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
The New Right, RIP
Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani.
|11.7.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I saw that this morning. It seems that any time Republicans are forced to choose between war-mongering and anything else, the war-mongering wins, every time.
|11.7.07 @ 3:43PM|#
The American Conservative had a good story about how Team Red is pretty much abandoning all their principles except starting foreign wars. Of course Dondi would say they are a crazy, left-wing publication, like Daily Kos.
Franklin Harris|11.7.07 @ 3:44PM|#
It seems that any time Republicans are forced to choose between war-mongering and anything else, the war-mongering wins, every time.
Eric Dondero being Exhibit A.
|11.7.07 @ 3:47PM|#
How much "crazy by association" is going to rub off on Rudy I
wonder? We're all in agreement about Pat being crazy at this point
aren't we?
I'm old enough to remember an America where the religious moonbats
went about their wackaloonery without anybody taking notice. Here's
hoping I live to see it again. Say goodnight Gracie
|11.7.07 @ 3:47PM|#
God will now strike down Pat Robertson for approving of someone
who has had multiple divorces and has in the past, if not
currently, supported gay rights.
Oh, wait. It only works if Pat Robertson says it?
|11.7.07 @ 3:49PM|#
Pig, Epsiarch, etc
Republicans opposed the war in Kosovo, if you recall. I think the
current GOP support for Iraq and Iran wars has more to do with
"rah-rah-rah for our side" than actual love of war.
|11.7.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Huh, I guess Rudy's never heard that 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy, but he's heard that it was caused by gays, lesbians, and witches.
|11.7.07 @ 3:52PM|#
If, as Robertson and others of his ilk suggested, 9/11 was God's punishment for US tolerance of abortion and gay marriage, why is he endorsing someone who caused 9/11?!
VM|11.7.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Quoth Pat Robertson:
DDDDUUUNNNNNDDDDEEEERRRROOOOOOOOOO
but Jamie - fetuses are much yummier, and you get around all of
those pesky cannibalism issues.
|11.7.07 @ 3:54PM|#
We're all in agreement about Pat being crazy at this point
aren't we?
No, crazy is the bag lady down the street, rooting through trash
cans. Roberson is bat-shit insane.
Franklin Harris|11.7.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Republicans opposed the war in Kosovo, if you recall.
You obviously missed John McCain and the editorial staff of The
Weekly Standard calling for even more bombings and troops on
the ground during the Kosovo war.
|11.7.07 @ 3:55PM|#
I guess Rudy's never heard that 9/11 was a result of our
foreign policy...
and there I was thinking it was caused by some religious nutjobs
flying a few planes into some buildings. my bad
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Funny how Pat Robertson is all of a sudden a pariah among Ron
Paulists.
Pat Robertson is a long, long, long time friend of Ron
Paul's.
Ron Paul appeared on his 700 Club numerous times in the
1980s.
Ron Paul and Robertson both share a great interest and love for the
Gold Standard and Hard Money. (As a matter of fact, I believe that
they even co-wrote a paper or two on it together a few years
ago.)
Back in the early 1990s, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and the
Paleos were chumming up to the likes of Robertson and his people
seeking a Paleo-lib/Paleo-con coalition.
Marc Elam, Ron Paul's, very longtime Campaign Manager, who is still
Paul's most trusted advisor today, is a hardcore Pat
Robertson-ite.
Paul made a big push for Robertson's endorsement in 1988 when he
ran for President as a Libertarian. He even sent a crew to Michigan
to lobby all the Robertson-ites. And he met with a top Robertson
delegate at the GOP National Convention that year in a secret
meeting at the Convention Hall.
And here's a stunner, Ron Paul even bunked with Pat Robertson once
for a whole weekend at a conservative conference in the 1980s. Paul
brags about it amongst religious conservative audiences here in
Texas.
But alas, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani and not his old
friend Ron Paul. So, the Ron Paul people today are busy blasting
him all over the web.
Talk about a bunch of cry babies.
|11.7.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Hey Dondero! Rudy's kids won't even endorse him. So spare us the "personal betrayal" crap.
|11.7.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Ron Paul and Robertson both share a great interest and love
for the Gold Standard and Hard Money.
Here you have it, on authority folks. Pat Robertson likes it
hard.
The Extispicator|11.7.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Dondero is right. Up till yesterday Reason H&R commenters were huge Pat Robertson fans.
|11.7.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"Talk about a bunch of cry babies."
No, I'm pretty sure it's because Rudy is against the core of the
Christian Coalition's belief system. He's pro-choice, been married
several times, dressed up like a woman, and advocates gay rights.
Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? Not in the least?
|11.7.07 @ 4:09PM|#
I'm calling bullshit on DDDOOOONNNNNDDDDEEERRROOOO. Every time
he posts, he claims to have second-hand stories of the caliber
posted above.
Sorry, but BULLSHIT.
I don't believe hearsay stories when someone tells me them in
person. Why would I believe some fucking nincompoop posting them on
the internet.
P.S. Respond if you'd like Shopkeeper Boy, I hearby pledge not to
respond to you for the rest of the thread...
|11.7.07 @ 4:10PM|#
If you don't know by now, I despise Pat Robertson. He's a
superstitious, hypocritical, demagogue. He lives a life of luxury
while conning little old ladies out of their social security
checks. He preaches against the weakest, most vulnerable in our
society. He supported our third (second?) worst president in
history. He's scientifically illiterate and a biblical amnesiac.
There are no bounds for the abhorrance I hold for him.
If I offend some Christian reasonoids from time to time, bear in
mind that Pat Robertson is a "leader" of the "Christian" right
wing, and my bile is primarily directed at him and his ilk. You
should find a way to excommunicate him!
|11.7.07 @ 4:10PM|#
Of course Dondi would say they are a crazy, left-wing
publication, like Daily Kos reason.
|11.7.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Who can trust a word out of Dondero's mouth? No one with at
least half a brain.
Google "ron paul and pat robertson" and you get...wait for
it...this.
(But not a word confirming Dondero's claims. Odd.)
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 4:14PM|#
TaxTick,
Here are a couple names of contacts you can get in touch with to
confirm what I've written above about Ron Paul's connections to Pat
Robertson:
1. Ron Paul himself
2. Marc Elam
3. Ron Paul's Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo
4. Michael Quinn Sullivan
5. RP LD Norm Singleton
6. Just about anyone in Ron Paul's Texas District who is involved
in Republican politics
|11.7.07 @ 4:15PM|#
I'm proud that I posted the previous without one blasphemous or obscene word. Except for that Pat Robertson thing, of course.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Most of this was Pre-Google and Pre-Internet. Just ask Ron Paul
himself.
Quite simple: "Ron, Eric Dondero claims that you once bunked with
Pat Robertson at a conservative conference, and that you've
appeared on his 700 Club a few times, and that your longtime
Campaign Manager Marc Elam is a big Robertson backer... Are any of
these claims by Dondero true?"
I will admit one thing. I am not 100% certain that Ron co-wroted a
paper with Robertson on the Gold Standard. I just have a memory of
something to that effect. May have been that both of them
contributed papers for a book on the Gold Standard or something to
that effect.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Every single one of you here is missing the entire point on the
importance of the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani.
Every one of you is focusing on Robertson. He's a side issue.
The main point is that people like Thomas Knapp and other Radical
libertarians have been saying for months now that the Republican
Party would never, ever nominate Rudy Giuliani for President, cause
he was a Social Moderate, and that the Religious Right would neve
allow that to happen.
Now Knapp and others like him have major egg on their faces.
Apparently the Religious Right IS accepting a Republican from the
socially tolerant/pro-choice wing of the Party.
That's the news here. Not Robertson so much.
We libertarian Republicans fought the Religious Right for years in
the early 1990s. They had a lock-grip on the GOP at all levels.
They hated libertarians back then.
Now, they're endorsing one of our allies, a solidly Pro-Choice
Republican.
Amazing how times have changed!!
I would have never believed this to be possible back in the early
days of the RLC.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Addendum:
So why would Knapp and some of the folks here be so threatened by a
Giuliani candidacy?
Because like it or not, Giuliani is "libertarian lite." He's
"fiscally conservative/socially tolerant."
At first glance one might think that the main enemy of the Radical
Libertarian is a Religious Conservative, or some Squishy Economic
Moderate GOPer.
Uh, uh, uh. Not at all.
The Number One enemy of the Radical Libertarian (like Knapp) is the
Moderate libertarian or libertarian-leaning Republican.
Soft libertarians steal the Radical Libertarian's thunder. Radical
Libertarians much prefer the slash and burn and tear it down
strategy of total anarchy to actually winning elections with 60 to
70% libertarians.
Thus, as we witness here, the foaming at the mouth, virtriol for
the libertarian lite of Rudy Giuliani.
And the panic over the Robertson endorsement, which moves Giuliani
closer and closer to securing the GOP nomination.
|11.7.07 @ 4:27PM|#
The common thread is Patriarchy.
Christian conservative, strong executive, empire, law and order -
the details don't matter.
Big Daddy fighting the bad guys, and it doesn't really matter who
Big Daddy is. Rudy Guiliani does the best impersonation
Generalissimo Franco, and that's all that matters.
|11.7.07 @ 4:27PM|#
I don't know about anybody else, but I have passed the point where posts by people who hate Dondero are more irritating than posts by Dondero.
|11.7.07 @ 4:28PM|#
3. Ron Paul's Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo
Or you could try the head of constituent services John BigBootie or
the guy who used to be in charge of the autopen named John
SmallBerries.
|11.7.07 @ 4:29PM|#
Will somebody PLEASE explain to me why it is that any
self-respecting conservative would endorse Rudy let alone a
conservative Christian.
The first comment here by Pig Mannix says it all:
It seems that any time Republicans are forced to choose between war-mongering and anything else, the war-mongering wins, every time.
Conservatives: They're not all moral. They're not all faithful.
They're certainly not concerned about the way in which the US is
viewed by the rest of the world or in us doing the right thing. But
one thing that they can all certainly come together on is the
belief the US Military is God's Army.
|11.7.07 @ 4:29PM|#
I'm sure the Catholic Bishops are going to insist that priests
instruct their flocks not vote for an abortionist if Rudy wins the
primary, just like they did for John Kerry in...
bwah hah ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!! Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Ahhhhhhhhh, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!!!
Almost got all the way through it.
|11.7.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Frankly, I have never once, in my 23 year voting career, looked at who a candidate was endorsed by to even aid in my decision. Not once. I shop the same way. I look for value before I make my purchase.
|11.7.07 @ 4:31PM|#
I think joe had it right, that the common thread is Patriarchy. However, I wouldn't think that Robertson would endorse Rudy just because they share a common fetish.
|11.7.07 @ 4:32PM|#
Republicans opposed the war in Kosovo, if you
recall.
No, Republicans (and Democrats) were split on the war in Kosovo at
the time.
Heck, I was split on the war in Kosovo at the time!
Alice Bowie|11.7.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Adolph Guiliani is a-typical of a
Christian...
- A Hypocrat
- A facist
- A supporter of WAR
- A supporter of MASS KILLING of non-believers
- And probably a closet Case Faggot
So, I'm not too suprised
|11.7.07 @ 4:33PM|#
This question is for anyone but Dondi. Is it possible for someone to support Guiliani and still have ANY clain to libertarianism?
|11.7.07 @ 4:35PM|#
The American Conservative had a good story about how Team Red is pretty much abandoning all their principles except starting foreign wars.
Except that "Team Red" doesn't have a principle of starting foreign
wars. WWI == Democrat. WWII == Democrat. Korea == Democrat. Vietnam
== Democrat. Team Red certainly doesn't have clean hands in this
department, but they're a far cry from the warmongering
Democrats.
Nixon's wage and price controls woke up a lot of slumbering
conservatives. But then they all went back to sleep after Reagan.
Bush's aggressive interventionism is waking them up again. Bush is
no more "conservative" than was Nixon.
|11.7.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Giuliani is ... socially tolerant.
Except to people who operate porno shops and theaters, or are rude
to customers when they enter a cab, or who smoke in bars, in which
case he'll stomp on their heads using the power of his office.
|11.7.07 @ 4:36PM|#
I think it has a lot to do with which of the candidates is the strongest supporter of Israel. Please god don't call me anti-semitic for saying that.
Tacos mmm...|11.7.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Smells like a horse, nine feet wide, thirteen tons of American
pride...
DDDDUUUNNNNNDDDDEEEERRRROOOOOOOOOO!
Tacos mmm...|11.7.07 @ 4:37PM|#
Thus, as we witness here, the foaming at the mouth, virtriol for the libertarian lite of Rudy Giuliani.
Light, as in beer, always sucks.
Alice Bowie|11.7.07 @ 4:39PM|#
RandolphThe Supporters of Israel...Just the the
Islamo Terrorists...will sacrifice their own lives...as well the
lives of everyone else in this world...to HOLD on to the Promise
Land.
Call me what u want
Alice Bowie|11.7.07 @ 4:40PM|#
What I meant 2 say is the Supporters of Israel are JUST as crazy as the Islamos
|11.7.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Since Vietnam, Republicans have been the party of war Brandy
buck. Republicans have come a long way from Senator Taft when it
comes to foreign policy.
Hillary Clinton could get elected and prove me wrong, though.
|11.7.07 @ 4:46PM|#
People like George Bush and Pat Robertson were what moved me from conservatism (as it has mutated since the early days of the New Right) toward conservatarianism, and finally libertarianism. I remember quite well in my school days reading Richard Viguerie's book The New Right: We're Ready To Lead and coming away very impressed with the new ideas of the Goldwater-Reaganites. I think the New Right actually died during the Clinton/Gingrich government shutdown days, when the Republican Revolution decided that bringing down Clinton was more important than upholding the very principles that brought them into power in the first place.
Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Nope, Eric, the number one enemy of the libertarian Republican
is a warmongering, pro-torture, ex-Prosecutor "law and order"
Nixonian thug, who tricks dumbasses like you into thinking he's
"moderate libertarian" because he's pro-choice and likes to put on
a dress once in a while.
Every outrage visited upon the Constitution by Bush would be
repeated by Giuliani, only worsened by an order of magnitude.
Everything about the man screams that he lusts for the opportunity
to apply electric shocks. He's the Taser candidate.
He's a psychopathic thug, and has been since he was a US
prosecutor.
When Romney talks about doubling Guantanamo, he's pretending. It's
actually kind of sad to watch him try to pretend to be as crazy as
Rudy and the Podhoretz cannibal family. But Rudy ACTUALLY WOULD
double the size of Guantanamo. Or make it 100 times larger.
Assuming he doesn't put one on every block to save on
transportation costs.
|11.7.07 @ 4:48PM|#
"Except that "Team Red" doesn't have a principle of starting
foreign wars. WWI == Democrat. WWII == Democrat. Korea == Democrat.
Vietnam == Democrat."
I've developed a BS theory that says whichever party gets its
support from the bible belt is the party of war.
The supposed "southern strategy" was a product of the late 60s
early 70s, and is now bearing fruit, at least in the sense that
Republicans are now starting wars of choice.
VM|11.7.07 @ 4:52PM|#
sorry - that was me - guessing which tags HD left open and trying to close them...
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 4:56PM|#
I just remembered something.
In the 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign we had a flurry of
major media coverage for a few days about "Robertson delegates
threaten to vote for 3rd party candidate Ron Paul."
The whole deal was centered in Michigan, Robertson's stronghold.
There were some hardcore Robertson delegates who were refusing to
back George Bush, Sr. at the GOP National Convention. They had
threatened to walk outof the convention, and a couple of them even
made comments that they might end up "voting for Libertarian Ron
Paul."
(This sparked the secret meeting at the convention hall with Ron
and a couple of those Michigan delegates.)
I'm absolutely certain there was coverage of this in the Detroit
papers. And I'm almost certain that it even made the NY
Times.
This story could be verified quite easily by any longtime Michigan
Libertarian Party member, like Emily Salvette, Tim O'Brien, Jim
Rodney, Sheldon Richman, or Virginia Cropsey who were active in the
Paul Campaign at that time in Michigan.
But if there's some way to drum up old Detroit Free Press or
Detroit News or even old NY Times articles from 1988, it could be
verified that way, as well.
My guess, is that they'd be from late July, or August of
1988.
Another person who would remember all this, and could easily verify
this, would be Kevin Southwick, who was a top staffer for the Ron
Paul, Libertarian Campaign in 1988.
Kent Snyder who still works for Ron was also with the Campaign in
'88. But only in the last couple months. Though, he might remember
this, too. Kent, as many of you all here know is now Ron's Top
Personal Aide in his current Presidential effort. So, he too can be
easily contacted.
|11.7.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Dondero, could you chill out on the second hand stories and name dropping? It doesn't make you look any more authoritative on anything.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:03PM|#
So, back to the original point.
Why is this all so important?
Because the Reason-oids here and folks like Tom Knapp and Alan
Turin (at Yahoo Libertarian Republican Group) and other Radical
Libertarians, are blasting Pat Robertson today, as a result of his
endorsement of Giuliani.
Turin even called Robertson a "kook".
That may be? I could care less.
But what I DO CARE ABOUT is hypocrisy.
How is it that Pat Robertson has all of a sudden become some sort
of pariah, or kook or flaming idiot, when back in 1988, we
Libertarians were bending over backwards to get his endorsement of
our candidate for President Ron Paul?
Robertson hasn't changed much in the last 20 years, if at
all.
Why is he considered such an idiot today or such a kook, when in
1988, when we desperately needed his backing, he was a "fellow
travelers" and even "somewhat libertarian"?
Can someone please fess up without being a smartass, and explain
this one to me?
VM|11.7.07 @ 5:03PM|#
[/Eric Dondi]
[/DUNDEROOOO]
um... how. to. close. tags.
[/too much dooty]
um....
LOOK! IT'S EDWARD!
(might that work?)
sobs.
cannot. reconcile. Ghouliani. with. libertarianism. argh!
cannot. reconcile. U2. with. "alternative".
cannot. reconcile. Dave. Matthews. period.
|11.7.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Now, they're endorsing one of our allies
Huh?! You can't seriously mean Rudy "Freedom is About Authority"
Giuliani, can you?
Timothy|11.7.07 @ 5:04PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Do you think Pat Robertson endorses legal whores and gay marriage?
If so does it insult retards too much to call you one?
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
duster|11.7.07 @ 5:05PM|#
Robertson is first and foremost a political figure, so this makes sense. I think Rudy's (Freedom = Total Submission to the State) equation gives him a hard-on. That's what he's really about.
|11.7.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Is it possible for someone to support Guiliani and still
have ANY clain to libertarianism?
Well, I'll ride the Ron Paul bandwagon as far as it goes, but when
the ultimate choice comes down to Rudy or Hillary, I might very
well hold my nose and vote for Hill.
If my only choice is between a Democrat, and a Democrat with
rabies, I'll pick the one that isn't contagious,
thankyouverymuch.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Not trying to "look authoritative" Cesar. Just trying to get a
straight answer to my question.
Why the hypocrisy? Why has Pat Robertson all of a sudden become a
"kook" and "flaming idiot" to Libertarians, when back in 1988, we
wanted desperately his support?
Or, why was it that in the early 1990s, Lew Rockwell, Murray
Rothbard, and the Paleos were chumming up to him and his kind, yet
today, a Top Paleo like Alan Turin is dissing him as a "kook"?
|11.7.07 @ 5:07PM|#
How is it that Pat Robertson has all of a sudden become some
sort of pariah, or kook or flaming idiot, when back in 1988, we
Libertarians were bending over backwards to get his endorsement of
our candidate for President Ron Paul?
Nobody here who thinks (and by thinks I mean knows) that Robertson
is a kook has come to that conclusion "all of a sudden" because of
his endorsement of Giuliani.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:09PM|#
So Duster, how do you reconcile Ron Paul's "total submission to
the state" when it comes to women's reproductive rights?
Rudy's view on that one is "let the women decide for
themselves."
Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to force women to sneak across
the border into Mexico or Canada to get an abortion.
One wonders just what sort of penalties Ron Paul would support for
those who are caught?
|11.7.07 @ 5:10PM|#
Why the hypocrisy? Why has Pat Robertson all of a sudden
become a "kook" and "flaming idiot" to Libertarians, when back in
1988, we wanted desperately his support?
I will say that I have always thought of Pat Robertson as a "kook,"
but really using much more profane language.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:11PM|#
Sorry Brian, but I beg to differ. They most certainly have come
to that conclusion all of a sudden.
Why is it that we heard nothing about "kooky Pat Robertson til
today on this and other Libertarian Discuss Forums.
It's political opportunism, plain and simple. Robertson didn't
endorse his old friend Ron Paul, so the Palists are up in arms
today, screaming bloody murder, cussing him and calling him every
name under the sun.
|11.7.07 @ 5:11PM|#
"""Now Knapp and others like him have major egg on their
faces."""
I think the egg is on Pat's face. He pretty much has always been
anti-gay and anti-abortion. That's the kind of followers he
attracts. Pat is now supporting a candidate that supports the
things he's preached against. I don't think it will sit well with
his following. Pat stands to lose more reputation than Knapp.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Reimmoose, does that include back in 1988?
Did you think Robertson was a kook back then too?
Now, to be fair, there were a few Libertarian Party members back
then who went apeshit over Ron Paul's "reach out to Pat Robertson"
strategy.
If you were one of them, my sincerest apologies.
But if you were one of those Libertarians back in 1988 who said,
"Sure, let's get Robertson and other top Republicans to back Ron
Paul..." then I'll call you a mother fucking hypocrite, to your
face!
Timothy|11.7.07 @ 5:14PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Could it be that a lot of us libertarians have always thought
Roberson was a cook because 1988 was 20 fucking years ago and
you're the one suckling off of past, imagined glory like some kind
of washed up high school quarterback? Honestly, dude, I'm 25, I'm a
voter, and I don't give a flying fuck what ship you lie about being
on in 1983. You might've been up to irritatingly stupid
douchefuckery for a lot longer than I have, but that offers little
reason to take what you say seriously. Also, you have, perhaps, the
creepiest mustache in the history of man. Seriously. FUGLY.
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|11.7.07 @ 5:15PM|#
Eric,
Congratulations on pretty much consistently using the big "L" when
referring to Libertarians. Pat Robertson is what I would call at
best an ally of convenience (back in my New Right days I was a
pretty good Catholic and welcomed him into the conservative
coalition, now, not so much). I really don't think that small-l
non-big-L libertarians have ever had much use for the not-so-good
reverend.
|11.7.07 @ 5:18PM|#
On the abortion debate, Paul is not Libretarian at all.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
|11.7.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Eric -
In 1988 I was not old enough to vote, and likely didn't know who
Pat Robertson was. I have disliked him from the moment I learned of
him. However, you should realize that a very large percentage of
people who comment on this blog are atheists. Of those who are not
atheists, most of them still don't like the authoritarian-branch of
Christianity.
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:19PM|#
Timothy, I give you a pass. You're 25, so there's no way in hell
you could be a hypocrite here.
I'm aiming for the 40 to 50 something crowd here who was around
back in the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Campaign for Ron
Paul.
You all know who you were. I know many of you all are here.
Stop hiding in the closet. Stop being so silent. I know you're
reading my posts on this subject. I know that you damn well
remember reading LP News and American Libertarian and Liberty back
then, about the "Pat Robertson delegates planning to defect to Ron
Paul."
And now today, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani and NOT Ron
Paul. And some of you have the gumption to actually call Robertson
a "kook" today, when back in 1988, he was one of our best friends
and only allies in American politics.
Timothy|11.7.07 @ 5:19PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
HEY! You're trying to get us all to fall for that switch where
thinking abortion isn't a federal issue means abortion should be
outlawed by the federal government! Almost clever, you
flaccid-yet-cocksure philistine.
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Timothy|11.7.07 @ 5:20PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
HOLY SHIT! CALL THE POPE! AWIK DONDERO HAS GIVEN ME A
PASS! Is it as futile as all the passes he makes
at women? Is it as pointless as Rex Grossman throwing down
field?
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
rufus|11.7.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Notes from that meeting...
Pat Robertson: As you know, I believe that lesbians and feminists
caused 9/11.
Benito Guiliani: 9/11? 9/11! 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!
Pat Robertson: And also the liberals.
Rudy: Liberals! Rudy smash liberals! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!
9/11!
And now you know... the rest of the story.
VM|11.7.07 @ 5:23PM|#
"Is it as pointless as Rex Grossman throwing down field? "
how about as pointless as notre dame fans thinking their team has
been relevant since sometime in 1970?
DUNDEROOOOOOO!
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Still waiting...
All we've got so far, as some wisecrackers, makijng silly-ass
statements. But not a single person yet has responded seriously to
the question.
Again, why is it that Pat Robertson is all of a sudden a "kook" or
"flaming idiot" or "nutball" now that he's endorsed Rudy Giuliani
for President, yet back in 1988 he was a near hero to Libertarians
for at least a short period, for making noises about not backing
George Bush for President and winking to his followers and
delegates that it was okay to back 3rd party challenger Ron
Paul?
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 5:25PM|#
Now counting. Let's see now 4 messages in a row of silly ass
remarks.
Yet still, not a single serious answer to the question at
hand.
I'll check back in a few minutes to see what the count is of
silly-ass evasive deflective comments.
Hopefully, by then at least one person may have penned a serious
response to the question.
Though, maybe not. Perhaps nobody here can answer the question?
|11.7.07 @ 5:26PM|#
Dondero, nobody, nobody on this board likes Pat
Robertson. No one ever did. It doesn't matter what the LP thinks or
what you did in the late 80s.
No one on this board likes Pat Robertson or ever did.
Timothy|11.7.07 @ 5:27PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Do you think Pat Robertson supports your right to pay to fuck
him?
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|11.7.07 @ 5:29PM|#
Answer my question Dondi. What does it say about Giuliani when his own children hate him so much that they fail not only to endorse him, but endorse a member of the opposite party?
VM|11.7.07 @ 5:29PM|#
DUNDEROOOOO:
1) you're not going to convince anybody
2) but it is really fun when you're around
3) **secret***
4) what was it like being the drive thru attendant at the Navy's
McDonalds?
5) didja realize when you were "serving" that you were actually
hurting the cause?
Timothy - would that "notre what" were the answer hier, what with
the nuthugging Chicago sports media and all. (that feature is the
only downside to this town).
And hell I'd pay to have those two fuck.
As long as I could film it. Maybe an extra 2 or 3 bucks to get some
watersports?
|11.7.07 @ 5:30PM|#
Well, I'll ride the Ron Paul bandwagon as far as it goes,
but when the ultimate choice comes down to Rudy or Hillary, I might
very well hold my nose and vote for Hill.
If you change might to will, I've sadly reached that exact same
conclusion. The only upper tier republican candidate who could get
me to vote for them over the ice bitch is McCain. I'd still have to
hold my nose.
|11.7.07 @ 5:31PM|#
Pat's been off his rocker since his predictions for Armageddon and the rapture failed to materialize. He predicted it would happen in the 1980s
|11.7.07 @ 5:32PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Merry Christmas,
Eric!
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|11.7.07 @ 5:32PM|#
I could actually vote for Romney over Hillary. I would feel really, really, really dirty coming out of the voting booth and need a post-vote chemical shower, but I'd probably do it.
|11.7.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Why is it that we heard nothing about "kooky Pat Robertson
til today on this and other Libertarian Discuss Forums.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/111647.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/112579.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/112205.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/100228.html
And my personal favorite (so far)
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/110668.html
|11.7.07 @ 5:40PM|#
"""Again, why is it that Pat Robertson is all of a sudden a
"kook" or "flaming idiot" or "nutball" now that he's endorsed Rudy
Giuliani for President, yet back in 1988 he was a near hero to
Libertarians for at least a short period, for making noises about
not backing George Bush for President and winking to his followers
and delegates that it was okay to back 3rd party challenger Ron
Paul?"""
You're a little narrow in your view. Pat's been called all of the
above before he endorsed Rudy. The name calling just followed. He
would called more of the same regardless of whom he supports. If he
would have supported Paul, the line would be about how well the two
kooks go together, albeit not on this site.
Your question is not valid becuase they are not calling him kooky
because of his endorsement. They've been calling him that all
along.
|11.7.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Except that "Team Red" doesn't have a principle of starting
foreign wars. WWI == Democrat. WWII == Democrat. Korea == Democrat.
Vietnam == Democrat. Team Red certainly doesn't have clean hands in
this department, but they're a far cry from the warmongering
Democrats.
You know, Brandybuck, when you have to go back 40 years to find
evidence to support your point, and you have to studiously ignore
everything that happened in the past 4 decades, maybe it's a sign
that you don't have the strongest understanding of the subject.
|11.7.07 @ 5:43PM|#
Dondi, speaking for myself only, I've always considered Pat
Roberson a dangerous, nutjob, asshole. If you weer to recall my
posts, I can hardly go a week without callin him something
derogatory. If he had supported Ron Paul, he'd still be a fuckhead
kook. If he had supported George Washington, he'd still be a
delusional prick. I may have referred to this dog diddler as a
human being once or twice. If so, I recant.
That Rudy would seek, and Robertson would give, said endorsement,
says volumes about both punks character. That you could claim to be
libertarian, and support Guiliani and trumpet ass-wipe Robertsons
endorsement, shows you have no character.
|11.7.07 @ 5:46PM|#
That Rudy would seek, and Robertson would give, said
endorsement, says volumes about both punks character.
Its the right wing version of the Hitler-Stalin Pact.
|11.7.07 @ 5:50PM|#
John-David, thanks for the research pointing out all of the
H&R luv for Reverend Robertson.
You may have to get your 'puter fumigated.
Nigel Watt|11.7.07 @ 5:50PM|#
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Suck on it. You ever going to respond to that?
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
|11.7.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Eric Dondero,
Well, I wasn't old enough in 1988 to know who Pat Robertson or Ron
Paul is. But I know that now, today, Pat Robertson is a loon.
I think you have posed a fair but irrelevant question. Are you
trying to get an answer something like "Robertson is a loon today
because he didn't endorse Ron Paul?" Well, yeah. But I wouldn't be
doing a happy dance if Robertson had decided to endorse Ron Paul,
because Pat Robertson is a chode.
It's no surprise that Robertson decided to vouch for a warhawk
authoritarian who is also 180 degrees out-of-phase with some of
Robertson's core beliefs.
Apparently, waging an Eternal War on Terror and keeping someone
with an (R) next to his name in the White House is more important
to Robertson than his warped principles.
|11.7.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Apparently, waging an Eternal War on Terror and keeping
someone with an (R) next to his name in the White House is more
important to Robertson than his warped principles.
Principles? We don't need no steenking principles! We're really
political whores!
|11.7.07 @ 6:00PM|#
Eric D.,
It's called "fusionism." You'd think a libertarian would have heard
of it.
From the New Deal through the presidency of Bush the Lesser, the
Republican coalition consisted of big business, anti-communists,
and libertarians. This stemmed from the electoral and ideological
dominance of the left, and forged a grab-bag of different righties
together into an opposition coalition.
By the late 60s, this rightist coalition was able to snag the
southern racist vote and moved into parity with the Democrats. Over
the next decade, the rise of a politically-active Christian right
boosted the coalition into majority status.
After several decades of fellow-travelling, the different factions
in the coalition had come to develop a sense of solidarity with
each other, and the coalition held on for quite a few more years,
with anit-leftism as the central organizing principle.
Why was Pat Robertson buddying around with Pat Robertson? Because
back then, libertarians and theocrats both defined themselves
primarily as "conservative Republicans" - that is, as the
opposition to liberalism.
Now, that coalition has fallen apart, and fossils like Robertson
are trying to ingratiate themselves to the new bosses of the
Republican Party - the imperialists - in order to maintain their
standing in the party.
Elemenope|11.7.07 @ 6:03PM|#
Apparently, closing the [/DONDEROOO] tag is just one of those tasks that requires a strong central government. It doesn't look like the market is gonna take care of this fucker.
lunchstealer|11.7.07 @ 6:07PM|#
Dondero,
For the record, I wasn't in the LP in '88. I was still waiting for
the right to vote and also still not entirely disillusioned with
the GOP. But certainly, I was not on the Pat Robertson bandwagon
then, and by '92 had pretty much determined that he was almost
wholly antithetical to my brand of libertarianism, and almost
everything I hold dear.
I disagree with Paul on some of the same things I disagreed with
the GOP on in the '80s, and I'm not really a Paul booster. But I
think he's head-and-shoulders preferable to Giuliani.
I'm pretty sure that Wiegel wasn't LP back then either, if you're
keeping score.
So I take it that you still feel that Robertson's a good guy?
Andrew Taylor|11.7.07 @ 6:08PM|#
Rittberg, writing responses to your juvenile and insipid posts
reminds me of that pithy Robert Heinlein quote: "Never try to teach
a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
I don't know if there's an ounce of truth to anything you have
written about Ron Paul's previous (apparently friendly)
relationship with Pat Robertson. But there's one very important
fact that you're overlooking.
After 9/11 -- far from the 1988 Libertarian presidential campaign
-- the late and unlamented Jerry Falwell appeared on Robertson's
"700 Club" and said the following: "I really believe that the
pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and
the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative
lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who
have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face
and say 'you helped this happen.'"
"Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club program, seemed to agree with
Falwell's earlier statements in a prayer during the program.
"'We have sinned against Almighty God, at the highest level of our
government, we've stuck our finger in your eye,' said Robertson.
'The Supreme Court has insulted you over and over again, Lord.
They've taken your Bible away from the schools. They've forbidden
little children to pray. They've taken the knowledge of God as best
they can, and organizations have come into court to take the
knowledge of God out of the public square of America.'"
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/
This is the man who endorsed your chosen candidate, Rudolf
Ghouliani, for Emperor today. A man who has grown enormously rich
by taking from the gullible and ignorant. A man who was a close
confidant of the Liberian thug Charles Taylor, who was also buddies
with Osama bin Laden. A man who closes his eyes and claims to heal
persons in his television audience of all kinds of ailments, while
seeking only the best medical attention for himself when
necessary.
The Robertson endorsement will deeply wound Ghouliani's candidacy;
therefore, I celebrate it. You should hang your head in shame for
supporting a totalitarian like Ghouliani.
|11.7.07 @ 6:10PM|#
I'm sure the Catholic Bishops are going to insist that
priests instruct their flocks not vote for an abortionist if Rudy
wins the primary, just like they did for John Kerry in...
bwah hah ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!! Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Ahhhhhhhhh, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!!!
Almost got all the way through it.
joe, you're a little late -- Giuliani has already begun attracting
stern criticism from the Catholic bishops. In the Archdioces of St.
Louis, Bishop Raymond Burke said he'd deny Giuliani communion, just
as he said of Kerry.
Stories
here.
Stories about other Catholic bishops criticizing Giuliani can be
found
here.
One of the first best articles is "Giuliani's Views on Abortion
Upset Catholic Leader's" in the June 25 NY Times, here.
No, I don't think anyone is advising anyone not to vote for him yet
(that was a very controversial step, or overstep, that they took
against Kerry), but the bishop's criticisms of him are quite
harsh.
And as the NY Times article says:
Several of the bishops who declared in 2004 that they would
deny communion to Mr. Kerry declined requests for interviews about
Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani's own archbishop, Cardinal Edward M.
Egan of New York, who was silent about Mr. Kerry in 2004, declined
an interview. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, Joseph
Zwilling, said the cardinal "avoided all involvement in partisan
politics."
Most bishops are quiet primarily because the presidential election
is still more than 16 months away, said church officials who spoke
on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be quoted on
political matters. They added that the bishops felt no need to
weigh in because they did not expect Mr. Giuliani to prevail,
largely because of his abortion-rights stance.
The Rev. Frank Pavone, leader of Priests for Life, a Catholic
anti-abortion group, said he believed that some bishops were
reticent because - after the last campaign season - many were
warned by their legal advisers not to violate Internal Revenue
Service rules that prohibit churches from endorsing or denouncing
political candidates.
Believe it or not, the RCC leadership actually appears to be more
committed to opposing abortion than to supporting Team Red. The
Roman Catholic Church isn't particularly biased toward the
Republics per se, aside from the abortion thing -- in fact, I find
its bishops are often rather leftish when it comes to economic
policy, business regulation, and many civil rights issues (not gay
marriage, though). And on the big Blue issue of the environment,
it's pretty neutral.
|11.7.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Elemenope,
As evidence of my theory that the coalition was held together
mainly by social bonds by the late 80s, I offer the
increasingly-outlandish efforts they made to find mutually-loathed
boogeymen to provide the ideological glue that was formerly
provided by the Soviets and the Democratic majority.
Look, sociology professors! We all hate them, right?
Ohnoez, Bill Clinton! He's just a free-tradin', welfare-reformin'
version of the CPUSA! I mean, he opposed Vietnam and stuff! (It was
at this point that the libertarians began to get a little
uncomfortable).
|11.7.07 @ 6:13PM|#
"Republics" = "Republicans."
I did try to preview, I really did, but the squirrels locked up the
preview function. Fortunately I had the wit to paste a copy of my
text into another program before I lost it all.
|11.7.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Could anyone else see themselves voting for Romney over Hillary? I know hes a douchebag, but hes a poll-watching douchebag. And theres an outside chance he'd balance the budget. I just really, really fear Hilldog with executive power.
|11.7.07 @ 6:32PM|#
joe, if Giuliani wins the nomination, then -- unless the
Democratic nominee somehow decides to run on a pro-life platform --
I would expect the RCC leadership to either:
1) Fume silently and not noticeably endorse either the Democratic
or Republican candidate.
or
2) Very possibly swing mild support behind the Democratic
contender, provided:
a) The Dem and Rep candidates are a wash with regard to abortion
and embryonic stem cell research, which I suspect would be the
case. (I don't know Giuliani's position on ESCR, but I can't
imagine he'd have a problem with it.)
b)The Democrat will successfully position himself/herself as the
more compassionate candidate toward the less fortunate and ordinary
workers -- practically a foregone conclusion. This will resonate
strongly within the RCC.
c) The Democrat successfully comes off as less hawkish and more
"pro-peace"; ditto.
d) The Democrat does not make gay marriage an extremely
high-profile issue in his/her campaign.
BTW, I thought your analysis of the Republican coalition made many
good points.
|11.7.07 @ 6:48PM|#
Could anyone else see themselves voting for Romney over
Hillary?
Absolutely not.
And theres an outside chance he'd balance the
budget.
And how would he do that? Is he going to cut spending? I'd say the
chances of that are more like slim and none (and rather closer to
none) than "outside."
|11.7.07 @ 6:53PM|#
J sub D,
Thanks. I'm glad someone looked at the links, even though I was too
lazy to do the proper HTML thing and made people cut-and-paste.
|11.7.07 @ 6:57PM|#
And how would he do that? Is he going to cut spending? I'd
say the chances of that are more like slim and none (and rather
closer to none) than "outside."
Well, with divided govern....ah hell I'll stop being overly
optimistic.
|11.7.07 @ 7:02PM|#
Mitt Romney is a competent chief executive who is opposed to
corruption, can operate in a bipartisan manner, will keep an eye on
the bottom line, and won't go off half-cocked and do anything too
stupid. He's also not going to lead some hard-core ideological
charge.
In most election years, that would qualify as "damning with faint
praise," but after seven years of the Shrub-Vader administration,
that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
|11.7.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Mitt Romney is a competent chief executive who is opposed to
corruption, can operate in a bipartisan manner, will keep an eye on
the bottom line, and won't go off half-cocked and do anything too
stupid. He's also not going to lead some hard-core ideological
charge.
He sounds like a GOP Bill Clinton without the sex. I just hope he
stops Giuliani. Giuliani is a cross between Richard Nixon and Otto
von Bismarck.
|11.7.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Don't worry.
Guiliani is going to have a You Tube moment that will make George
Allen wince. He just isn't going to be able to help it - he's an
angry, hateful, power-mad person.
I suspect it will be screaming at an intern until she cries, but
really, the possibilities are endless.
|11.7.07 @ 7:41PM|#
joe,
I think you may be on to something. When the dust settles, Romney
will seem like the least objectionable. What a stupid way to pick a
leader.
I'll still support Ron Paul until he loses the nomination. And...
if... nah.
duster|11.7.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Dondero,
I would be a little concerned about his stance on abortion, but I
don't see it having much of an impact on Women's reproductive
rights. Even if those rights were no longer protected at the
federal level, most if not all states would probably allow
them.
Could be wrong, though. You got me.
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Why is it that every one of you here somehow thinks that I'm a
Pat Robertson fan. I am absolutely not. Never liked the guy.
My point is this endorsement puts to rest all the criticisms by
both liberal political pundits AND by many Libertarians for months
now that "Rudy can never get the nomination cause the Religious
Conservatives will never support him."
Fess up you all. You know damn well that many of you all here have
said precisely that!
And now look what happened today.
I'm listening to Chris Matthews Hardball on MSNBC in the
background. Matthews and Joe Scarborough have just said that this
may very well lock up the GOP nomination for Giuliani.
So what is is that all you Giuliani doubters have to say now?
You still want to try to say that Giuliani "ain't got no shot at
the nomination"?
The Libertarian Guy|11.7.07 @ 7:59PM|#
So, now we have a "choice" between... a Republican... or...
Hillary.
Wow. Frying pan, or pot of boiling water. Which doom _do_ I
choose...
Mad Max|11.7.07 @ 8:03PM|#
A report commissioned by Giuliani's campaign in 1993, exploring
his negatives and how to respond to them:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html
|11.7.07 @ 8:04PM|#
"Mitt Romney is a competent chief executive who is opposed to
corruption, can operate in a bipartisan manner, will keep an eye on
the bottom line, and won't go off half-cocked and do anything too
stupid. He's also not going to lead some hard-core ideological
charge."
joe WTF? Did you mean this as sarcasm? Romney is easily running as
the most hard core ideological candidate. Give him a hard core
ideological charge and he will mount it and ride it to the Gates of
Mormon Hell and Back. As far as saying and doing something stupid,
he is second only to Hillary in being willing to say or do anything
to get elected. At least Guliania has kept up his moderately
pro-choice stance in the face of withering criticism.
|11.7.07 @ 8:15PM|#
You still want to try to say that Giuliani "ain't got no
shot at the nomination"?
I think the problem here is that you feel like most people here
didn't think Giuliani could get nominated or elected, when in fact
most people here just think that Giuliani is a lying sack of shit
statist, and an authoritarian little pussy who makes George W. look
downright harmless.
He's still all of that, but now he just has the endorsement of a
bigoted lunatic.
You must be so proud.
|11.7.07 @ 8:16PM|#
My point is this endorsement puts to rest all the criticisms
by both liberal political pundits AND by many Libertarians for
months now that "Rudy can never get the nomination cause the
Religious Conservatives will never support him."
Dude. I suspect most of us were hoping Rudy wouldn't get the
religious wingnuts supporting him, because he's the worst candidate
of the Republican front-runners when it comes to small-l
libertarian issues. Therefore, Pat Robertson's endorsement is
something to be feared, not praised.
Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 8:19PM|#
Fuck you, Eric.
Robertson has always been a kook. I have never had anything but
outright contempt for him for as long as I have known anything
about him. That goes for Falwell, Bauer, and Dobson too. I hate
them all.
As for why Paul might have chummed up to Robertson in 1988, perhaps
it was a calculated move designed to try to gain the support of the
religious right, while fucking them over in the end on policy
issues. You know, like Reagan had just finished doing for 8
years.
One of the best things about Reagan, IMO, was the way he was able
to get a preening piece of shit like Falwell to back him, even
though he never delivered anything to the bastard in the way of
policy. Maybe Paul thought he could do the same thing. I don't
know, because as you are fond of pointing out, I wasn't there.
Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 8:23PM|#
"Fess up you all. You know damn well that many of you all here
have said precisely that!"
Link.
I'll wait.
|11.7.07 @ 8:26PM|#
I love this comment from MSNBC's NV straw poll results article:
So Reaganites prefer Ron Paul is the concolusion? Sounds good to me considering how Reagan defined the Republican Party for a decade and everyone tries to say they are most like him, while in reality only Ron Paul is even close. 33% while not even showing up is pretty good, and as usual Rudy stinks up the joint because he's not a conservative. How he leads in National Polls tells me he only does so because of name recognition, but when people get down to deciding who they will actually vote for, they'll check out people's records and they won't vote for Rudy...unless their name is Eric Dondero.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410525.aspx?p=4
Jesse Walker|11.7.07 @ 8:43PM|#
Dondero is correct about the Ron Paul campaign's attempt to get
some Robertson delegates' support in 1988. I remember hearing about
it on the radio at the time, and having a What the hell?
moment. I'm not sure why the LP tried it; maybe they thought Paul
and the Robertsonites could come together on their shared distaste
for the Trilateral Commission or something like that. At any rate,
the appeal went nowhere -- though Paul's current campaign chair in
Iowa is a veteran of the Robertson campaign, so maybe there were
some long-term dividends...
Dondero is wrong to suggest the paleolibertarians were subsequently
enchanted with Robertson. Robertson is a social conservative but he
was never part of the paleocon group that worked with Rothbard et
al. Indeed, at one point in that general period, the
paleolibertarian Jeffrey Tucker wrote a rather scathing review of a
Pat Robertson "economics" book.
Anyway, the real news here is that the old New Right -- the
Christian political insurgency of the '70s and '80s -- is now so
tamed and deflated that one of its leading lights is endorsing a
man like Giuliani for president. I don't think anyone disagrees
with Dondero that this makes it more likely that Giuliani will be
the nominee. We're just not convinced that that's such a good
thing.
Jesse Walker|11.7.07 @ 8:45PM|#
We're just not convinced that that's such a good
thing.
..with "that" meaning the rise of Giuliani, not the decline of the
Falwell crowd -- that part is a good thing.
|11.7.07 @ 8:50PM|#
"I suspect most of us were hoping Rudy wouldn't get the
religious wingnuts supporting him, because he's the worst candidate
of the Republican front-runners when it comes to small-l
libertarian issues."
I've said it before, and I will say it again, I can't see that. I
asked on a previous thread what people had against Guliani, and the
only response I remember was that he prosecuted Mike Milken. The
way the poster explained the prosecution it did sound troubling,
but if that is what makes for the hate by libtertarians then that
is disturbing...
Guliani was the mayor of NYC, which, if you have not been there
lately, is a pretty diverse and hip place, a place bustling with
capitalism like few others in this nation. He did not become and
stay a popular mayor of such a town being a Nazi. The guy is pretty
laid back it seems to me. Can you imagine Mitt Romney dressing as a
woman to have some fun on SNL? The man does not even drink TEA
(well, if he is the strict Mormon he claims to be).
Rudy is not my ideal candidate. His weasel Let's Fight Islamofascim
turn in pitiful (but one that is shared by EVERY GOP frontrunner).
But he is so much better than Romney or Hillary in my eyes that I'm
always dumbfounded by the hate for him on H&R....
|11.7.07 @ 8:54PM|#
"Anyway, the real news here is that the old New Right -- the
Christian political insurgency of the '70s and '80s -- is now so
tamed and deflated that one of its leading lights is endorsing a
man like Giuliani for president."
JW-I see your point, and noone is happier than me to see Robertson
become more and more irrelevant, but perhaps this is just revealing
that Robertson has much less influence among the religious right
than someone like Dobson these days. And if I remember correctly
Dobson has sworn not to support Rudy or McCain.
Andrew Taylor|11.7.07 @ 9:11PM|#
"I don't think anyone disagrees with Dondero that this makes it
more likely that Giuliani will be the nominee."
Mr. Walker,
There are plenty of bloggers and pundits who disagree very
strongly. You are likely unaware of the fact that even much of the
"religious right" has been running away from Robertson for the past
several years, in light of his increasingly obvious insanity. The
faith-healing, money-grubbing, wide-faced TV evangelist was not
picked to sit on the board of the National Religious Broadcasters
because he had become an embarrassment to them. Ghouliani will pick
up a few votes from this, but he will lose far more -- in both the
primaries and the general.
Drew
Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 9:47PM|#
Jesse, I admit, I could be wrong on the Robertson-Paleolib
connection in the early 1990s. But I specifically remember a few
conferences there that Murray and Lew organized, with very
Religious Right leaders, that led many of us libertarian activists
at the time to seriously scratch our heads.
Wasn't Murray backing even Jesse Helms at the time?
Jesse, think hard. Murray took a goofy hard-right turn there for a
couple years, after he left the LP, 1991/92.
Yes, nothing may have materialized from it in the long run. But it
did happen there for a short while.
And I seem to recall some kind words from Murray in that period for
Robertson and his efforts. But I'll go back and check some old
issues of RRR to make sure.
Jesse Walker|11.7.07 @ 9:49PM|#
You are likely unaware of the fact that even much of the
"religious right" has been running away from Robertson for the past
several years, in light of his increasingly obvious
insanity.
I am aware of a general splintering on the "religious right,"
whatever that means these days. (And for what it's worth, I've
already received one post-endorsement press release denouncing
Robertson as a sellout.) But the point isn't that Robertson is a
super-influential power broker; it's that he's a bellwether. When
people like him are lining up behind Giuliani, it says something
about the state of the party's social conservative wing. It isn't
united, it isn't setting the pace, and it's therefore less likely
to deny Giuliani the nomination.
I don't think a Rudy win is certain, mind you. But I'm finding it
more likely today than I did this time last week.
Jesse Walker|11.7.07 @ 9:53PM|#
I seem to recall some kind words from Murray in that period
for Robertson and his efforts. But I'll go back and check some old
issues of RRR to make sure.
He did write one piece for RRR saying the revival of the
Christian right was a healthy thing -- part of the general surge in
right-wing populism that he hoped could be turned in an
anti-statist direction. But he didn't attach himself to them the
way he attached himself to Buchanan and the Chronicles
crowd.
Andrew Taylor|11.7.07 @ 10:38PM|#
"It isn't united, it isn't setting the pace, and it's therefore
less likely to deny Giuliani the nomination."
Thank you. I now understand your point better, and I don't disagree
as strongly. Forgive me for my obtuseness.
"If y'all are interested, we just interviewed Eric Dondero."
It's amazing that Rittberg can actually sound sensible when he's
not spewing his hatred for Ron Paul. He needs to realize that he
would have a better shot at winning hearts and minds if he wouldn't
be so bitter and vindictive.
Rittberg seriously errs, however, when he suggests that Paden is
going to defeat the good doctor in his congressional district. That
will not happen -- not next year, at least.
|11.7.07 @ 10:51PM|#
highnumber,
Fascinating. Nothing new, at least to me, but props on getting the
Urkobold scoop.
BakedPenguin|11.7.07 @ 11:14PM|#
Mr Nice Guy - Maybe it's Giuliani Time for you! That
phrase comes from a NYPD cop, who happened to be sodomizing Abner
Louima when he said it. At least Louima lived, unlike Amadou
Diallo.
While it may not be fair to associate Giuliani with the actions of
others, I might as well get my shots in before he
stops everyone from talking about him negatively, or just stops
everyone from
saying anything else he doesn't like.
I was going to go on in this vein, but the Reason server told me I
was at the end of my links. Plus, I'm lazy.
BakedPenguin|11.7.07 @ 11:34PM|#
MNG - I was trying to use "Giuliani Time" in a double sense there - (e.g., that you might want to vote for him) - not that I think you deserve a similar fate to Louima.
|11.8.07 @ 12:39AM|#
But he is so much better than Romney or Hillary in my eyes
that I'm always dumbfounded by the hate for him on
H&R....
There are some excellent reasons to hate Giuliani besides the fact
that he said (and apparently believes) this:
"Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness
of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great
deal of discretion about what you do."
He has refused to take responsibility for, indeed he has outright
lied about, the mistakes he made in regards to disaster
preparations prior to 9/11. He has also lately been spouting
macho-twerp nonsense about water-boarding.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.07 @ 1:33AM|#
High, I swear to God.....Players + Scorecard.
I can't keep track of you minions.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.07 @ 1:34AM|#
High, somebody said you and Stephen Crane are married? Care to comment?
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:22AM|#
Dondero,
It is likely the case that most of the people here commenting are
in their mid-30s or younger.
As for Guiliani, whoever endorses him isn't much of an issue to me,
and in the case of Robertson since I'm an atheist ... well you get
my point.
|11.8.07 @ 6:19AM|#
To me,
People who are far more helpful to Osama Bin Laden than they are to
us include:
- Those responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal
- Pat Robertson
- Those who shoot innocent civilians
- Anybody over in Iraq who is overheard by Iraqis parroting Pat
Robertson's religious hate.
For Starters.
(people yelling and moaning that the war is unwinnable, are some
help to OBL also, but they are an integral part of who we are, and
are part of the reason that the war is not unwinnable)
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 9:12AM|#
Andrew, you SOB, (said in a good naturedly way). Ukobold is
YOU!!
Seriously, I enjoyed the interview. Thanks for the
opportunity.
But I would say you ought to think about getting your own Blog Talk
Radio show. Better format for such things. (Be glad to help you
with that.)
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 9:13AM|#
Oops, I meant that last post to be directed to Highnumber. Sorry Andrew.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 9:16AM|#
Aha Jesse, so then contrarty to your original post which said
that I was right on half (Ron Paul seeking Robertson's support in
1988) and wrong on the other half (Paleos had some ties to
Religious Right for a while), it's more like I was right on half
and at least half right on the other half.
Thank you for coming clean on this public forum in front of all
these witnesses.
|11.8.07 @ 9:16AM|#
MNG,
Romney is faking. He's posing as a Mr. Tough Guy and hitting the
dogwhistle lines especially hard precisely because he's not
actually a wing nut.
Also, Guiliani is a very unpopular figure in New York, precisely
because of his fascist tendencies. Ever seen any New York polling
on him? Yikes!
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Yes Kwai, I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus in my living
room in Tallahassee, Florida in the Spring of 1990, after I had
resigned as Florida Chairman for Justin Raimondo's goofy
non-interventionist Libertarian Repubican Organizing Committee
(LROC).
Interesting to note, that two of the guys who were there with me at
the original founding of the RLC are two of the closest friends to
none other than Reason Asst. Editor Brian Doherty - Phil Blumel
(presently RLC National Vice-Chair, and President of US Term
Limites), and Libertarian Punk Rocker Tom Walls of South Florida.
Both recruited Brian into the Univ. of Florida campus Libertarian
Club way back in 1986. (I had helped Phil to launch that group
while I was in the LP in Jax).
And the rest is history. Brian has since made us all very proud!!
Nationally acclaimed Bestselling Author and all. Gorgeous wife.
Editor for the Nation's Number One Libertarian Magazine.
So, in a roundabout way you could almost say, that if it wasn't for
me, Reason's Brian Doherty might not be where he is today?
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 9:27AM|#
Jesse Walker:
When people like him are lining up behind Giuliani, it says
something about the state of the party's social conservative wing.
It isn't united, it isn't setting the pace, and it's therefore less
likely to deny Giuliani the nomination.
Eric:
Jesse, that was an absolutely brillant point. You are 100% correct.
The main significance of the Robertson endorsement is that it shows
that Rudy is much, much more closer to securing the nomination, and
that the religious right will not be the stumbling block to him
winning that all the pundits had originally suggested.
This is a huge victory for the GOP's Economic Conservative wing,
which we libertarians are very much a part of.
|11.8.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Eric, what do you think of the recent poll which shows Hillary taking the South by a large margin if Guiliani is the nominee? If Hillary carries the South, which normally goes Republican, that's it, she wins.
|11.8.07 @ 10:05AM|#
Dondero's got a point - a lot of people thought Rudy's
pro-choice, pro-gay record would kill him in the Bible Belt. This
Robertson nomination could be a strong indicator that the CW was
wrong.
Rattlesnake Jake, have you got a link? If a Democrat wins a single
southern state, it's game-set-and-match.
Jesse Walker|11.8.07 @ 10:08AM|#
Eric: You said that Rothbard and Rockwell were "chumming up to the likes of Robertson and his people seeking a Paleo-lib/Paleo-con coalition." I was pointing out that Robertson wasn't really part of the group they were chumming up to. To be fair, I might have misinterpreted what you meant by "the likes of."
|11.8.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Answer my question Dondi. What does it say about Giuliani
when his own children hate him so much that they fail not only to
endorse him, but endorse a member of the opposite party?
I'm not Eric, but I want to say; "it says they're still bitter
about the fact that their father moved his mistress into the
Mayor's mansion while he was still married to his second wife and
while she and they were still living there, shaming both their mom
and themselves."
I just like pointing that out every time Giuliani is mentioned.
|11.8.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Dondero,
I like that liberty caucus thing. I even posted it on my
myspace.
I wish you didn't support that scum sucking socialist Guliani, who
is basically just Hillary in a dress.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 11:19AM|#
Geez, "scum sucking Socialist" 'eh?
Guess Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Inst. has it all wrong.
Serving as Giuliani's Top Campaign Advisor. Somebody ought to get
to her and tell her she's working for a "scum sucking
Socialist."
And we should also change the definition of "Tax cutter."
From here on out, any politician who cuts taxes 23 times, should be
referred to as a "scum sucking Socialist."
Similarly, none of this bullshit free market reforms of Health Care
talk. From here on out, if a politician calls for free
enterprise-backed program for health care, we should call them a
"scum sucking Socialist."
And, anyone, and I do mean anyone, who gains the support of Steve
Forbes should hereby be known as a "scum sucking Socialist."
And that includes Ray Toomey of the Club for Growth. If the Club
for Growth gives a politician their backing they should immediately
be known as a "scum sucking Socialist."
And let's include Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute in there too.
If Mike Tanner says anything good about any politician, like
praising their health care proposal as he did for Giuliani last
week, we should call that politician a "scum sucking
Socialist."
And anytime that the Washington Times, London Times Herald,
Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, National Review or any other
major media outlet calls any politician a "libertarian" as they've
done for Giuliani, we should call that politician a "scum sucking
Socialist."
Got it now. Thanks for clearing that one up for me Kwai.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 11:23AM|#
Joe, I do think the Democrats have a good shot of winning one
southern state - Arkansas.
But conversely, the Republicans are going to pick off New Jersey
(definitely), Connecticut, and maybe even Pennsylvania from the D
column with Giuliani. Outside shot of winning Rhode Island and
Michigan too, cause of all the ethnic Italians in those two
states.
But I do think we lose Arkansas, no matter what we do.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 11:29AM|#
Rattlesnake Jake, I've got a saying. If RealClearPolitics.com
doesn't report on it, it pretty much doesn't exist.
I an a true believer in RCP. I live, eat and breathe RCP.
I've seen no such poll suggesting that Giuliani loses the south. On
the contrary, I've seen very recent polls suggesting that he's way
ahead of Hillary here in Texas, (released just yesterday), but
something like 15 points, and another from the other day saying
that he's pulled back in front of Hillary in Florida by 3.
I don't doubt Hillary is doing well in Arkansa. But I can't imagine
any other state in the South giving her anything close to Rudy's
numbers.
I'd predict Rudy romps her in a clean sweep in the South, save
AR.
And, we may even see Rudy picking up New Mexico.
So, you could very well see a see of Red, from the California
border stretching all the way to Florida, up to Northern Virginia.
(There's even a slight chance Rudy could win Maryland and Delaware
too. He's polling exceptionally well in both those states. In MD I
saw a poll where he only trails Hillary by 5.)
|11.8.07 @ 11:57AM|#
But conversely, the Republicans are going to pick off New
Jersey (definitely), Connecticut, and maybe even Pennsylvania from
the D column with Giuliani.
There is not even a remoote ghost of a chance of any of those
states going Republican.
|11.8.07 @ 12:45PM|#
Eric,
All those people that you say support Guliani. Don't make me think
well of Guliani, instead, I lose respect for them.
Those people endorsing him does not change the fact that he is
Hillary/Chaves/Benito in a dress.
Gun rights(mainly), individual liberty, property rights, his stance
on the drug war (how about the bare minimum; medical MJ, can a
dying old lady just get some pain relief?).
He is in favor of abortion you say? Is that because a woman owns
her body? Well no, because she can't legally be a prostitute. So
basically benito is OK with killing babies but is not really ok
with a woman owning her own body.
|11.8.07 @ 12:49PM|#
also Eric,
Sincere question; why did he cut taxes 22 times? Why not just
once?
Was he trying to increase revenues? Or does he believe that the
taxes were immoral, and was limited by the power of the office by
how much he could cut them?
What kind of taxes were they?
|11.8.07 @ 2:26PM|#
I do have to admit, Rudy's push to expand the public health
insurance system to cover more poor kids in New York City does
soften his image a bit.
He talks about free-market health care a lot now, but that's not
what he was saying at the end of his mayoral term.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 3:07PM|#
Kwai, I don't work for the Giuliani campaign. I'm just a
supporter. Why don't you ask them?
And I believe the exact number of tax cuts was 23, not 22.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 3:10PM|#
Kwai, one of those people you "have no respect for" happens to
be a close friend and associate of the Reason Foundation, the very
website you are currently on - Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research
Institute.
And another one of them - Steve Forbes - came down to Ron Paul's
District in 1996, at Ron Paul's request, and at his own expense, to
campaign for his election to Congress for an entire day. Sorry to
hear you have no respect for people who have lent a hand to Ron
Paul's elections to Congress.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Joe, latest poll out of NJ had Rudy up over Hillary by 3. Latest
out of PA had him down from Hillary by 2.
I'd say that's more than a "slight chance" for him to win those
states.
Eric Dondero|11.8.07 @ 3:14PM|#
Perhaps we're starting to see the "New Spin" from libertarians
on Giuliani. Joe is giving us a bit of a hint here.
For months, and months now, the message from Radical libertarians
on Giuliani is that "he can't win the nomination... The GOP will
never nominate a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Rights politician for
President. The Religious Right will never let that happen."
Robertson's endorsment completely destroyed all that.
Now the spin may very well be... "Yeah, yeah, yeah, alright
Giuliani may win the nomination, but there's no way in hell he can
win against Hillary. A New Yorker like Giuliani, after all can
never win in the South."
Thanks Joe for giving me insight into what the next step will be of
the Giuliani doubters.
|11.8.07 @ 5:33PM|#
I recently did a Google search which found several articles
debunking Giuliani's lie about the "23 tax cuts." It's no surprise
at all, as Giuliani lies about almost everything.
I personally will never vote for Giuliani or Hillary. But either
one will simply hasten the final collapse of the country. In the
mean time, I will continue to support Ron Paul as there are some
things that may be salvaged.
|11.8.07 @ 6:32PM|#
Factcheck.org, which I've found to be fairly reliable, has
a few things to say about Giuliani's tax cuts and budget
balancing claims. Some truth, some spin, some lies. Not what I
would expect from a libertarian candidate, but at least there's
some truth to what he says.
Ron Paul is worse how?
|11.9.07 @ 8:16AM|#
Dondero,
Stormfront also supports Ron Paul, I have no respect for them dudes
either.
As a matter of fact if stormfront had a clue they would realize
that Guliani is their kin.
Eric Dondero|11.9.07 @ 9:40AM|#
As to Rudy's 23 tax cuts, check out the Club for Growth. They
did an extensive review of Rudy's record on economic issues. And he
passed with flying colors.
Club Pres. Ray Toomey recently said that Rudy was absolutely the
best pick for economic conservatives for '08.
And check out NRO this morning, Larry Kudlow's piece on Rudy. It's
amazing.
Rudy told Kudlow he would slash and burn everywhere if elected,
coporate tax cuts, earmarks, ect...
Eric Dondero|11.9.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Now Kwai, just how is it that Stormfront is more aligned with
Rudy Giuliani than Ron Paul.
You do know that American Nazis are non-interventionists do you
not?
Ron Paul is the non-interventionist, not Rudy.
And you do know that mostly all Neo-Nazis are strong Social
Conservatives who hate guys and want to outlaw abortions,
right?
Ron Paul is the one who personally dislikes gays, and wants to
force women to sneak across the border into Mexico and Canada to
get an abortion. While Rudy is for Gay Rights and is
Pro-Choice.
And it's Neo-Nazis who talk all the time about the "evil Jewish
bankers" as Ron Paul does. And the "Global Conspiracy of the
Bilderburgers" as Ron Paul does, and of "fiat currency" as Ron Paul
does, and of "Blacks being inferior to Whites," similar to Ron Paul
saying "Blacks are fleet-footed..."
And this morning I read that a major American Jewish group is about
to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President.
Can you imagine Ron Paul receiving an endorsement from any Jewish
group for his campaign?
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