I actually agree with much of your post. Of course they are biased toward fiscal/economic conservativism. They don't gloss over that.... they wear it on their sleeve.
Quote:They probably don't protest when the free market somehow fails and yet Bush is bailing out the Airlines industry while workers are being laid off.
First, they will protest anyone, Democrat or Republican. If the free market "fails", as you call it, they will have an opinion as to why this may have happened. You may disagree with them, but - more often than not - they'll point to embargos, regulations, corporate welfare, bad business decisions, externalities, and the like, as being the culprit of a corporation going belly up.
Quote:The fact that they would even endorse a Democrat simply means to me that Bush's authoritarian big government baggage has become more of a liability than the assets of his wealth-friendly tax cuts.
I pretty much agree with you entirely on this. But just be aware that this 'endorsement' is one opinion of one scholar (pointing out your use of the word "they"), not an official endorsement of the entire think-tank itself, per se.
Quote:I'm not condemning them 100%. I just think a reasonable person would think of them as a conservative think tank. Wouldn't you agree with that?
I think a person who is only mildly familar, at best, with them would assume them to be conservative. But, as I mentioned elsewhere, a number of positions they take are quite at odds with the Republican Party.
They promote a book called "Bad Neighbor Policy: America's Failed War on Drugs in Latin America". One essay written was simply titled "Why the U.S. Should Not Attack Iraq". Hardly the GOP party line. They also endorse a liberal immigration policy and would prefer the government to keep out of meddling with gay marriage.
In a nutshell, they're "conservative" in economic matters, "liberal" in social and personal freedom matters.