is an unabashed supporter of the key parts of the Obama neo-comm agenda. “Shoveling more bull” and describing how Carnahan is a rubberstamp for Pelosi, Reid and Obama is precisely the message that Missourians need to hear (or warned of). Ms. Carnahan, if you want…

Pingback| 4.5.10 @ 7:02PM

Robin Carnahan - Shoveling More Bull | RedState links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…“. The video was released today from Rep. Roy Blunt’s campaign for Senate. It does a nice (and funny) job of illustrating how Robin Carnahan is an unabashed supporter of the key parts of the Obama neo-comm agenda. “Shoveling more bull” and describing how Carnahan is a rubberstamp for Pelosi, Reid and Obama is precisely the message that Missourians need to hear (or warned of). Ms. Carnahan, if you want…

Pingback| 4.6.10 @ 11:47AM

Robin Carnahan – Shoveling More Bull | The American Jingoist links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…“ The Bull “. The video was released today from Rep. Roy Blunt’s campaign for Senate. It does a nice (and funny) job of illustrating how Robin Carnahan is an unabashed supporter of the key parts of the Obama neo-comm agenda. “Shoveling more bull” and describing how Carnahan is a rubberstamp for Pelosi, Reid and Obama is precisely the message that Missourians need to hear (or warned of). Ms. Carnahan, if you want to support a…

640-802 | 4.28.10 @ 10:46PM

1Y0-A05
cirtix certification
1Y0-A08

More Blog Posts by Hunter Baker

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/03/28/neocommunists

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

Romney Donors Targeted by IRS?

Kaylin Bugos | 12:32PM

Apple CEO Faces Down Senators’ Tax Scrutiny, Calls for Reform

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 12:30PM

Even the Courts Are Ruling Against President Obama

Patrick Ryan | 11:39AM

Pot Biscuits for Fido?

Claire Healey | 11:33AM

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|36 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|36 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|45 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|65 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|27 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|30 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|15 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|8 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.