EPIC RANT: O!ministration is greatest impediment to businesses creating jobs
Delivered by hotelier Steve Wynn, CEO of Wynn Resorts, in an earnings report conference call conducted this week. During the call, where the questions varied from inside-baseball share price and profit matter to the overall outlook for the market's his company has properties in, Mr. Wynn called out the Obama administration for being, "The Greatest Wet Blanket To Business And Job Creation In My Lifetime". Here's a taste from the transcript:
I believe in Las Vegas, I think its best days are ahead of it, but I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President, and nothing will get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year, that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.
And I'm saying it bluntly that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this marketplace that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate. Regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, you know -- that keeps using that word redistribution.
Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they're frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change.
And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it, are going to sit in fear of the President. And you know, a lot of people don't want to say that. They say oh, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal. And it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.
The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe's ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they're holding too much money. You know, we haven't heard that kind of money except from pure socialists.
Everybody is afraid of the government. And there's no need -- there's no need, you know, soft pedaling it. It's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessmen, and Republican businessmen, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid, I support Democrats and Republicans, and I'm telling you that the business community in this country is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody is going to be sitting on their thumbs.
[emphasis-ed]
Wow...Pretty brutal stuff, eh? Brutally honest, that is... The full transcript is posted at Seeking Alpha. And RCP has audio of the rant posted as well, if you'd prefer to get the full flavor that his tone of voice imparts to the verbiage.
Oh, and as an aside, when Wynn compares the administration to straight up socialists he's speaking from experience; in the call he mentions that it's his companies 5th year operating a casino in Macau; the property with the greatest growth prospects in his organization right now. For the geographically challenged among us, Macau is located in Communist China.
Although a long outspoken critic of the administration's regulatory policies and general business unfriendliness, it's nothing new. Other prominent businessmen such as Mort Zuckerman, no wingnut by any stretch of the imagination, has made many similar points, albeit couched in less strident language, for some time. Indeed, Mr. Obama's class warfare schtick seems to be wearing a bit thin on even his old pal Warren Buffet.
It's painfully clear to all but the most partisan kool-aid drinkers that this administration's economic initiatives have failed miserably, as many knew they would being mere re-runs of past failed progressive policy prescriptions. And the breadth and magnitude of this failure really calls into question whether the President want the economy to recover, or would prefer the crisis environment, such being more conducive to implementing his radical transformative agenda under the guise of it being urgently necessary for the good of our nation. Given that he's clearly pursuing such a strategy in the current debt talks, it's getting increasingly more difficult to extend him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he has nothing but good intent, with respect to his larger social and economic agenda.
[Cross posted at The Conservatory]
Allen West Rips President Petulant for his Friday Tantrum
The Real Deal versus The Poser
Via The Right Scoop, Colonel West exhibits the quality of actual candor, real "straight talk", one of the many personality traits that have endeared him with Tea-Partiers and others:
The President’s concern is about getting reelected. The President’s concern is that he is an intransigent, liberal, progressive socialist who is also Marxist because of the class warfare rhetoric that he espouses.And I think that when you heard him on Friday and the more he comes out and talks, the more truly out of touch and incompetent he seems.
Dude! That is rip-tastic! TRS goes on to illustrate the point West used as a central exhibit of the President's class warfare argument; that while Obama claimed that 80% of the public wanted tax increases as part of any budget deal, that he neglected to mention that 47% of the public paid no federal income taxes. Mr. West wondered aloud whether the President had knew of, or considered this, at all.
But it gets even better. West goes on to light up Sheila Jackson-Lee for her raced base remarks on Friday:
Attacking this President is not attacking his skin color. It’s attacking his failures. He has a vision for this country that is anathema to the vision of the founding fathers, in our belief in individual responsibility and accountability and our free markets and free enterprise system.
Gee I love that kind of talk. Now if only we could have that kind of refreshing directness come from the White House on a regular basis. Hey, wait a minute, I think I have an idea how to make that happen...
Chock full of Awesomeness!
What do you think kind reader?
[Cross posted at The Conservatory]
Are 70% tax rates on the way back in?
We're Broke!
Like in the bad old days before Ronnie Reagan reformed the tax code? Writing at WSJ, Michael Boskin seems to think it a matter or "when" and not "if":
Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that's before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.
It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.
Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.
Some argue the U.S. economy can easily bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. They point to the 1930s-1950s, when top marginal rates were between 79% and 94%, or the Carter-era 1970s, when the top rate was about 70%. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers and kicked in at much higher income levels relative to today.
There were also greater opportunities for sheltering income from the income tax. The lower marginal tax rates in the 1980s led to the best quarter-century of economic performance in American history. Large increases in tax rates are a recipe for economic stagnation, socioeconomic ossification, and the loss of American global competitiveness and leadership.
Amen to that last line. As perhaps one of the elders here, I can vividly recall what our economy was like before and after the tax code revisions in 1981. Prior to that, wealthy Americans were less inclined to invest in businesses, whether their own or as a venture capitalists, than to make sure that a percentage of their wealth equal to the amount their accountants specified they needed to keep their net income below the rapacious higher bracket levels was invested in instruments known as "tax-shelters"; typically revenue neutral or money losing propositions, such as dilapidated real-estate or other run-down or underwater assets, instead of dynamic, growing concerns. Which is at the heart of why the tax code changes really resulted in the ensuing economic boom.
As a nation, we can't afford to go back to the tax rates and the concomitant paradigm that existed before 1981. Indeed, the only reason we had been able to stand it, as a nation, between the rise of the welfare state under FDR until Reagan was because of the pre-eminent role that America enjoyed in the global economy; dominating all facets of global industry-smokestack, creative, and financial.
Due to many factors, such as globalization and the aggressive mercantilistic economic posture of China, in particular, not only can't we afford to placate big labor's extortionist-like hold on the public and private sector, but neither can we sustain our welfare state in it's current form or the tax burden to support it. It's a luxury we can no longer afford...
I've long thought that Mr. Obama's plan was to run up budgets and deficits so high that pragmatism and responsibility would force us to enact large tax increases. He's made great strides in his first two-and-one-half years in office, and believes himself to be nearing the goal of his threat today to veto any bill containing balanced budget amendment language in it is any indication. He's determined to drag us to a Euro-style welfare state model by hook or by crook; and lately it looks more like the latter...
So I'd urge all to call or write their Representatives and Senators, the telephone numbers and e-mail contact info can be found at the House's and Senate's websites, and let them know where you stand on the matter; it's especially important to do so if you live in a deep-blue state like I do, just so they get the message.
[Cross posted at The Conservatory]
Good News: Misery Index now at 28 year high!
Or should I say, Welcome Back, Carter ...
Brought to you by Recovery Summer part Deux!11!1!, courtesy of Barack "L"etat c'est moi!" Obama, Sheriff Joe Biden, and the Democratic party. It seems to be a recurring theme with them...
Just wait until the bond vigilantes go to work.
Oh, and on a related note:
Notice how it says, "watch this index", along the top border? Well, I'd advise against it for the meantime, at least if you've got a weak stomach.
[Headline image courtesy of MoneypennyDD, and cross posted at The Conservatory]
So how’s that SPR oil release working out for you?
Remember just a short week ago when Mr. Obama announced with the utmost aplomb the release of Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? Recall how all of his allies in the MBM hailed it as a masterful SUPER-JEEENYUS! move that would help the economy out, at least in the short term, by removing the extra demands on ordinary folks' budgets that higher gas prices imposed, remove the energy component from the inflation pressure producers were feeling, and, surely only be coincidence possibly reverse the downward trend of his poll rating? Good times, my friends, good times...
At that time, regardless how reckless and cavalier you may have thought the President's policy decision, releasing oil from essentially a rainy-day fund when the sun was shining-so to speak, did you find yourself wondering just how long those short term effects would last? I know I did. And so did some of the professional economists and Wall street types. Depending on your outlook, and whether you counted yourself among Obama's allies, the estimates ranged from weeks to a GAME CHANGER!11!1! that would have an lingering effect through at least the first of the year.
Well if you were a gambler, I hope you took the under; at least based on a check of the commodities markets:
WTL crude oil
Check out the price of West Texas Light Crude(symbol CLQ11), keeping in mind the release announcement bythe IEA was on June 23rd, and Obama's on June 24th.
Unleaded Gas
Now Look at a similar chart for refined Unleaded Gasoline(symbol RBN11), keeping in mind the same release dates.
As you can see, in both cases today's price is higher than at the time of the release announcement. So since the President is into trusting his "gut instincts" these days, I guess we can pin that one squarely on his vaunted BRILLIANCE!, JUDGEMENT!, SOLOMON-LIKE WISDOM, AND NEAR-CLAIRVOYANT-NAY PRESCIENT-INTUITION!
But really, like everything else, this has been just another bad decision, to implement a desperate central command-and-control-economy maneuver, as part of the President's failed economic policy.
Me? In 2012 I'm looking for real change...
What do you think kind reader?
[Cross posted at the Conservative Commune]
Good News! Obama saved us
The savior, or, well, you know...
From the economic mess we're in; or at least, that's what he said today:
Obama tells NBC in an interview that "nobody in the White House is satisfied" with continuing high unemployment.
But he also says the midterm congressional elections could come down to "a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and my policies that got us out of this mess."
Right...Policies like the new "financial reform" bill, to be sure. A bill that, according to Chis Dodd, one of it's primary authors, "we won't really know what's in it until it's passed..."
Now, where have I we heard that one before, kind reader? Oh, right, from Granny Rictus McBotox Implants Cruella DeVille wanna-be, Pelosi, in regards to Obamacare. I feel real secure knowing that, just as with Obamacare, very few legislators actually know what's in the 2300 page bill-including one of its authors!; and that whatever scrumptious unintended consequences do arise, a certainty you can, er, take to the bank, will effect each of us on an intimate level. But, the financial bill itself will have to be a subject of another post; you know, after we actually find out what's in it. For now though, my instincts tell me that I'll probably be in agreement with Senator Shelby of Alabama who succinctly says, "Repeal it".
Still, I'm glad that Captain Kickazz and Sergeant Smartass are telling anyone who will listen how their redistributive, socialistic, policies have "got us out of this mess".
Too bad they didn't let anyone on Wall street know; or on Main street for that matter...
PROGRESS! [UPDATED]
Yesterday, Reuters ran a story on a report by Treasury sent to Congress, with all the usual fanfare of a Friday afternoon, under-the-radar, data dump, detailing their projection, based on current levels of spending and revenus, that the US national debt should reach 19.6 trillion dollars by 2015; an amount that will represent 102% of GDP. Of course, the increase in GDP assumes growth in the economy, and may not include any "double dip" downturn as many economists are predicting. And, in fairness, it also can't take into account any serious spending reductions that may me legislated by Congress in the intervening time. I may be cynical and jaded, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to come to pass.
And what's the cause of the near soubling of the debt in that timeframe? According to Reuters:
The U.S. debt has grown rapidly with the economic downturn and government spending for the Wall Street bailout, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the economic stimulus.
Yep...Just as I noted the other day; it's because of the wars, don't you see? Never mind that the combined cost of those actions are exceeded by the cost of the bailouts and the spendulus. And surprisingly Reuters makes no mention of the dramatic increase in discretionary spending that resulted from the Democrats enacting their 15 year "wish list" of expenditures once the won! had ascended to office. Nope, it's all because of Booooooooooooooosh! and his elective military campaigns-natch...
Nice try, but folks are wising up to this whole connivance. They know that spending is out of control, and that the day of reckoning is near unless as a nation we begin to act responsibly and live within our means.
But I will hand it to the Obamacrats, they have dramatically increased the rate at which our tax dollars, as well as our children's and grand-children's, are squandered. It's no mean feat to double the national debt in less than 2 Presidential terms, especially when it starts out at such a large number; remember, with the left percentages and multiples mean nothing, it's sheer magnitude baby! And by that, their favorite measure to demagogue, I figure they will have increased the debt by nearly as much as all the preceeding administrations since our nations founding.
Is that change you can believe in ? Or even believe?!?
Thanks to the 52% of voters who gave us this palavering putz President, and especially to all the RINOs, Brooks, Noonan, Buckley et al, and the entire MSM, who instead of being properly skeptical of the man with now avowed past, acted as a cheering section instead; the RINOs gave him cover from the right and helped sway the independents votes, because they too thought he was a good man...
[Update] Just as I suspected, the treasury projection not only assume that spending will in no way exceed the "sharp pencil" projections, based on budgeting, but also uses an unreasonably optimistic assumption that GDP growth will outstrip the historical average for the period of 1990-2009. Tyler Durden at Zerohedge provides both the razor sharp snark as well as bone-crunching analysis:
In a nutshell, the attached report pretends to forecast US debt and GDP levels. What it doesn't pretend to do, is to be the work product of a variety of pathological liars. Even as Geithner anticipates US total debt to hit $19.6 trillion by the end of 2015, somehow, in some parallel universe, he also anticipates US GDP will rise at a 5% CAGR for the next five years! Total US GDP, which was at $14.2 trillion for 2009, is expected to ramp up by 2.7% in 2010, and then really put on the afterburners in 2011 through 2015, averaging almost 6% each year, and hitting a stunning $19.2 trillion in 2015. The ridiculousness of this assumption is beyond comprehension. And even so, total debt/GDP will still be over 100% per the government's baseline assumptions. Alternatively, if one assumes, as PIMCO does, a GDP growth rate of 1.5% for the next 4-5 years courtesy of the 10% unemployment "new normal", total debt-GDP will hit 126% in 5 years. And this obviously excludes GSE, SSN and Medicare off balance sheet debt. Lastly, the Treasury assumes that even with 100% Debt to GDP, the funding cost on US market debt in 2015 will be only 4.7%, compared to the 1990-2009 average of 5.9%.
The chart below shows the US Treasury's baseline estimate. Keep in mind total debt will realistically be much higher than what is projected here. One notable observation is that the Treasury assumes that Intergovernmental Debt (i.e. funding for trust funds such as SSN etc), will only rise at around 4.5% each year. This is another chimera that will promptly blow up in the administration's face, now that SSN is net cashflow negative for the first time in history, and will need constant cash replenishment from the Treasury.
His post contains a really detailed analysis of the report, a link to the report itself, and more realistic projections. It contains a number of charts and, as always, excellent explanation. It's succinct, to the point, and a must read as the issue becomes more prominent in the political zietgeist.
I mean, if knowledge is power, this is the equivalent of nuclear weapons...
When masks slip, part…
Oh hell. we'd all better just get used to it; because the masks have seemingly come off since the passage of Obama's "historic, landmark" healthcare legislation. Do you recall how during the debate the mere allusion that Obamacare was essentially national medical care in the finest Euro-socialist tradition engendered the howling, screaming, crying and gnashing of teeth by any of it's supporters; and the subsequent labeling of the person making that observation as being among the RACIST!, hating, hicktard rubes, that, at once, didn't understand what was in their own economic interest as well as, you know, clearly wanting sick children to die?
Well, now that legislation has become "the law of the land", and there is no longer any need for such misdirection; at least as far as the Chairman of the Senate Finanace committee Max Baucus is concerned. Darleen at Protein Wisdom has the text of his breathtaking, but not surprising, remarks:
In an unusual speech on the Senate floor moments ago, Max Baucus declares that the “healthcare bill” to be “an income shift, it is a shift, a leveling to help lower income middle income Americans.” Baucus continued, “[t]oo often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”
[emphasis Darleen at PW]
So in Baucus' own words, the bill was about addressing the "maldistribution" of wealth in our society; gee, and here all of us rubes thought it was about healthcare. But I guess that's what we get for listening to Palin and the RETHUGS! Thanks for clearing that up Max! But while you're clearing things up, maybe you and Boss Obama will be so kind as to tell us just how many people are allowed to be wealthy in our society, and are non Obamites allowed to be rich? Or, is it only the Democrat Apparatchicks like yourself...
This is no real surprise though, at least for anyone who actually listened to the blather of the candidates during the primaries, and general, campaign. In addition to Obama's slip while speaking to Wurzelbacher, there was the very public allusion to penalizing the successful during the debate with Hillary in Philadelphia. Asked pointedly by ABC's Charles Gibson why then Candidate Obama so strongly supported raising capital gains taxes, when there is a large body of evidence correlating increasing rates with falling treasury revenues, the Presidential contender esentially answered, "because of the fairness!". And went on to elucidate, if that's the proper word to describe his characteristic "Wizard of Uhhhhhs" performances when he is sans teleprompter, that regardless of the effects on treasury revenues that it was time for the wealthier Americans to pay more of their income in taxes. Indeed this has been a strong meme among the Democrats since Al Gore lost in 2000; because as we all know, America is always socially fair and enjoying booming economic prosperity when Democrats are in the White House; and especially so when they control 1600 Pennsylvania avenue as well as both houses of Congress.
The Obamacare vote in the House last Sunday night was a shameful perversion of the very nature of "the people's house". Instead of acting as conduits for the exercise of the people's will, the Democrats overwhelmingly voted against it; indeed "our betters" were deciding what was good for us RAAAAAAAACIST!, hicktard plebes who had been duped into opposing the measure. And for those who blanched at both the arrogation of power by the House Democrats as well as the rising spectre of socialism that this bill really represents? Well good ol' Reverend Al was happy to remind us that, if this is indeed socialism, the majority of Americans voted for this last year anyway when they elected the wO!n.
But nothing could be further from the truth, Reverand Al. Obama went out of his way to masqerade as a centrist during the 2008 campaign, but has revealed himself to be the most socialistic leader this country has ever had-bar none. And while some of you may posit FDR as a strong contender for that crown, I'll remind you that despite taking advantage of the Great Depression, you know, not letting that good crisis go to waste and all, in order to place dramatic wage and price controls, hamstring business, and institute social security, he didn't go as far as the Obamacrats have. Obama is a compulsive liar who is bent on enacting his agenda by any means necessary-regardless of the effects on the American people. He and the other Marxist Democrats are willing to pull out all the stops in order to institute an agenda that they are convinced will bribe enough of the electorate to cement socialist Democrat majorities in perpetuity.
See more details at Hot Air and Ace's
(H/T AllahP at Hot Air)
A picture is worth a thousand words, or at least 34…
The Obamunist
Â
Somewhere Frank Marshall Davis is certainly applauding his seemingly successful indoctrination; while our nation is poised on the edge the statist abyss. Let's hope we never reach the tipping point...
(H/T twitpics)
Your Money and Your Life
What's mine is mine... and what's yours is mine. Even if it's not yours.
Follow Dan!
All the Kool Kidz are doing it...
Creature Commentariat
- A War Against Us All [Updated Below] « The Camp Of The Saints on The Paternalism of the Elite Left
- On “Marry Bacon” and other SB XXX Ads « The Daily Mush on Teh Gays and Teh Fashion of Starvation
- ultrabook notebook tipis harga murah terbaik samsung series 9 on Where in the world is Tony Rezko? Where’s the Chicago Tribune?
- Enoch_Root on Principled Politics vs the Politics of Self
- Guaman on Principled Politics vs the Politics of Self
Categories
Recent Grist
Feed the Kraken.
Sponsors
Blogroll
- A Voice from the Closet
- Ace of Spades HQ
- adeliemanchot
- American Power
- American Thinker
- Anchoress
- AnthropoCon
- Baby Troll Blog
- Backyard Conservative
- Bad Science
- Baldilocks
- Big Feed, The
- Big Government
- Big Hollywood
- Big Journalism
- Bit Maelstrom
- Blackfive
- Blog Prof
- Blogshevik, The
- Bob Belvedere
- Bookworm Room
- Brussels Journal
- Catawissa Gazetteer
- Chap-O-Matic
- Chris Wysocki
- Christopher Taylor
- Classic Liberal, The
- Coach Is Right
- Coalition of the Swilling
- Conservatives4Pailin.com
- Coordinated Illumination
- Corner at NRO
- Cranky Conservative
- Cynthia Yockey
- Da Techguy
- Daily Caller, The
- Daily Mush, The
- David Thompson
- DC Trawler, The
- Don Surber
- Doug Ross @ Journal
- Dustbury
- Emerging Corruption
- Eye of Polyphemus
- Fausta's Blog
- Feed Your ADHD
- From the Right Lane
- Front Page Mag
- Gateway Pundit
- Goldfish and Clowns
- Grand Rants
- HAEMET
- Heartland Murmurs
- Hot Air
- I Own the World
- I Wish I Was a Geordie
- IMAO
- Iowahawk
- Is This Blog On?
- James Gunn
- James Joyner
- Jammie Wearing Fool
- Javelina Bomb
- Jawa Report
- Jennifer Townsend Photography
- Jimmie Bise
- Johanna Hopes
- John Hawks Weblog
- Jookoos News
- Just Russ
- Kathleen McKinley (Rightwingsparkle)
- Kill Truck
- King Shamus
- Knifework
- Lead and Gold
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty at Stake
- Liberty At Stake
- Lightning News, The
- Little Miss Attila
- Luminarium
- Maggie's Farm
- Man Pants (Ninnuh's blog)
- Mark Steyn
- Medary
- Meepbobeep's Journal
- Melanie Phillips
- memeorandum
- Mi Vida Loca
- Michael Yon
- Michelle Malkin
- Midnight Blue
- Mike Hendrix & Co.
- Mike in New Hampshire [RIP. Never forgotten]
- Mind Numbed Robot
- Miserable Donuts
- Moxie
- MsUnderestimated
- My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
- Naked Empress
- Natural Born Conservative
- Neo-neocon
- Newsbusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias
- Nice Deb
- No Sheeples Here
- Oatmeal, The
- Obi's Sister
- Old Grouch
- Once Upon a Time in the Webs
- Opera Rat: The Blog
- Paco Enterprises
- Pal 2 Pal
- Paragraph Farmer, The
- Patterico's Pontifications
- Phelony Jones
- Pixie Place II
- POH Diaries, The
- Pool Bar, The
- Potluck
- Power Line
- Public Secrets
- Pundit & Pundette
- pw
- Q and O
- Question Obama
- Radical Middle
- Redstate – Conservative News and Community
- Renner's Here
- Rhetorican
- Rhymes with Right
- Ric's Rulez
- Richard Fernandez
- RightNetwork
- Ruby Slippers
- Salty Droid
- Sanity Inspector, The
- Scott Effin' Burgess
- Serr8d's Cutting Edge
- Seven Deadly Sins
- Sissy Willis
- Six Meat Buffet
- Snark. And Boobs.
- Sono Annoiato
- South Texian
- Stop the ACLU
- Sultan Knish
- Supply Side Politics 2.0
- That Mr. G Guy's Blog
- That's Right
- The B-Cast
- The Blago Files
- The College Politico
- The Conservatory
- The H2 – New Location, Same Retardation
- The Hayride
- The Other McCain and Smitty
- The Rude News
- The Trogolopundit
- Theo Spark
- Three Beers Later
- Tigerhawk
- Tim Blair
- Trevor Loudon
- Unreligious Right, The
- Useful Info Nation
- Useful Info Nation Blog
- Vally of the Shadow
- Vanderleun
- Verum Serum
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Vodkapundit
- Walking on Eggshells
- Washington Examiner
- Watts Up with That?
- Weasel Zippers
- Yid with Lid