Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Your Next President
I spent last
night at a forum on the Right and the GOP; among the panelists were
reason contributor W. James Antle III and
direct-mail conservative icon Richard Viguerie. Everyone on the
panel agreed that the right was pretty well doomed in 2008, but
that the looming challenge of Hillary Clinton might be a unifying
force that re-aligns Buchanan with Frum, Brimelow with Chavez,
etc.
Increasingly, that sounds like a pipe dream. Clinton has been the de facto Democratic nominee since November 8, 2004, and the conservative movement against her has amounted to... squat. Anti-Hillary books have stiffed. Anti-Hillary 527s and PACs have dried up, crumbled. Fundraising appeals that attack Hillary have almost no punch anymore. In the last week of the 2nd fundraising quarter I got a message from John McCain saying "ONLY JOHN MCCAIN CAN BEAT HILLARY CLINTON." That was before McCain's fundraising bottomed out. Almost every Republican's making some version of that argument, and yet total GOP fundraising for all of their candidates is about 65 percent of total Democratic fundraising.
I asked Viguerie why this was, since he'd participated in the anti-Hillary fundraising effort of 2000 that raised $22 million for Rudy Giuliani's Senate bid against her and around $40 million for eventual candidate Rick Lazio.
"Nobody has a plan to beat Hillary right now," Vigurie said. "In 2000 we had a plan: Help out Giuliani and help him get over the line to keep Hillary out of the Senate."
Sure, but isn't "keep Hillary out of the White House" a pretty clear objective? "We're just in such a state right now," he said, referring to the Right. "We need to sort out our problems and get our house in order, decide on a candidate, and then I think we'll develop a plan to take her on."
I couldn't get him to say what, exactly, would be the focus of the campaign, so I wasn't convinced. There's a lot of animus against Hillary but most of it shallow: There are people who don't like her but also don't want to hear about how she covered up the Juanita Broaddrick rape or stormed Ruby Ridge or planted the 1996 Olympics bombs. The ideological Right and grassroots Republicans take for granted that they'll just remind the country of her scandals or her statism and they'll beat her back. It sounds a lot like the Democratic arguments of 2004: "Who needs ideas? Who needs strategy? Bush is an awful candidate and we just need to beat up on him."
|8.22.07 @ 4:37PM|#
There are people who don't like her but also don't want to
hear about how she covered up the Juanita Broaddrick rape or
stormed Ruby Ridge or planted the 1996 Olympics bombs.
What?
|8.22.07 @ 4:40PM|#
This is what I've been saying. The country is PO'd at the right,
and it's only going to get worse. The thing they're most upset
about is Iraq and HRC doesn't really have a lot of credibility
there. But it doesn't matter She's a shrewd politician and she's a
Democrat. That will be enough.
That's why I say the only Republican that can beat her is Ron Paul,
the only Republican right on Iraq.
Episiarch|8.22.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Hillary seems pretty bad, but like W. she is a super-divider.
There are just large swaths of people who fucking hate her, and
will go all out to stop her from getting elected. If they fail,
they will probably focus on hobbling her by bringing a Republican
majority back to Congress.
Much as I hate the dynastic streak we seem to be in, a return to a
hated Clinton Democrat in the White House opposed by a Republican
Congress and nobody getting anything too bad done wouldn't be the
worst thing.
|8.22.07 @ 4:42PM|#
"...she covered up the Juanita Broaddrick rape or stormed Ruby
Ridge or planted the 1996 Olympics bombs"
I knew it all along!
|8.22.07 @ 4:43PM|#
In the 1970s, Hillary maimed a whole troop of Girl Scouts, then killed their kittens, then stole their sticker collections and burned them in a tribute to Satan, and she did all of this to cover up a successful investment in commodities that killed her former law partner by cocaine.
|8.22.07 @ 4:44PM|#
Episiarch,
No it wouldn't be the worst thing. Indeed it would be the best of
all possible worlds. One question, where is that Republican
Congress going to come from?
D. Greene|8.22.07 @ 4:45PM|#
I'm so happy that I'm a Canadian citizen, because I am SO outta here (the states) come January of 2009.
|8.22.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Where are her negatives now? ...are they still above 40%?
She may have support in some key places, but where are her
negatives? Last I checked, she was perceived somewhere just below
the lady that drowned her babies and just above Michael Vick.
|8.22.07 @ 4:50PM|#
The Democratic Party is more stupid than I thought if they nominate her. They probably could win easily, possibly in a landslide, with any other top tier candidate. But once again, they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Alice Bowie|8.22.07 @ 4:52PM|#
There is a better chance of a Gorilla crawling out of my
ass than a woman or a
black being elected as President of the USA.
Cesar...ur right...The Dems gave the election to Guiliani
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.22.07 @ 4:52PM|#
Hypothetical:
Hilary wins, neither a landslide or a nailbiter. 2010 comes around.
War's still on -- HilDog does about what we expect on that front,
talking about a new strategy but essentially just shuffling deck
chairs on Al-Titanic. Voters get pissed; liberals, of course, stick
with her, but independents are frustrated enough that Team Blue
hasn't done anything to give the Republicans a slim Congressional
majority in the midterm. This may be close to realistically optimal
for libertarians on the domestic front -- garden-variety gridlock,
Reds block Blues from the most statist health care options, fight
expanded executive power since their guy's not in charge. (It'd be
nice if the Democrats did roll back some of the surveillance/show
trial state measures but who knows.) But what, then, are the
implications for Iraq? I don't see a lot of "stay the course" when
they loathe the CinC. How does that play out?
|8.22.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Cesar...ur right...The Dems gave the election to
Guiliani
Giuliani never got a chance to run because he had prostate cancer
followed by a nasty divorce that showed everyone what a dick he
really is. Hillary ran against that douchebag Dick Lanzo or
whatever his name was, not a tough guy to beat.
Eric Dondero|8.22.07 @ 4:54PM|#
You grossly underestimate the animosity that exists against this
woman.
My bet, everything from the 1980s and 90s will resurface:
Drugrunning in Mena, AK, the State Troopers scandals, Vince Foster
murder, Ron Brown murder, Waco/Ruby Ridge, and most especially the
Clinton cover-up of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
It's funny how so many people have forgotten all that. And now
there's new evidence on many of those fronts, that will undoubtably
come out in the campaign.
You can sweep away a few little sex scandals, but no murder.
Russ 2000|8.22.07 @ 4:54PM|#
The democratic fetish for all things Clinton is as repugnant as the republican fetish for all things Bush.
|8.22.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Oh my fault Alice, I thought you were talking about the 2000 Senate race. It won't be Giuliani, it will be Romney.
Alice Bowie|8.22.07 @ 4:55PM|#
(It'd be nice if the Democrats did roll back some of the
surveillance/show trial state measures but who knows.)
With Guiliani as President...u can rest assure that Surveillance
will be ALL OVER AMERICA.
|8.22.07 @ 4:55PM|#
August 22, 2007
Not all the media are biased. A local newspaper in New Hampshire
reported on an annual GOP bbq in the town of Hollis. It could be
called "the Ron Paul show," they said, since the far bigger crowd
that usual consisted mostly of our supporters. One volunteer even
rented an airplane and flew a wonderful sign around the sky. What
great, creative, self-starting people I'm meeting, at every stop,
all of them united by a love of America and American freedom.
Politics is usually about division. But this campaign is just the
opposite. Not only are our volunteers a bunch of happy warriors,
but they also practice the virtues of tolerance and peace, just as
they want the nation to do.
The other day, the state chairman of an opposing campaign (not in
New Hampshire!), angrily tore a sign out of one of our supporter's
hands and trashed it. Different people with different beliefs might
have responded differently. But our people, though they'd been
standing in the rain all day, applied the Golden Rule. It's because
of quiet heroes that I know we can change this country.
A reporter in New Hampshire told me this story about Florida: she
had seen the same three supporters working every day passing out
our literature, and so decided to interview them. She was startled
to discover that one was a Republican, one was a Democrat, and one
was an Independent. But I wasn't.
Freedom brings us all together. We can all agree on leaving people
alone to plan and live their own lives, rather than trying to force
them to obey at the point of a gun, as runaway government does.
Instead of clawing at each other via the warfare-welfare state,
people under liberty can cooperate in a unity of diversity.
There is no need to use government to threaten others who have
different standards, or to be threatened by them. Looking to our
Founders, our traditions, and the Constitution, we can build, in
peaceful cooperation, a free and prosperous society.
At a talk show in Nashua, New Hampshire, the host asked me about
the fair tax. Well, I agree on getting rid of the IRS, I told her,
but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's
not forget the inflation tax, I said.
This was something she had never considered, but after I talked
about the depreciation of our dollar by the Federal Reserve, its
creation of artificial booms and busts, and its bailouts of the big
banks and Wall Street firms, to the detriment of the average
person, she loved it. That is another tax, she agreed, a hidden and
particularly vicious tax.
They try to tell us that the money issue is boring or irrelevant.
In fact, it is the very pith of our social lives, and morally,
Constitutionally, and economically, the central bank is a disaster.
Thanks to the work of this movement, Americans are starting to
understand what has been hidden from them for so long: that we have
a right to sound and honest money, not to a dollar debauched for
the special interests.
Unconstitutional government has created a war crisis, a financial
crisis, a dollar crisis, and a freedom crisis. But we don't have to
take it. We don't have to passively accept more dead soldiers, a
lower standard of living, rising prices, a national ID,
eavesdropping on our emails and phone calls, and all the
rest.
We can return to first principles, and build the brightest, most
brilliant future any people on earth has ever aspired to. Help me
teach this lesson. Help me campaign all over this country, in
cooperation with our huge and growing volunteer army. Help me show
that change is not only possible, but also essential. Please, make
your most generous contribution
(https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/) to this campaign for a
Constitutional presidency worthy of our people. Invest in freedom:
for yourself, for your family, for your future.
Sincerely,
Ron
Episiarch|8.22.07 @ 4:56PM|#
One question, where is that Republican Congress going to
come from?
There are a lot of people who voted in 2006 not in support of the
Democrats but to punish the Republicans. If Hillary wins, a lot of
those people may revert back to the GOP because their hatred/fear
of Hillary wins over their disgust with the bahavior of the
Republicans. That, and consider the incredibly low approval rate of
this Democrat-majority Congress.
Also, don't factor out the possibility of another Gingrich-style
"Contract with America" from the GOP where they promise to fix what
went wrong with them, kick out the worst offenders (like everyone
from Alaska), and so on. Not that they'd stick to their promises,
but it would probably work.
|8.22.07 @ 5:01PM|#
HRC will be the nominee because she is the most powerful force
in all the Democratic Party. There is no one in the DP that can
oppose her and live.
And some of you are not paying attention. However much you still
hate her, the country is warming up to her. Mostly because she is
not a Republican. You know one of those evil industrialists raping
the earth and growing fat off killing the innocent and evicting
families in the street. Or else one of those illiterate, grade
school dropout, has five children with two sisters, bible thumping,
gun loving, hate mongers. Hillary isn't any of those things and the
undecided voter is really looking for that in a candidate.
|8.22.07 @ 5:03PM|#
There is a better chance of a Gorilla crawling out of my
ass
Sh!t, I'll vote for Hillary just to see that.
|8.22.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Donnnnnndeeeeerrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooo!!!!!
Never underestimate the loathing some of us have for Guliani that
we would rather shoot ourselves in the foot by not voting than hold
our noses and vote for him to prevent Hillary from being
elected.
|8.22.07 @ 5:04PM|#
"They probably could win easily, possibly in a landslide,
with any other top tier candidate. But once again, they will snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory."
I'm trying to do the math. If 40% of the people don't mind you so
much and another 40% hate your guts, how does the swing 20% have to
break in order for you to win?
Answer: If you break the 40% who don't mind you so much 75/25 and
take the swing 20% lock, stock and barrel, you barely get to 50%.
No, she doesn't need a majority to win, but that's hardly a slam
dunk.
How's she polling in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio? What
about Florida? ...how's she do against Giuliani in New York?
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.22.07 @ 5:05PM|#
You grossly underestimate the animosity that exists against
this woman.
My bet, everything from the 1980s and 90s will resurface:
Drugrunning in Mena, AK, the State Troopers scandals, Vince Foster
murder, Ron Brown murder, Waco/Ruby Ridge, and most especially the
Clinton cover-up of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Problem is, the people who would bring all that up are the exact
same ones who have been completely discredited by the events of the
last four years.
Alice Bowie|8.22.07 @ 5:06PM|#
I'll vote for Hillary if I have 2...I've been a life-long republican until 2000.
|8.22.07 @ 5:08PM|#
I think people forget how irrelevant front-runner status can be
in the lead up to the primaries. Mark my words, HRC's
divisiveness--among many Democrats as well as the entire GOP--will
be the kiss of death. I'm sticking to my prediction that, from the
ashes, Bill Richardson will arise as the Democratic nominee. Obama
will vanish the way most candidates like him do. Ditto
Edwards.
I also think there's a desire among most voters to get someone in
office who half of us don't completely despise.
I have no clue which Republican is going to win. I'd love it to be
Paul, but that's a reach. Probably Romney has the best chance.
|8.22.07 @ 5:08PM|#
My bet, everything from the 1980s and 90s will resurface:
Drugrunning in Mena, AK, the State Troopers scandals, Vince Foster
murder, Ron Brown murder, Waco/Ruby Ridge, and most especially the
Clinton cover-up of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
God, I hope so. There is a slight chance the public might forget
how thoroughly the Republican Party has been taken over by criminal
lunatics from Texas.
Please, let them bring back the circus! We Dems just might get that
veto-proof majority.
Eric Dondero wants to recreate the atmosphere that allowed Bill
Freaking Clinton to leave office as the most popular president in
four decades.
Finally, I get to agree with him on something. Hey, Eric, tell your
hero to keep using that "Hillary Clinton wants to turn the clock
back to the 90s!" line.
Pretty please?
Alice Bowie|8.22.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Plz don't vote for Guiliani...
Nothing good'l come out of it.
He'll do to America what he did to NYC.
Yes, America will be a clean safe place...But it will really hurt
while the process is goin on.
Guiliani cares nothing about what he calls "CRIMINAL's
RIGHTS".
He's the type of Guy that would bring back the cross.
DannyK|8.22.07 @ 5:11PM|#
My bet, everything from the 1980s and 90s will resurface:
Drugrunning in Mena, AK, the State Troopers scandals, Vince Foster
murder, Ron Brown murder, Waco/Ruby Ridge, and most especially the
Clinton cover-up of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Is this the real Eric Dondero, or somebody posting inanities to
make him look bad? I can't tell anymore.
Personally, I'm excited to see what President Hillary will do with
the powers of the unitary executive. I hope to watch it from a
distance.
|8.22.07 @ 5:12PM|#
Pro,
I like your prediction. I'd happily vote Richardson against Guliani
or Romney, but I think the more important thing is for the
republicans to regain control of the senate to veto every stupid
thing the democratic house comes up with. That way, the rest of us
can get on with our lives while the bubble that is Washington DC
can conduct its only harmless civil war.
|8.22.07 @ 5:13PM|#
I saw myself agreeing with Dondero, so I double-checked my
facts.
As of August 13-14, among likely voters, Hillary Clinton's
unfavorables stood at 52%--that's right, fifty-two percent!
...and she doesn't poll too much better against Thompson
than she does against Giuliani.
Poll results
here.
|8.22.07 @ 5:14PM|#
There is no Democratic fetish for the Clintons. Bill Clinton was
mocked as "the best Republican president in American history"
during his term of office. With the exception of identity-politics
women, Hillary's support is a mile wide an inch deep. She gets cold
receptions from Democrats.
The only time genuine affection for the Clintons has been observed
in the wild was during the Ken Starr debacle.
Hey, Eric, when you attack her, can you make sure you do so in
explicitly sexist language? Just a few c-bombs will do. Come on,
you know you want to.
|8.22.07 @ 5:16PM|#
America is already a clean safe place, what do we need that
sucker for?
As soon as crime was fixed, he started banning spitting on the
sidewalk, crossing the street at the corners (building fences to
stop people from doing so) and aggressively going after
jaywalkers.
If he keeps to his MO not only will we have national surveillance
and an ID card, everyone will be driving 55 - OR ELSE!
Episiarch|8.22.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Hey, Eric, when you attack her, can you make sure you do so
in explicitly sexist language? Just a few c-bombs will do. Come on,
you know you want to.
joe, don't be a dick. Well, it is DONDERRROOOOOO...
Trollaphile|8.22.07 @ 5:17PM|#
I see a Huckaby Edwards race in 2008. Or maybe Huckaby Richardson. If Huckaby wins I will have to learn to spell his name.
Asharak|8.22.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Do you really thing she'll win? Not that the Right isn't in dire
straits, of course, but I just don't see Red State America going
for her. She's a northern Democrat and a woman,
for Pete's sake.
And however unhappy dyed-in-the-wool conservaties might be with
whoever the GOP will nominate, I think they're going to hold their
noses and vote "R" just to keep Hillary out of office.
|8.22.07 @ 5:21PM|#
joe,
I'd agree with you--'cause Billy was a "Republican" 80% of the time
(what that may say about today's idea of a Republican is another
story)--except that there are some weird Clintonista pockets in the
party. My feeling is that Clinton's successes in the 90s are
completely overblown. . .at least insofar as the Clintons and their
people are credited for winning and retaining the White House. As a
result, many people with the just-win-for-the-party mentality are
backing HRC. I think that's stupid, but they didn't ask my
opinion.
Incidentally, this same kind of thinking got Bush more support than
he should've gotten in 2000 and 2004. And also got Rove more credit
than he deserved. Sometimes, being in the right place at the right
time is the best thing to do.
Asharak|8.22.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Is this the real Eric Dondero, or somebody posting inanities
to make him look bad? I can't tell anymore.
My thoughts exactly. Would he actually say all of that
conspiracy-minded stuff around his fellow Giuliani supporters?
They'd call him a fruitcake.
Akira MacKenzie|8.22.07 @ 5:26PM|#
My bet, everything from the 1980s and 90s will resurface:
Drugrunning in Mena, AK, the State Troopers scandals, Vince Foster
murder, Ron Brown murder, Waco/Ruby Ridge, and most especially the
Clinton cover-up of the Oklahoma City Bombing.
Riggggght, because those of us who oppose HRC on sincere political
principal WANT to associated with every far right-wing nut job with
a vindictive conspiracy theory.
|8.22.07 @ 5:28PM|#
Asharak,
Somehow, I see Dondero as that kid that always dressed like the
cool kids and followed them around like he was one of them. He'd be
the first one to talk up a fight and the last one to join in. I
don't think he's as popular with the Guliani supporters as he
thinks he is.
|8.22.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Warren,
And when jennifer posts.....lovers....
I wonder if I completely disgusted everyone with that comment....I
hope so.....
Russ 2000|8.22.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Hillary's support is a mile wide an inch deep. She gets cold
receptions from Democrats.
She is also the best chance for the Democrats wet dream to come
true: Bill back in the White House. Hilary is just the proxy.
|8.22.07 @ 5:49PM|#
Just to help.....
Warren,
You naughty naughty boy. How dare you picture fine Miss Jennifer
so? She's no common wench!!! She's a product of fine upbringing and
attended the finest British boarding schools New York had to
offer.
*off to spread rumors of Warren's slander*
Jales|8.22.07 @ 5:59PM|#
The problem with HRC is she's really no different than Bush. She's cocky, convinced she knows what's best for us all. She doesn't seem to really care about what we the people want. She's like an overbearing parent, and I think that that will show if she's elected. The fact that she is trying to parent our children because we don't parent to suit her REALLY bugs me and is indicative of her whole attitude towards us. "You don't know how to do it, I'll do it for you" I wish Bush was never born, but I'd take him and his open dishonesty over HRC's creeping erosion of rights any day. Quite frankly, I don't see any candidate worth my time, but I pray that Obama or Edwards beats her out. "For your own good" is the most insidious poison of all.
|8.22.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Never underestimate the ability of the American presidential campaign process to produce two candidates for Commander-in-Chief that any sane person would not trust with a potato gun.
crap-action-jackson|8.22.07 @ 6:00PM|#
I happen to be a vicious power hungry fascist myself, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies...
thoreau|8.22.07 @ 6:02PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
joe, just so I understand: When you suggest that
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! should
generate sympathy for Hillary, is this because you support her? Or
are you just mocking what he's doing.
Oh, wait, this is DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! that we're
talking about. Of course it's mockery.
iih|8.22.07 @ 6:32PM|#
If [Giuliani] keeps to his MO not only will we have national
surveillance and an ID card, everyone will be driving 55 - OR
ELSE!
I have hard time staying under 80 mph (a Michigan habit that many
of my Michigander friends here still suffer from, even many years
after leaving) in New England (with the painful consequences --
tickets and all), driving at 55 mph would be a nightmare. No to
Guiliani. I would vote for the candidate, democrat or GOP, who
installs no speed limit zones.
iih|8.22.07 @ 6:34PM|#
And not that I can vote -- I am a disenfranchised tax-payer. Talk about taxation without representation.
|8.22.07 @ 6:37PM|#
they'll just remind the country of her scandals or her
statism and they'll beat her back
So, to beat someone associated with scandals and statism the GOP
will run ... Giuliani? I think this level of delusionary thought
speaks more about the GOP and its chances than anything its
candidates have to say.
|8.22.07 @ 6:45PM|#
ONLY RON PAUL CAN BEAT HILARY!
Running against Paul would force HRC to confront her Goldwater-Girl
past making her realize the error of her liberal ways.
iih|8.22.07 @ 7:04PM|#
NoStar:
What is Ron Paul's view on speed limits?
But on a serious note, with the overwhelming populist tide among
voters among, not only democrat, but also GOP voters, why would
people vote for what the media paints as a radical? I hope I am
wrong, but voting for RP requires real guts which the average
(non-libertarian) voter seems to lack. The Evangelicals and those
prone to the they'll-kill-us-if-we-do-not-vote-for-GWB scare
mongering are willing to give up many freedoms for promoting a
theocracy and/or security. Will they, and they constitute a huge
component of the GOP base, be willing to take up a candidate like
RP?
iih|8.22.07 @ 7:13PM|#
(Re-post. My web-browser deleted, or may be I did, erase the
message.)
Perfecto:
If only Julio Iglesias was running...
Is he libertarian?
Actually that inspires in idea. Is there a libertarian celebrity
out there whose sheer popularity can put him/her into office? You
know, kind of like the Schwarzenegger phenomenon in California? I
think that the rest of the country is not quite California, but may
be?
|8.22.07 @ 7:28PM|#
Plus, a Ron Paul candidacy effectively removes HRC's claim (or anyone else's) to be the anti-war candidate. Once RP got the Republican nod, he would be in a unique position to create a new coalition, much as that other Ronald did in 1980.
|8.22.07 @ 7:31PM|#
Much as I hate the dynastic streak we seem to be in, a
return to a hated Clinton Democrat in the White House opposed by a
Republican Congress and nobody getting anything too bad done
wouldn't be the worst thing.
Wow and i thought the "Lets elect democrats in 2006 for a divided
government" was mind blowingly stupid. But chances are that "Lets
elect Hilary so we will have a unified government that everyone
will hate so they will then want a divided government" will be
stupid enough to be Reason's 2008 election mantra.
iih|8.22.07 @ 7:36PM|#
NoStar:
IMHO, I think he will probably even win over a good chunk of the DP
voter base (those who distrust/dislike HRC and who would have voted
for Obama if he had one the DP nomination). He may even have a
chance with pro-choicers, despite his beliefs (though they may
distrust him since he's from the GOP). I do not see him making much
gain vis-a-vis the hard-core socialists (e.g., those for universal
health care).
|8.22.07 @ 7:45PM|#
"Wow and i thought the "Lets elect democrats in 2006 for a
divided government" was mind blowingly stupid."
Oh my. You don't see anything growin' on that tree?
Why haven't we heard from Rumsfeld lately? Oh, that's right--he
isn't the Secretary of Defense anymore, is he!
Dude, the dynamics of a number of issues important to libertarians
like yours truly changed dramatically after that election. I didn't
vote Democrat, but I understand the logic. ...and that tree's
bearin' fruit.
|8.22.07 @ 7:47PM|#
"Never underestimate the ability of the American
presidential campaign process to produce two candidates for
Commander-in-Chief that any sane person would not trust with a
potato gun."
Ha!
|8.22.07 @ 7:51PM|#
Dude, the dynamics of a number of issues important to
libertarians like yours truly changed dramatically after that
election. I didn't vote Democrat, but I understand the logic.
...and that tree's bearin' fruit.
All i have seen is zero progress with libertarian issues and lots
of progress for progressives...
Sure you are a libertarian?
LibertyPlease|8.22.07 @ 7:54PM|#
Never underestimate the ability of the American presidential campaign process to produce two candidates for Commander-in-Chief that any sane person would not trust with a potato gun.
No kidding, and that extends to most elected officials. Somehow the
worst of us are those who run for office. Explains all the
unnecessary gun control, driving-while-on-the-phone legislation,
etc. These people can be trusted to take care of themselves, they
figure the sane masses can't either. :-(
iih|8.22.07 @ 8:01PM|#
LibertyPlease:
These people can be trusted to take care of themselves, they
figure the sane masses can't either.
Actually the first part made perfect sense. Current administration
was excellent at protecting their own privacy (i.g., email
scandal).
If you change the second part to:
they figure the INsane masses can't
At least this is how this admin seems to view the American
People.
|8.22.07 @ 8:04PM|#
"Sure you are a libertarian?"
My beauty's only skin deep, but the libertarianism goes all the way
to the bone.
Before the election, everyone decried the imperial presidency, few
questioned anything the President wanted to do. Now the
Administration is concerned about hearings, about having their
policies reviewed...
Before things can start getting better, maybe they have to stop
getting worse. ...is a congressional check on the presidency
fundamentally un-libertarian? I don't think so.
...and like I said, I didn't vote for any Democrats. I'd rather use
whatever tiny bit of gravity my vote has to sway both parties
libertarian. But why are we checkin' credentials anyway?
Gahan|8.22.07 @ 8:06PM|#
"Is there a libertarian celebrity out there whose sheer
popularity can put him/her into office? You know, kind of like the
Schwarzenegger phenomenon in California?"
Drew Carey's our man! If only we can pry him away from The Price is
Right.
iih|8.22.07 @ 8:20PM|#
Drew Carey does not have the tough or serious charisma that Schwarzenegger or Thompson, respectively, have.
M|8.22.07 @ 8:25PM|#
Somehow the worst of us are those who run for office.
I wish I knew where Kant wrote that the tragedy of history is that
those who seek power are the ones who don't deserve it.
|8.22.07 @ 8:31PM|#
I'm all for the political dynasties, but I want to see Roger Clinton in the white house and the Bush twins in the senate.
|8.22.07 @ 8:38PM|#
Sorry, M, it was Koinsberg, Prussia.
Not that it will make you feel any better but that city is now
Kalingrad, Russia.
Gahan|8.22.07 @ 8:40PM|#
Ok, iih. Fair enough. Are you a Howard Stern fan? Because I think it's pretty slim pickins for libertarian celebs. Bill Maher claims to be a libertarian, but I think he's just using the term as a chic way of saying "I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat."
|8.22.07 @ 8:41PM|#
The problem with the "let's have a one-party Democratic sweep in
2008 so everyone goes for divided government in 2010" notion is
that two years is a long time -- time enough for socialized
medicine, the end of free trade, etc. You know, the same kind of
wretched excess we got with one-party Republican rule, but with
different statist goals.
Realistically, we probably will get that nightmarish scenario,
because Bush screwed the Republican pooch with the Iraq war mess,
so the only hope seems to be to keep enough Republicans in the
Senate to allow filibusters preventing the really bad stuff from
being enacted -- unless that incredibly low approval rating for
Congress signals a voter backlash against the Democrats for not
ending the war.
Gahan|8.22.07 @ 8:43PM|#
And of course there's Penn and Teller, but one of them's mute and the other... well kind of a loud-mouthed asshole. Not that there's anything wrong with that; it just doesn't make you particularly electable.
iih|8.22.07 @ 8:57PM|#
Gahan:
Howard Stern -- Oh God no. I would say that I am sort of socially
conservative, though Stern has every right to say what he wants on
radio/TV. Won't work nationally -- obviously
Penn and Teller -- won't fly nationally either.
We need a mainstream libertarian celebrity.
But seriously, if RP somehow manages to put himself more on TV
screens, that would be good for him. I think he should be careful
with his outspokenness on Iraq (foreign policy for that matter). He
should certainly emphasize that he's the only GOP candidate to be
against the war from the outset, but he needs to downplay the tone
a little. May be speak out more on his anti-abortion. I know this
sounds Machiavellian, but he should do everything possible (within
the boundaries of honesty and integrity) to get those GOP votes.
Basically play the game. All the rest do.
|8.22.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Cesar, I tink ya meants tuh pronounce it
Koinsboyg.
Sorry, excuse my spelling. I meant Königsberg. Just like SIV, I
swear I can spell in longhand....
iih|8.22.07 @ 9:00PM|#
BTW, I have never come across any of RP's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any pointers?
iih|8.22.07 @ 9:03PM|#
I know he's against international agreements/treaties, but nothing specifically about handling the I-P conflict. Or his policy does in fact include all foreign affairs including the P-I issue?
M|8.22.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Just like SIV, I swear I can spell in longhand
Yeah, a spell on a longhorn would be like riding an SUV, albeit one with poor shocks.
|8.22.07 @ 9:23PM|#
We need a mainstream libertarian celebrity.
For a while, it appeared like the LP had a real fetish for trying
to find Libertarian celebrities. Any Z-List celeb who claimed even
a nodding appriciation of liberty was trumpeted like Caesar
entering the palace. I mean, they even listed (70's TV star) Jimmy
Walker.
One of the biggest names I heard mentioned was Kurt Russell, though
I don't know if it's true he's Libertarian (or libertarian).
Personally, I don't know if even Snake Pliskin could fix the
Libertarian party.
Edward|8.22.07 @ 9:31PM|#
Amazing. Hillary has the highest negatives of pretty much any candidate in history, is behind in head to head polls and a multiple people in her own party claim only John Edwards could beat every candidate, and supposedly Hillary is a lock for president? She doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell of being the next president, or ever being president for that matter.
iih|8.22.07 @ 9:39PM|#
BakedPenguin:
We need a celebrity with real teeth. S/he has to be hawkish about
his libertarianism (without looking radical). Hawkish in defending
libertarian principles (not in the foreign policy sense). This
hawkishness is what will make people respect the LP. I recently
mentioned to this (seemingly independent) Wellesley College
graduate (she probably now works in DC, she's been interned at
Congress and all) that I am libertarian. Her response? I must be
wishy-washy. This wishy-washiness perception may be too widespread.
The LP needs a candidate to dispel this image I think. LP needs a
hawk. RP could be this candidate with a little more TV exposure
(and toning down of his stances on issues that GOP voters find
radical).
Goldthwait|8.22.07 @ 9:41PM|#
What is most ridiculous is all the talk of how the Democrats
will win because they are more motivated or because they are
raising more money, etc. etc. For the love of god, it is 15 fucking
months before the election. None of these polls have any relevance
at all right now. Speculation about Hillary's certain invincibility
is absolutely stupid and pointless at this stage of the "race". I
hesitate to call it that because not even a primary vote has been
cast yet.
Hell, a ton of advisors in her own party are worried to death about
her being nominated. Just look at the ridiculous talk about how
Rove is using "reverse psychology" to sabotage her and what not.
Just today a top Democratic advisor, I forgot who it was, said only
John Edwards would win the general election and that Hillary would
get absolutely slaughtered. There are so many talking heads saying
so many different things, it is a cacophony of asininity.
Goldthwait|8.22.07 @ 9:44PM|#
There is no Democratic fetish for the Clintons. Bill Clinton was
mocked as "the best Republican president in American history"
during his term of office."
Maybe you and your buddies at the Ann Arbor Starbucks were saying
that, but no Republican I know was willing to claim that piece of
shit.
Furthermore, only a jackass would compare Bill Clinton favorably
with Abraham Lincoln.
iih|8.22.07 @ 9:48PM|#
She doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell of being the
next president, or ever being president for that matter.
That was my view of GWB after watching him in an interview on (I
think) Euronews. The one where he did not know who Pakistan's
president, and a few other pretty bad mess-ups in responding to the
interviewer's general-knowledge questions. BTW, I had not come to
the US yet, but at that time, has this interview received much
media attention?
iih|8.22.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Maybe you and your buddies at the Ann Arbor Starbucks were
saying that, but no Republican I know was willing to claim that
piece of shit.
Is there someone here who's been or is in Ann Arbor? The real good
coffee is at Espresso Royale's South U. location. I miss my time
there. Good memories.
|8.22.07 @ 10:38PM|#
I really really hope Richardson can knock her out. Richardson is a good man, hes pro gun and pro market.
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.22.07 @ 10:45PM|#
We need a mainstream libertarian
celebrity.
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|8.22.07 @ 10:47PM|#
Hillary has the highest negatives of pretty much any
candidate in history, is behind in head to head polls
Hold on there: you're talking about Rassmussen's internet polling.
Now, Ras's polling is very sensitive to changes and is very
effective and picking up shifts in the electorate, but it is not a
very reliable source for absolute numbers. Most polls do not have
Hillary Clinton losing head-to-heads; most of them have her
winning.
Goldthwait,
I well aware that you and the other beer guts in M.O.M. spent the
90s talking about how Bill Clinton was molesting his daughter while
running blow through Little Rock, but the statement I was
responding to was about an alleged "Democratic fetish" for the
Clintons. I was making the point that there was no such thing - not
then, and not now - to explain their support.
People like you explain their support. The way hateful lunatics
bleed from their pores and chew the curtains at the mention of
their names drives sensible Americans into the Clintons' arms, just
to spite you.
|8.22.07 @ 10:51PM|#
thoreau,
To explain my comment, I can only offer myself as Exhibit A of the
dynamic I described above.
The paranoid style of American politics is like fingernails on a
chalkboard to me, and I immediately find mystelf in sympathy with
figures - be they as admirable as George Marshall or as irritating
as Hillary Clinton - who find themselves in the gunsights of its
practitioners.
iih|8.22.07 @ 10:52PM|#
Anonymo:
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Are you suggesting Dondero for the LP candidacy? Ehem... thanks
but...
|8.22.07 @ 10:53PM|#
Like Hillary's support, I suspect that her negatives are also a
mile wide and an inch deep.
She's also not terribly popular among strongly anti-war Democrats.
Gee, I wonder how they'll vote in a race between Clinton and a
Republican.
SIV|8.22.07 @ 11:02PM|#
Richardson is a good man, hes pro gun and pro
market.
Those two positions aren't verry helpful in landing the Dem
nomination.
Bill Richardson/Harold Ford JR as a Dem ticket could potentially
pick off a few "red states".
|8.22.07 @ 11:05PM|#
I remember using the 'best Republican' line about Clinton in the
90's. I still don't understand why many Republicans have this
knee-jerk reaction against him.
He lowered taxes, reduced spending and balanced the budget, had a
mostly sane foreign policy, made sure the government didn't
interfere too much in the rise of the commercial side of the
internet, reformed welfare. His sex scandal was pretty mild and
harmless and his marriage stayed intact, unlike the scandals and
marriages of many Republicans.
He wasn't perfect but he seemed to accomplish Republican goals more
competently than the Republicans could.
So why the lingering hatred? Professional jealousy?
|8.22.07 @ 11:09PM|#
Picking off red states is irrelevant.
John Kerry didn't win a single red state, and if
purple-trending-blue states like New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio,
Virginia, Indiana or Arkansas flip to the Democrat, that's the
ballgame.
SIV|8.22.07 @ 11:20PM|#
John Kerry didn't win a single red state
WTF? He lost joe.
Good luck with Arkansas and Virginia.
|8.22.07 @ 11:38PM|#
"He lowered taxes, reduced spending and balanced the budget,
had a mostly sane foreign policy, made sure the government didn't
interfere too much in the rise of the commercial side of the
internet, reformed welfare."
We did 75% of that over his objections.
...especially the one about the balanced budget--please
already!
He let Gingrich shut down the government rather than sign a
balanced budget. ...I think the only reasons he eventually signed
was because a) he thought he'd scored a few points with "the snub"
silliness and b) because he thought people were starting to realize
that the parts of the government that were shut down were
completely unnecessary.
I'll never be able to ignore that one--it's sheer fiction. Giving
Clinton the credit for balancing the budget is like giving a
convicted criminal the credit for going to jail--they
forced him to do it!
...now I remember when I first started using the term "propaganda
victim".
|8.22.07 @ 11:45PM|#
Those two positions aren't verry helpful in landing the Dem
nomination.
Yeah, but notice I said it the Dems were smart they'd
nominate him instead of Richardson. They aren't. If they nominate
him they can prove me wrong.
|8.22.07 @ 11:55PM|#
Hillary winning in Virginia? It will be a cold day in hell when
she wins here.
However, a Richardson/Mark Warner ticket may win here.
|8.23.07 @ 12:06AM|#
It really would be amazing to me to find that there really are
otherwise rational people out there who give Bill Clinton credit
for balancing the budget.
It's ridiculous.
How is that narrative supposed to run? ...Bill Clinton wanted to
balance the budget, but Newt Gingrich wouldn't let him; in fact,
Gingrich and the Republicans shut down the government rather than
let Clinton slash the budget so?
What, did I wake up in an alternate universe this morning?
This is the kind of silliness that kept Gore out of office...
I didn't know it was a freaky cult! I didn't know the contributions
came from the Peoples' Army! I didn't know the FBI files were in my
desk drawer! I didn't know! I don't know how that RTC money,
intended for widows and orphans, ended up in my campaign chest! You
got me, 'cause I don't know.
...No, I'm not saying those events never happened--I'm saying I
dunno! Oh, but there is a vast right wing conspiracy, and besides,
it's all about sex! ...and we balanced the budget over Newt
Gingrich's objections!
and when the man dances,
certainly boys, what else?
The piper pays him!
I'm willing to give the guy his due. I'll give Clinton some credit
for screwing over the unions on free trade--he might have been able
to really mess that up if he'd tried. ...but please, Bill Clinton
was a double talking, Machiavellian snake, who did not
balance the budget, thank you very much.
thoreau|8.23.07 @ 1:29AM|#
I don't give Clinton as an individual any credit for the budget
being balanced. But I do give credit to the dynamics of having a
Democratic President that the Republicans hate and a Congressional
GOP caucus led by a guy who can talk the libertarian talk. (Notice
that I didn't say a thing about walking the walk.)
If Newt would run for House or Senate in 2008 and the GOP would vow
to make him Speaker or Majority Leader, I'd vote for Hillary in
2008. And I don't even like Newt.
Quiet Desperation|8.23.07 @ 2:00AM|#
I plan to vote for Hillary.
Not because I agree with anything she says, but because I'm so sick
to death of this dipshit country and its blithering idiot citizens,
I want to inflict continuing Horror White Houses upon the American
populace.
I've been cheering every abusive Patriot Act type law. Anything
that fucks with the citizens is fine by me.
Oh, too bitter? Blow me. And swallow.
Quiet Desperation|8.23.07 @ 2:02AM|#
Word of advice to some: if your argument has the phrase "the polls say" or some variant thereof, you really need to find a new hobby.
Quiet Desperation|8.23.07 @ 2:06AM|#
He lowered taxes, reduced spending and balanced the budget,
had a mostly sane foreign policy, made sure the government didn't
interfere too much in the rise of the commercial side of the
internet, reformed welfare.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, wait... you were SERIOUS!
OK, you just slid in from some parallel universe, right, and that's
what your parallel universe Clinton did, yes? OK, gotcha.
Is there global warming hysteria in your universe, too? How about
celebrity cults or boy bands? How's the music?
|8.23.07 @ 2:23AM|#
I just took a look at the sports books. They currently give the
best odds for Hillary winning it. Odds range from 1-1 to 5-2 on
Hillary, but remember that the books need to set enticing lines to
make a profit and pay off the winners.
I think it's still too early to tell. However, if you've got a
stone cold lead pipe lock on this sucker, let me know.
From William Hill
-----------------
Hilary Clinton 1/1
Barack Obama 5/1
Rudolph Giuliani 5/1
Fred Thompson 7/1
Al Gore 7/1
Mitt Romney 8/1
John Edwards 16/1
Ron Paul 25/1
Mike Huckabee 33/1
Newt Gingrich 33/1
John Mc Cain 33/1
Tommy Thompson 50/1
Some other sites even have long shots such as Al Sharpton, Michael
Moore, and Rumsfeld. If only Rummie were a better than 250,000 to 1
shot.
|8.23.07 @ 2:29AM|#
Ron Paul has 8 to 1 odds, not 25 to 1! RON PAUL WILL BE OUR NEXT PRESIDENT! He could BEAT Hillary hands down. Ron Paul is the only candidate who follows the constitution and faithfully sticks up for limited government, personal freedom and liberty, and a non-interventionist foreign policy! Please, join the Ron Paul Revolution! www.ronpaul2008.com. And meet up with other Ron Paul supporters in your area at ronpaul.meetup.com
|8.23.07 @ 8:01AM|#
Warren wrote: "However much you still hate her, the country is
warming up to her."
The country, including me, is warming to her becuase she is the
less bad Dem canidate.
iih|8.23.07 @ 9:03AM|#
The country, including me, is warming to her becuase she is
the less bad Dem canidate.
I would think Obama or Richardson would be the least harmful. At
least Obama comes across as sincere (regardless of one's position
on some issues -- after all, they all such including all GOPers
except RP).
|8.23.07 @ 9:03AM|#
"The country, including me, is warming to her becuase she is the
less bad Dem canidate."
That's highly debatable.
|8.23.07 @ 9:06AM|#
"At least Obama comes across as sincere (regardless of one's
position on some issues"
That's the way I see it. I think Hillary is seriously lacking in
integrity and integrity is important to me.
|8.23.07 @ 9:12AM|#
"Ron Paul has 8 to 1 odds, not 25 to 1! RON PAUL WILL BE OUR
NEXT PRESIDENT! He could BEAT Hillary hands down. Ron Paul is the
only candidate who follows the constitution and faithfully sticks
up for limited government, personal freedom and liberty, and a
non-interventionist foreign policy"
I'll have the same thing that Karsten is drinking or smoking. I
don't think Ron Paul is telegenic enough. He does come across as
sincere, which is an asset, but his position favoring legalization
of drugs would come back to haunt him. I wish you were right
though, Karsten.
|8.23.07 @ 9:17AM|#
"I just took a look at the sports books. They currently give the
best odds for Hillary winning it."
The latest Rasmussen poll shows Giuliani ahead of Hillary 47 to 41.
I just think Hillary has too high of negatives to win. Or maybe,
I'm just hoping.
It's interesting that people give Ron Paul such good odds whether
they are 25 to 1 or 8 to 1, they are pretty good odds.
|8.23.07 @ 9:25AM|#
"He lowered taxes"
Clinton raised taxes.
"reduced spending and balanced the budget"
He increased spending and the balancing of the budget was
accomplished through tax increases and more revenue from a good
economy made good by the high tech industry which Clinton had
nothing to do with.
"reformed welfare."
It was a campaign promise of his that the Republican controlled
Congress held him to when they gained control. I doubt he would
have ever done it if he didn't have to, that is, if the Democrats
had retained control of Congress.
|8.23.07 @ 9:42AM|#
"She's also not terribly popular among strongly anti-war
Democrats. Gee, I wonder how they'll vote in a race between Clinton
and a Republican."
She'll carry the hard core Democrats. Two things going against her
will be independents that can't stand her and she will bring out
the Republicans enmasse to vote against her.
|8.23.07 @ 9:46AM|#
"The paranoid style of American politics is like fingernails on
a chalkboard to me, and I immediately find mystelf in sympathy with
figures - be they as admirable as George Marshall or as irritating
as Hillary Clinton - who find themselves in the gunsights of its
practitioners."
joe, are you in sympathy with George Bush when he is in the
gunsights of those on the left? Enough to vote for him if he were
running?
|8.23.07 @ 9:57AM|#
"People like you explain their support. The way hateful lunatics
bleed from their pores and chew the curtains at the mention of
their names drives sensible Americans into the Clintons' arms, just
to spite you."
Under that logic, George Bush should be extremely popular because
of all the criticism he receives and I have seen plenty of it.
|8.23.07 @ 10:08AM|#
"We need a mainstream libertarian celebrity."
How about Clint Eastwood? He's a libertarian who would get lots of
exposure and lots of votes. Unfortunately, he would take votes from
the Republican and help Hillary win.
|8.23.07 @ 10:11AM|#
"One of the biggest names I heard mentioned was Kurt Russell,
though I don't know if it's true he's Libertarian (or
libertarian)."
He is. I saw a picture of him attending a Cato meeting.
|8.23.07 @ 10:14AM|#
"BTW, I have never come across any of RP's views on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any pointers?"
He is for neutrality in America's position concerning the
conflict.
iih|8.23.07 @ 11:18AM|#
How about Clint Eastwood? He's a libertarian who would get
lots of exposure and lots of votes. Unfortunately, he would take
votes from the Republican and help Hillary win.
Yeah. He certainly has the charisma to attract mainstream America.
his Hollywood background is actual not a bad thing (vis-a-vis
conservatives), I think. Though still, he may be perceived as
liberal as opposed to libertarian.
Not that he is even mentioned for the job, but even if he does take
votes away and cause the GOP to loose, what the libertarian
movement needs is exposure. Someone to make the case for
libertarianism in a strong and affirmative way. The best and most
realistic thing that can happen to libertarianism in this country
is not RP winning (because it does not look that realistic, though
I wish it to be so), but getting the message out and getting
exposure. RP is doing this, but with the popular clout of a
libertarian celebrity like Eastwood, the message could be delivered
in a much more emphatic way. I think.
lunchstealer|8.23.07 @ 11:39AM|#
There is a slight chance the public might forget how
thoroughly the Republican Party has been taken over by criminal
lunatics from Texas.
What? Me and the .5b haven't taken over the GOP, have we? Why
didn't somebody send me a memo!
|8.23.07 @ 11:42AM|#
"How about Clint Eastwood? He's a libertarian who would get
lots of exposure and lots of votes. Unfortunately, he would take
votes from the Republican and help Hillary win."
I agree. We shouldn't let having seven children by five different
women stand in the way of being President.
We'll just defend him by saying, "Uh...yeah--but he was only
married twice!"
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Hey all you Hillary boosters here, Joe, Episiarch, how do you
explain her comments to the VFW on Monday, where she said clearly
that the "Surge was working"?
I thought you guys were part of the leftwing looney faction of the
libertarian movement. Now your favorite candidate Hillary Clinton,
is agreeing with Republicans on the War in Iraq.
(For text of her remarks - www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com,
scroll down 4 articles.)
iih|8.23.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake:
He is for neutrality in America's position concerning the
conflict.
Thanks. Also found a couple of things on his position on the web,
including an article on antiwar.com .
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Housekeeping item:
In the future if any of you all doubt that it's really me posting
here, just call me on my cell phone at 832-896-9505.
Or, you can email me direct at ericdondero@yahoo.com
I haven't seen any faux posts in about a week or two. So, perhaps
it's stopped?
Scooby|8.23.07 @ 12:22PM|#
So, Erric, is your tack now that Hillary is just as bad as your
boy Rudolph, so we all might as well jump in behind Giuliani?
"leftwing looney faction of the libertarian movement"? Are you part
of the authoritarian wing of the libertarian movement?
|8.23.07 @ 1:10PM|#
Remember folks,
You now have Eric D's phone number.
It would be mean to call him repeatedly and hang up.
Don't do that.
Awik Dunderoo|8.23.07 @ 1:45PM|#
[picks up phone] Hallow? hallow? Ah am answering the foan, but
darz nobody dere.
Mooooooooooooommmmmmmm! I ordered a chaezboiga.
|8.23.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Actually, DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOO! has just a hint of a point. His
boss has the advantage that there isn't much of a constituency of
people who dislike him, while there's a real one for Clinton.
Her only advantage for a libertarian POV is that she'll continue
Bush's policies, more or less, while Rudy wants to be more
aggressive and war-mongering.
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 4:37PM|#
No Scooby, I happen to be part of the ORIGINAL wing of the
libertarian movement.
Again, for the millionth time, the Modern Libertarian movement was
founded by PRO-DEFENSE LIBERTARIANS like Barry Goldwater, Dana
Rohrabacher, Jack Wheeler and Dr. John Hospers.
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Why not be a "Meanie"? Isn't that par for the course for anti-American leftwing Libetarian looney tunes?
Scooby|8.23.07 @ 5:01PM|#
I don't care if you drafted the Bill of Rights; if you back Giuliani, then you have definite non-libertarian tendencies.
|8.23.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Eric D,
Not Rothbard and Nolan? Really.
Your statement just doesn't sound right.
|8.23.07 @ 6:11PM|#
Eric, for the millionth time what does invading Iraq have to do with defending America?
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 7:06PM|#
Scooby, does that include Sally Pipes? Is she no longer a
"libertarian" since she accepted a position on Giuliani's stafff as
a top Policy Advisory?
Does that also include Steve Forbes, David Dreier, Larry Kudlow and
Bill Simon, who are also working to elect Giuliani?
How about all the Giuliani for President Campaign lower-level
staffers who call themselves "libertarians". Should we yell at
them, "Hey, fuck you dude, you have no right to call yourself a
libertarian"?
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 7:08PM|#
Isaac, for the millionth time, what does being a pussy sissy boy
who sucks Al Qaeda's dick and is perfectly fine with Muslims taking
over American and Sharia Law being instituted in the United States,
have to do with being a "libertarian"?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked we libertarians
were all in favor of legalized prostitution, gambling, booze, and
didn't want our women covered in ugly black burqas, nor our gay
friends having their johnnies cut off in the town square and fed to
the dogs.
|8.23.07 @ 8:07PM|#
I don't know why Isaac isn't getting it. I guess he just doesn't
believe that Al Qaeda is going to be able to get enough troops into
US territory, what with their lack of a navy or air force, so he's
a little skeptical that they're going to be able to force him to go
to a mosque and feed his johnny to the dogs.
I have to say I'm a little skeptical too. I know what would happen
if I tried to tell the women in my life what to wear; it's hard to
imagine Al Qaeda's comin' here and stuffin' 'em all in a burka.
...unless, like I said, they've got some kind of delivery mechanism
that's going to bring enough of their troops over here to enforce
that.
Seriously Dondero. ...how do you see them achieving this American
caliphate of yours? Is it an immigration invasion? Is it an attack
from Muslim Europe? How are these Islamic fundamentalists going to
come here and inflict their will on us? How is this horror story of
your going to happen?
Eric Dondero|8.23.07 @ 8:13PM|#
They are already here.
Perhaps you've missed these recent news stories:
Two Muslim men gun down 14 in Maryland and VA suburbs at Gas
Stations.
Crazed Muslim in an SUV runs over 8 at UNC campus green screaming
"Allah-AhuAhkbar."
Crazed Muslim guns down 6 women at Jewish Community Center in
Seattle, killing 1 and wounding another who was pregnent shouting
"Allah-Ahu-Ahkbar."
Crazed Muslim guns down 10 in Salt Lake City shopping mall, killing
5, 4 execution style.
Six in Fort Dix NJ plot to kill hundreds at Army Base.
Should I go on?
|8.23.07 @ 8:13PM|#
What? Me and the .5b haven't taken over the GOP, have we? Why didn't somebody send me a memo!
Aw man, I was gonna have it be a surprise.
|8.23.07 @ 8:19PM|#
I don't care if you drafted the Bill of Rights; if you back Giuliani, then you have definite non-libertarian tendencies.
I'm sure he'll get around to claiming that, to.
Eric, for the millionth time what does invading Iraq have to do with defending America?
Isaac, for the millionth time, what does being a pussy sissy boy who sucks Al Qaeda's dick and is perfectly fine with Muslims taking over American and Sharia Law being instituted in the United States, have to do with being a "libertarian"?
*considers asking what making remarks that sound like Blue
parodies of brain-damaged Red warbloggers has to do with
libertarianism - or even answering the question - but then realizes
the answer*
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|8.23.07 @ 8:36PM|#
Perhaps you've missed these recent news stories:
Emphasis added.
Two Muslim men gun down 14 in Maryland and VA suburbs at Gas Stations.
In 2002.
Crazed Muslim in an SUV runs over 8 at UNC campus green screaming "Allah-AhuAhkbar."
In 2006.
Crazed Muslim guns down 6 women at Jewish Community Center in Seattle, killing 1 and wounding another who was pregnent [sic] shouting "Allah-Ahu-Ahkbar." [sic - pick a transliteration and stick with it]
In 2006.
Crazed Muslim guns down 10 in Salt Lake City shopping mall, killing 5, 4 execution style.
In 2006.
Six in Fort Dix NJ plot to kill hundreds at Army Base.
Awesome - you managed one from this year!
Should I go on?
You undoubtedly will. However, you won't argue any convincing
context for finding a handful of scattered crazies "the greatest
threat this country has ever faced".
|8.23.07 @ 8:54PM|#
A list of crazed Anglo-Saxon Christians would no doubt be much
longer... That wasn't what I was asking.
By what mechanism will these Islamic crazies band together and
inflict their Islamic will on the rest of us?
How are they going to force women into burkas? ...and what did
occupying Iraq do to stop it?
Kurt|8.23.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Mr. Dondero, if you have 57 seconds, please take a look at this
powerful Goldwater campaign ad from 1964 voiced by an impassioned
Raymond Massey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oF5pGXMjVo
This will confirm that he was indeed pro-defense.
Kurt|8.23.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Also for those interested in Paul's views on Israel, this mp3 is
a deep, up-to-date and impressive conversation about nothing but
foreign policy, including Israel-Palestine.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulScottHortoninterviewAntiwar.com081707.mp3
Kurt|8.23.07 @ 10:18PM|#
"Should I go on?"
Sure. An excellent post hoc argument.
It would be charitable to make a second column for the number
gunned down by Christians in the same period. Please include
killings instigated by government agents who happen to be
Christian.
Scooby|8.23.07 @ 11:50PM|#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oF5pGXMjVo
**sniff, sniff** They don't make Republicans like AuH2O
anymore.
Erric, you can call yourself anything you want. If you call
yourself a libertarian and back an authoritarian scumsack like
Rudolph, I'd call you schizophrenic.
As for the rest on the list, I can only hope that they haven't
drank the Flavor-ade and can take advantage of having Rudolph's
ear.
Eric Dondero|8.24.07 @ 9:12AM|#
EricB, alright, you got me now.
Perhaps the War of 1812 was more dangerous to the United States.
After all, the Brits did burn down the Capitol.
Other foreign invasions since?
There was Pancho Villa. He did take a town in New Mexico and hold
it for a couple weeks in the early 1900s.
WWII, early on. some German U-Boat Commanders landed on the North
Carolina Coast. If I remember my history correctly, they got lost
on a road, and took an older couple in a Lighthouse hostage for a
few hours.
Pearl Harbor.
Japanese occupation of the Aleutian Islands.
And there you have it. That's the grand total of foreign attacks of
the United States since the War of 1812.
Now compare that to 9/11, and all the isolated smaller attacks on
Americans here in the US since?
Yes, Pearl Harbor is a close comparison. But only Pearl
Harbor.
I dare say, the Radical Muslim assault on the United States is the
worst we've ever seen in our history by a foreign agressor, save
the War of 1812.
dhex|8.24.07 @ 10:13AM|#
and if there were any way they could take over the united states
and actually, you know, accomplish this...you might have a
point.
as it stands you're just flapping your wings.
"Isaac, for the millionth time, what does being a pussy sissy boy
who sucks Al Qaeda's dick and is perfectly fine with Muslims taking
over American and Sharia Law being instituted in the United States,
have to do with being a "libertarian"?"
lol homophobia.
SAVE ME DADDY RUDY! SAVE ME! OH DADDY YOU'RE SO STRONG!
|8.24.07 @ 1:17PM|#
Eric, by you logic (if we stretch and call it that) we should
have formed an alliance with Saddam, since he was one of
the few rulers in the the Middle East who could be reliably counted
on to slaughter Islamic extremists.
Instead we have allied with the very country that not only produced
most of the 9/11 hijackers but which actively gives financial
support to militant imans that preach the most virulent forms of
anti-western and anti-jewish doctrine.
Frankly, I now know exactlty why I have never heard a sentence from
an LP activist that mentioned your name that did not also have some
variant on the word asshole in it.
|8.24.07 @ 1:36PM|#
I dare say, the Radical Muslim assault on the United States is the worst we've ever seen in our history by a foreign agressor, save the War of 1812.
Of course, it would have made sense to go after the ones
responsible, wouldn't it?
Instead, we've left most of the burden in Afghanistan to our NATO
allies and wandered off into the distraction known a Iraq.
Yep, smart move there.
Almost all of the other examples you gave were were individual
nutcases who had absolutely no connection to any terror group. They
represent a small percentage of the overall violent crime in this
country. And like all the other violent crime they are the
responsibility of local law enforcement and the criminal justice
system.
I fail to see how killing Muslims on the other side of the globe
will do anything about lone whackos getting crazy ideas in their
heads here. After all you're still running around loose.
Get back to me when you've got something more in the way of a
domestic Islamic terror threat than six kids in New Jersey. Yep,
they're really going to install the American caliphate, huh.
|8.24.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Oh, and Eric, I see you don't have an answer for what invading
Iraq has to do with defending America.
Maybe you ought to think about it real hard and actually come up
with the answer. Which of course is nothing.
Now there may be plenty of reasons having to do with America's
interests in the region. But that's a different kettle of
fish.
It seems to me that getting distracted going after those interests
was pretty stupid when there are places full of real Al Quaeda
terrorists out there.
Eric Dondero|8.25.07 @ 9:20AM|#
Oh, I do have an answer. Many in fact. I'll just mention one,
the one which is most personally important to me. Sorry I missed
your question.
Iraq killed 37 US Sailors in 1987 on board the Frigate USS Starke.
We did absolutely NOTHING in return to avenge their deaths. As a
Sailor aboard the Starke's sister ship the USS Luce DDG-28, out of
Mayport, I'd like to personally thank our President George W. Bush
for finally getting Saddam Hussein who ordered the bombing of the
Starke.
Mr. President, your wimpy-ass Dad only avenged the Starke bombing
in a half-ass way, and didn't go all the way to Baghdad to finish
the job. And his former Bush, Mr. Reagan, didn't do jackshit when
it happened!
And that Buffoon Clinton acted like it never even happened. Nothing
done in 8 years under his administration.
Again, President Bush, as a former United States Naval Sailor, I
thank you for finally getting Saddam Hussein, the murderer of the
Starke 37.
Eric Dondero Rittberg, USN
USS Kittyhawk, CV-63 1981-83
USS Luce, DDG-38 1983-86
Eric Dondero|8.25.07 @ 9:23AM|#
So Isaac, you think the United States and the World in general
would be a safer place today with Saddam still sitting there as
President of Iraq? And his two tortuous, murderous sons waiting in
the wings to take over when Daddy dies?
Try to imagine that if you will. For the rest of our lifetimes,
Iraq would be ruled by 10 to 20 more years of Saddam, and another
30 to 40 years of Uday or Qusay.
Yupper, invading Iraq sure was the wrong thing to do, alright.
Eric Dondero|8.25.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Sorry Isaac, I'd rather we align with our friends the Kurds to overthrow Saddam.
Eric Dondero|8.25.07 @ 9:28AM|#
dhex, I see you laughing at the victims of 9/11 and all the
other victims of Islamic Terrorism here within the United States
since.
Wonder if you'd be laughing if one of those who died was a family
member or close friend of yours?
Typical cynical libertarian you are. The way you put yourself above
everybody else in the US and make yourself think you are so
superior is by your cynical non-caring views.
"Ah, 9/11 was 6 years ago... Let's forget about it by now."
"Ah, the 6 women gunned down at the Jewish Community Center in
Seattle was nothing."
"Ah, John Muhammed really didn't use Islam as his reason for
killing those 14 people in Virginia and Maryland."
"Ah, there was no connection to Islamic Terrorism with the Oklahoma
City Bombing... McVeigh and Nichols acted solely on their own."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245