I've read a bunch of these Wingnut columns and they all seem to be exactly what you would expect from a Bush official, either on the record or (as here) speaking to the media as an anonymous source.

Maybe it's too much to expect that you would get a sympathetic, but informed and critical view of what's going on in rightwing thinking at present, but that's clearly what I and other readers hoped for. In this column more explicitly than in the past GW disclaims the idea that there is anything more to Repub thinking than the official talking points. So, I can't see what the value is in publishing this column.

"Megawatt per day" doesn't make sense, which is a big problem for an article about energy consumption. Can you clarify?

I know it's a term that has little history in the US, but with the Repubs throwing "socialist" around at every opportunity, it seems clear that such terms are going to enter the lexicon one way or another.

Unlike "liberal", "progressive" or even "conservative", "social democrat" has a reasonably clear meaning, combining a commitment to personal and political freedom with support for the welfare state and publicly provided services, along with a commitment to government intervention to stabilise the economy. That covers most of the connotations of "liberal" and "progressive" that appeal to supporters of the Democratic Party, without the baggage.

"I would love for one of these pundits expressing that view to say specifically -- exactly -- what "crazy liberal" things they think Obama would inclined to do which a majority of Americans would find objectionable."

To be fair, the WSJ has done exactly this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html

Their suggested program for Obama

* Medicare for all

* Serious financial reregulation

* Union supremacy

* Ending tax cuts for the rich

* A green ‘revolution’

* Voting rights for all, including DC

Some more discussion here

http://crookedtimber.org/2008/10/21/the-program-for-a-supermajority

To explain the remark about "going back to a past age"

(1) From the 1990s there was an explosion of promotions encouraging heavy drinking. Think happy hour on steroids. There has been a big attempt by the authorities to cut down on this. I expect the person was referring to this

(2) Although the news story doesn't catch up with this, the 90s boom included "no undie" promotions (in Queensland anyway, perhaps it's new in Victoria - liquor licensing is regulated at the state level here).

"The advent of the computer came with promises of the paperless office but has, instead, resulted in an increase in the use of paper."

True until recently, but not any more, as the habit of printing emails and similar dies out.

See some links

http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/10/quick-links/

I'm sure Tim will cover this better, but there's ample evidence that ESEF was quite simply the European version of Milloy's TASSC. You can find this in Wikipedia and Sourcewatch, but it's much easier to go straight to the source and look at one of many joint press releases like the one quoted here

http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2505646347-6368.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=11 which describes the two in identical terms ""TASSC and ESEF are not-for-profit organizations of scientists, former public policy officials and others interested in the use of sound science in policy.""

Others may have pointed this out already, but the Dean's name is Edney. He holds the Orrick chair.