The Libertarian Party Still Loves Ron Paul

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

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

Print|Email

Brian Doherty | November 19, 2007

In what Alabama state LP chair (and former national LP employee) Stephen Gordon is calling an "unprecedented" move, the national LP, in a press release pushing their new "Liberty Decides" program (which basically allows people to show support for potential LP presidential candidates by donating in their name), notes their own party members enthusiasm for GOP candidate Ron Paul. In an email from national LP executive director Shane Cory that Gordon quotes:

due to the quantity of respectful e-mails, letters and phone calls that I receive from our own members, even if I tried, I could not ignore the fact that many Libertarians are excited about the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination. In no way, shape or form, can I ignore the positive impact Dr. Paul’s campaign is making on America. I’m not asking you to do that either.

If you are a supporter of the Paul campaign and you want to send a message to the delegates of the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, you have the option to do so with this new program. If you are hopeful that Ron Paul (or another candidate) will seek the LP nomination, even as a “Plan B,” you can make a donation to show your support for a future/unannounced candidate (please include your preferred candidate’s name in the comment box when donating). Also, if you feel that the LP should not run a presidential candidate in 2008, you can put your support behind NOTA (none of the above).

Ron Paul was already the LP's presidential candidate in 1988, and remains a life member of the party. My July article on some reasons libertarians have been leery of the Paul campaign--and why in my judgement they shouldn't be.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← Now Playing at reason.tv: "Better… | Main | Long-Arming the Libel Tourist →

See all 246 comments | Leave a comment

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 5:49PM|#

And who was that who has been saying that the Libertarian Party wasn't an offshoot of the GOP?

Bottom line:

1. The Libertarian Party was founded by a disgruntled Colorado Chairman of the Young Republicans.

2. The Libertarian Party's first Presidential candidate - John Hospers was a Republican.

3 Every single past Libertarian Party Presidential candidate has been or is currently now a Republican, with one sole exception - Harry Browne who was an anti-political unaffiliated Anarchist.

All those who've been pushing this stupid-ass "libertarians should align with the Democrats" meme for the last few years, have serious egg on their faces today.

Now, even the National Director of the Libertarian Party is acknowledging that the LP is tied at the hip to the GOP.

Eric Dondero, Founder
Republican Liberty Caucus

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 5:52PM|#

Think of the LP as now officially like the Conservative Party of New York State, structurally. And with the difference that the LP is on a national scale, whereby the Cons. Party of NY is limited to one state.

But in essence, the CP acts as an offshoot of the NY GOP.

And that's how the LP should act with the GOP nationally.

If the GOP nominates a non-libertarian candidate like McCain or Huckabee, run a strong LP ticket against the GOP to express our libertarian disastisfaction.

If the GOP nominates a moderately libertarian candidate like Giuliani or Thompson, than the LP should run a weak Presidential ticket like George Phillies or Steve Kubby, so as to not adversly affect the outcome of the general election.

|11.19.07 @ 5:54PM|#

I'll do the honors.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|11.19.07 @ 5:58PM|#

Can Paul be both the GOP nominee and the LP nominee, or does that not work in America?

|11.19.07 @ 5:59PM|#

But in essence, the CP acts as an offshoot of the NY GOP.
And that's how the LP should act with the GOP nationally.

R? W! T's a RST! IMHO, 2M. FYI, it's CAH.

thoreau|11.19.07 @ 5:59PM|#

Eric, things were a lot nicer here when you were in Tijuana.

pdog|11.19.07 @ 6:02PM|#

>Can Paul be both the GOP nominee and the LP nominee, or does that not work in America?

If so, does that mean I can vote for him twice?! (As a Republican and as a Libertarian)

Fluffy|11.19.07 @ 6:02PM|#

You know, that "Giuliani is a moderate libertarian" joke never gets old.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 6:04PM|#

At least this one sounds like the real Dondero.
Complete with the absurd "semi-libertarian" label for Giuliani.

|11.19.07 @ 6:06PM|#

Can Paul be both the GOP nominee and the LP nominee, or does that not work in America?

He can run as the LP if he doesn't get the GOP but i do not see him doing that because the system is so bias to 3rd parties. You can't be in any debates and it is hard to get on ballots.

Barry Goldwater Jr. just endorsed Ron Paul the other day also.

|11.19.07 @ 6:07PM|#

All those who've been pushing this stupid-ass "libertarians should align with the Democrats" meme for the last few years, have serious egg on their faces today.

That was the most persuasive argument on this subject that I've heard all day. Of course, since I haven't heard any other arguments for why libertarians owe their allegiance to the Republicans today, well....

Brian Defferding|11.19.07 @ 6:09PM|#

Cool. While Paul isn't 100 percent Liberatarian, he's close enough for me, and I hope some of the libertarian "purists" stop getting their panties in a bundle and rally behind Paul.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:10PM|#

For the last time it was Mexicali, NOT Tijuana. Mexicali is much nicer.

That said, quick addendum to my post above. I forgot to mention this fact:

Every single elected Libertarian State Legislator ever, both in Alaska and New Hampshire, were elected as Republicans, or upon election served in the "Republican Caucus."

I reference Reason Magazine, 1986, front cover interview with Libertarian Alaska Legislator Andre Marrou.

Marrou says very clearly, "I caucus with the Republicans."

The LP was founded by a Republican

Every past Presidential candidate for the LP was or is a Republican, (with one single exception).

And every elected Libertarian State Legislator in 35 years, from both Alaska and New Hampshire, were Republicans.

So, why should we be surprised now that the National Director of the Libertarian Party is admitting that the LP is just an offshoot of the GOP?

libertarian republican|11.19.07 @ 6:12PM|#

Why the Libertarian Party is worthless...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=18555

|11.19.07 @ 6:12PM|#

"Of course, since I haven't heard any other arguments for why libertarians owe their allegiance to the Republicans today, well...."

We might even vote for candidates, instead of parties. It's a tough concept, but there it is.

... Nah.

|11.19.07 @ 6:12PM|#

I have to wonder if Dondero isn't somehow connected to TX State Senator Dan Patrick, or his pair of AM talkers in Houston and Dallas. The Houston station, KSEV, aired a prearranged call with the managing editor of the Lone Star Times when they launched their first Ron Paul hit piece a few weeks ago. "The Times" has run two more baseless smear articles since.

Eric would fit right in with these lowlifes.

|11.19.07 @ 6:13PM|#

Eric, tell me in single words only the good things that come to mind... about your mother?

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:14PM|#

Giuliani a "semi-libertarian"? Don't take my word for it. Take the word of:

ontheissues.org which rates him 60/60 as a "Moderate Libertarian."

Or, take the word of the 20 or so self-described "libertarian" celebrities, and elected officials who have endorsed Giuliani.

Or, take the word of the London Times-Herald, NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, Chicago Herald, and scores of other media who've called Giuliani a "libertarian" or "libertarian conservative."

Or, the NY Times who said of Giuliani:

"He's not even a real Republican. He's more of a welfare slashing, budget cutting extremist Ayn Randian."

|11.19.07 @ 6:14PM|#

Where's Edward? Is Edward really Donderoooo's alter ego?

I swear that they are both foils for Paul. I have difficulty believing that anyone can be that assertively lame with full sincerity.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:16PM|#

Bob, can't stand Patrick. I know him well. Not only is he a Religous Right fanatic, he's a Safety-Authoritarian, as well.

At Barry Klien's Houston Property Assoc. luncheon while he was running I asked Patrick how he felt about seat belt laws. He said, without flinching:

"I'm all in favor of them... they save lives."

Urgh! Barry's entire audience gagged at his response. I walked out of the luncheon.

Patrick may hate Paul, but that doesn't mean he's on the side of the Angels.

|11.19.07 @ 6:17PM|#

"Or, take the word of..."

Hey, Eric. How about I take the word of Rudy fucking Giuliani? It doesn't take a super genius to read what he says and writes, and parse it, and identify just how libertarian he is.

I know you're all about name-dropping bullshit, but sometimes it's ok to, you know, go to the source?

|11.19.07 @ 6:18PM|#

Reason Fantasy Elections Poll:

Please list your least, least favorite candidate and the reason you are supporting him/her:

1. Libertarian Party: Eric Dondero

2. Republican Party: "Edward"

3. Communist Party: Brian Doherty

Polls are open! Vote early and often!

|11.19.07 @ 6:18PM|#

Visit the Lone Star Times, Rimfax... One reader was so "impressed" with their constant coverage of Ron Paul that he secured a domain registration for RonPaulTimes.com, and set up a DNS referral to the Times.

Cleaner44|11.19.07 @ 6:20PM|#

Ron Paul is very electable and his presidency will open the door for more Libertarians. Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaulc.om and judge for yourself.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:20PM|#

Oh Isidur, I'm so sorry. Did I forget to mention a teensy weensy little fact about Giuliani?

HE CUT TAXES 23 TIMES AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK!

And he slashed the welfare rolls.

Don't like endorsements? Don't like surveys?

Fine. Look at the record.

And Giuliani's record of fiscal conservatism is quite strong.

Cleaner44|11.19.07 @ 6:21PM|#

Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. I have created a website to support this statement. Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

|11.19.07 @ 6:21PM|#

WJ:

Yes, a canidate can be nominated by more than 1 party. The happened before with william jennings bryan in the late 1800's. He was nominated by the prograssives, and the democrats (I believe)

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:22PM|#

South Carolina poll just released minutes ago.

Giuliani and Romney are virtually tied at 19 and 20%.

Ron Paul is stagnant at 3%.

|11.19.07 @ 6:22PM|#

As one who has voted only for LP candidates and has run as a Libertarian, I would be thrilled beyond words to vote for Republican Ron Paul.

If he isn't the GOP nominee, he said he won't mount a third party campaign, and I agree. The LP will carry on as it has and I will give it my full support. But I'd really like to have two flavors of libertarians running against each other. Then I could ignore the government altogether.

|11.19.07 @ 6:23PM|#

"HE CUT TAXES 23 TIMES AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK!"

Um, so what? George W. Bush cut taxes. Is that all you think libertarianism is? "Fiscal conservatism"? Jesus, no wonder your posts are so useless.

|11.19.07 @ 6:23PM|#

I believe the Constitution Party has already come out and said that if the Republicans nominate Ron Paul they will nominate him as well. Or maybe it was just the leadership. I don't see why the Libertarians couldn't do the same thing.
Quote from Badnarik 2004's sacrificial lamb/LP presidential candidate
"I hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to say, 'Oh ho, somebody we can trust!' and nominate Ron Paul as our nominee," he said. "We should set the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian labels aside, and vote for Ron Paul the person."

Ron Paul has said before that if Texas law allowed he would register under both parties as well as Republican. I am not sure what the law says of the reverse or if a political party even needs the permission of the candidate to put them on the ballot.

Kyle|11.19.07 @ 6:25PM|#

I think I liked Dondero a lot better when he was presumed to be kidnapped.

"What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. 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."
-Rudy Giuliani

"Mainstream libertarian" Eric Dondero is on Rudy Giuliani's payroll, as he has stated, and it really shows.

|11.19.07 @ 6:27PM|#

Guliani = neoconservative (former social liberal, and Robert F Kennedy admirer, who embraced the neverending war on terror along with the daddy state approach to governing)

Fundamnetally, Guliani would choose the civil rights he would respect (and we bastards should be grateful for whatever he throws us I guess), he would sink the US into more and worse conflicts abroad and he try to implement the policies he set in place in New York upon the rest of the US...for our own good.

Guliani is Caesar, not Cato (though I never really liked Cato either)

|11.19.07 @ 6:28PM|#

Google news search SAYS!!!......ZippoOOO!

Google web search SAYS!!!......DonderoOOO!

|11.19.07 @ 6:31PM|#

Cleaner44,

Good god man, we get it.

I'm a Paul supporter and even I'm getting annoyed by these "visit the x site and learn about Ron Paul" people. Go hand out pamphlets or something.

|11.19.07 @ 6:32PM|#

I though Dondero didn't consider his former boss Ron Paul a "real Republican." Now he uses Republican Ron Paul to show that Libertarians are really Republicans.

Make up your mind.

Fluffy|11.19.07 @ 6:32PM|#

So Eric stands up and walks out of a luncheon because somebody favors seat belt laws...but longs to roll his tongue over Giuliani's hairy little penis.

So Eric, Giuliani isn't a "safety authoritarian"? I think there are some ferret owners in New York who might disagree with you.

|11.19.07 @ 6:33PM|#

Google news archive search SAYS!!!.....New HampshireOOO?

|11.19.07 @ 6:36PM|#

Fluffy,

Don't forget about those menacing jaywalkers. Goddamn them.

|11.19.07 @ 6:36PM|#

Full diclosure: I excluded the phrase "moderate libertarian conservative" since that's like "moderately kinky amish".

ACJohn|11.19.07 @ 6:37PM|#

Eric Dondero | November 19, 2007, 5:49pm | #

And who was that who has been saying that the Libertarian Party wasn't an offshoot of the GOP?

Bottom line:

1. The Libertarian Party was founded by a disgruntled Colorado Chairman of the Young Republicans.

Lets see, Libertarian party started by a republican means it's republican

Rudy Giuliani was a democrat then switched

What does that say about Rudy?

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 6:40PM|#

As ridiculous as Dondero may be--and it's hard to oversell that point--he is right insofar as the Libertarian movement in America has had its head up the Elephant's ass for a good long time now.

Now it would be silly to run to the Democrats (who are crass statists), but the association has allowed Republicans to co-opt the rhetoric and hijack an entire consistency while getting nothing but mean-spirited, Christ-powered, crony statism in return. And the dems have at least some of the lib social agenda in hand, even if it does come married ironically with the power of the state.

Heck, even The Nation throws R. Paul a bone every once in a while. When was the last time Reason wrote about a Democrat in a way that wasn't patronizing?

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:42PM|#

Means Rudy is like Reagan (or Joe Lieberman). Both were Democrats than they saw the light.

Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 6:44PM|#

Eric,

Your comments are remarkably reasonable and bile-free, so you're entitled to a more respectful response than the conventional H&R "rebuttal" of "lol u suk."

So here we go:

I can see how some left-libertarians could support Giuliani. In the context of New York City politics, he looks like a fiscal conservative (of course, one could argue that anyone to the right of Fidel Castro would look like a conservative in the People's Republic of NYC, but let me stay on track here). Also, his support of "abortion rights" would seem to put him in the "fiscally conservative/socially-liberal" category that some left-libertarians like.

The very reasons which make Giuliani appealing to the left-libertarians make me wary of him, especially when we're talking Giuliani v. Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul wants to restore legal protection to the unborn (while respecting the Tenth Amendment, a loophole allowing some pro-aborts to support him), but unlike some other pro-lifers, he isn't a Bush-worshipper or a Wilsonian "make the world safe for democracy" type.

As I see it, the Paul v. Giuliani contest is a question of Dr. Paul v. RuPaul.

ACJohn|11.19.07 @ 6:45PM|#

Eric:
Means Rudy is like Reagan (or Joe Lieberman). Both were Democrats than they saw the light.

They saw the light but the Libertarians didn't?

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:46PM|#

Thanks for the honest response Mad Max. But I think you've got it bass ackwards. To me, Ron Paul is the leftist cause of his soft pacifist views on fighting Islamo-Fascism. While Rudy who is strong on defense, is more the Right-winger.

I'm pretty sure, but not 100% certain that Rudy is also Pro-Death Penalty.

I do know that my former boss Ron Paul is passionately against the Death Penalty for any reason whatsoever.

That would make Rudy the Right-winger and Paul the Leftwinger.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 6:46PM|#

And the dems have at least some of the lib social agenda in hand

LMNOP

What the Fuck would that be?

|11.19.07 @ 6:46PM|#

Is anyone denying that the Libertarian party was founded by former republicans?

Eric just wants us to come to the "right" conclusion and vote for Giuliani, that's his whole point. But guess what, libertarians, like everybody else, ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO ANY PARTY. They vote for a set of beliefs they have in common and whoever satisfies those beliefs best gets their vote. They may compromise certain beliefs in hopes to stop larger problems, but they can vote whichever way they feel like.

Bah, I feel like thumping somebody upside the head for this inanity.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 6:50PM|#

Not exactly, Lost in Translation. I know many of you could never vote for Rudy. You'll probably cast your vote for Phillies or Kubby. And that's fine.

No, what I'm aiming for is some acknowledgement that we libertarians ARE INDEED REPUBLICANS WHO LIKE TO HAVE A GOOD TIME!

Just as PJ O'Rourke has been saying for years.

All I ask is that you all support good libertarian-leaning Republican candidates for Congress and US Senate and other offices. Get involved with the RLC in your respective states.

Oh, I do ask one other thing.

If by chance Rudy were to pick a libertarian running-mate like Sarah Palin or Mark Sanford, in that case, I would hope that you all would consider voting for him in the general.

|11.19.07 @ 6:53PM|#

"HE CUT TAXES 23 TIMES AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK!"

All while not cutting spending a bit. He increased the NY's debt by 50% and left a $4.5 billion deficit to his successor.

Just what we all need, another credit card conservative with an authoritarian streak...

|11.19.07 @ 6:53PM|#

Dondero?

Didn't he get kidnapped by space aliens? Didn't Kucinich see it go down?

|11.19.07 @ 6:53PM|#

Yes, Eric, The LP was founded by renegade Young Republicans and YAFers.

They left the GOP and Young Americans for Freedom over primarily one issue - THE WAR IN VIET NAM.

Why should they link themselves to a party that is even more pro-interventionist than the one they left thirty-five years ago?

libertarians ARE INDEED REPUBLICANS WHO LIKE TO HAVE A GOOD TIME!

Yeah, old drugwar fightin', gun banning, hooker-harassing Rudy's gonna give us that!

Yes he will, good and hard. Just like we deserve.

|11.19.07 @ 6:54PM|#

I'm pretty sure, but not 100% certain that Rudy is also Pro-Death Penalty.

I do know that my former boss Ron Paul is passionately against the Death Penalty for any reason whatsoever.

Last I checked, there hasn't been a single person executed in this country for over six weeks. I haven't seen a correlating criminal surge.

Also, last I checked libertarianism holds that the state should have minimal power over a person's existence, which would definitely include denying the state the power over life and death of its civilians.

Kyle|11.19.07 @ 6:57PM|#

Rudy would continue raids on patients using medicinal marijuana.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyq7IzONnsk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYEUpTqmgSw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsVSgNQTVUk

Rudy Giuliani thinks that freedom is about authority. Fiscal conservatism plus Pro-Choice does not make Rudy Giuliani a libertarian. Sarah Palin and Mark Sanford are both fine citizens and would make fantastic Vice-Presidents, but I don't see how any libertarian could vote for a ticket topped by Rudy Giuliani.

|11.19.07 @ 7:00PM|#

Guiliani is a communist, obviously, since he believes in controlled-substance laws. Under Roosevelt and Stalin, gold was a controlled substance. Under modern communists like Guiliani, it's cannabis. Anyone who thinks he's a libertarian, hasn't read his Hayek.
Libertarianism is a big tent philosophy; and is based on discussion and debate. I believe no one who supports the death penalty can be a Libertarian, but I have met many who call themselves Libertarian, who believe in it, and are sincere. We are not monolithic, like the bi-partisan collectivists.

|11.19.07 @ 7:02PM|#

We really need to stamp out the notion that republicans like Giuliani are fiscal conservatives. They are credit card conservatives.

Cutting taxes while increasing spending is a coward's way out. People love tax cuts. They love spending. Give 'em both. Their children and grandchildren who will bear the full cost of this aren't voting anyway so who cares about them (or the future of the country)?

Mad Max|11.19.07 @ 7:02PM|#

Eric,

I'm not going to give Giuliani *too* much love.

If right-wingery has come to include supporting abortion (including govt-subsidized abortions), dressing in woman's clothing, and jumping from wife to wife like a horny Mario Brother, then, yes, Giuliani is a right-winger.

Check out this guy - he supports Huckabee, not Dr. Paul, but I endorse his criticism of Giuliani.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58758

(yes, the link is from World Net Daily. So sue me)

"the most common justification they ["pro-life" Giuliani apologists] give is that Giuliani would be better than Clinton in the war on terrorism. While it may or may not be true, let's assume it is. When someone says they will support a pro-abort for that reason, what they are really saying is, 'I'm willing to let unborn babies be dropped in the grease by the millions if that's what it takes to save my own skin.'"

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 7:04PM|#

SIV:

You're kidding, right? The democratic party has been better than the republican party for the last forty years or so on the following issues:

easing drug laws
ending corporate welfare
justice system reform
civil liberties (except guns. tsk, tsk.)
civil rights, generally
abortion (I know this is a touchy one with some libs)
free trade (how absurd is that?!)
death penalty
immigration
homosexual equality under the law
respect for the rule of law
opposing tort limits

Am I missing anything?

|11.19.07 @ 7:11PM|#

In 2000, a lot of libertarians voted for Bush. In 2004 a lot more stayed home rather than hang their chad for the douche or turd.

Among non-libertarians, frustration with the pre-ordained lesser-of-two-evils candidates is measurable.

Many Ron Paul supporters confess that they have never contributed to or volunteered for candidate before, or as a popular home-made sign says, "Dr. Paul cured my apathy."

The timing is right for the revolution.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 7:11PM|#

Elemenope,

Surely you hail from some alternate dimension/reality. The Dems have been as bad or worse on drugs,civil liberties, corporate welfare and the h other issues.Several of the things you list are not exactly libertarian issues as they are defined in our political environment.

|11.19.07 @ 7:13PM|#

Donderoooooooooooooo!

I reference Reason Magazine, 1986, front cover interview with Libertarian Alaska Legislator Andre Marrou.

Marrou says very clearly, "I caucus with the Republicans."

The guy who also said, "Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult"?

Remind us, does he identify with torturers and half-assed nation-builders 21 years later?

To be explicit, why exactly should we give a shit?

|11.19.07 @ 7:14PM|#

Did Dondero fail in Mexicali as a performer in the local donkey show?

Good to see he is back, but he seems to not even show up on the radar for the congressional race. Looks like he'll be earning money "the hard way" in Mexicali soon.

Ty|11.19.07 @ 7:14PM|#

It's only economics that Republicans and Libertarians even come close to seeing eye to eye.

|11.19.07 @ 7:17PM|#

Eric,

Sorry, but even an endorsement by zombie Goldwater and zombie Taft in concert with Washington, Jefferson and Adams couldn't bring me to vote for Giuliani. If that puts me in the minority, fine, atleast I don't have to fight the traffic. Giuliani has burned alot of bridges to get where he is and said too much to go back and make up with alot of us Paul libertarians. And I think he will find out how much it will cost him. I'm pretty sure I can't convince all my friends and relatives to vote for Paul, but I can convince them fairly easily to shun Giuliani, for many and varied reasons. I will do all in my power to prevent that man from getting elected and I think I speak for many who believe in Paul that they will do the same.

Dondero, the Paul group might not be able to get their man elected, but you will see we are big enough to prevent Guliani from ever becoming president, thanks to his policies, comments and abuse his supporters have paid upon us. The same my be said in reciprocal, but rest assured, Giuliani will not win, and I would bet everything I owned on that.

Anthony Gregory|11.19.07 @ 7:17PM|#

Dondero writes: "[W]e libertarians ARE INDEED REPUBLICANS WHO LIKE TO HAVE A GOOD TIME!"

My response:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory133.html

|11.19.07 @ 7:20PM|#

Alright guys, I admit it: I'm a completely biased neocon hack who would sodomize Rudy if given the chance. Please forgive my ignorance. I hereby retract all previous negative statements I have said about Ron Paul, and admit the fact that he is twice the man I will ever be.

|11.19.07 @ 7:23PM|#

It's only economics that Republicans and Libertarians even come close to seeing eye to eye.

And not even that! As someone said above they are credit card conservatives.

I've made this argument before: Even assuming republicans want social control and economic freedom while democrats want social freedom and social control, the worst part of this is that republicans care more for their social agenda than for their economic one, while democrats care more for their economic agenda than their social one: net result... yup, social and economic control, Statism. Authoritarianism. Yup... worst of both worlds indeed.

And sorry, I was not here the day the meme started, what's up with the Donderooooo bit?

SIV|11.19.07 @ 7:26PM|#

It's only economics that Republicans and Libertarians even come close to seeing eye to eye.

Only economics?

Economics covers a rather broad swath of human behavior.Nearly everything flows from property rights- the idea that you own yourself and are free to engage in voluntary activities/exchanges with other self-owned individuals.

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 7:36PM|#

No, no alternate universe. BTW, I think that American Libertarianism, while it may take its economics from the Austrian school, finds most of its historical grounding and claim from American Constitutionalism. Hence, while some of the issue might not be directly Libertarian, they follow from the Constitutionalism that has always been a fairly tight companion to Lib thought in the US.

Overall, the Dems have been better than the Repubs on drugs, civil liberties, and corporate welfare. I didn't say they were saints and angels; all I said was they were better than the Republicans, and at least they pay lip service to those issues the way that Repubs pay lip service to "small government". The difference, I think, is occasionally the dems actually try their rhetoric out.

It was democrats and not republicans who first started talking about drug abuse as a medical rather than a criminal issue and have fairly consistently pushed that direction while repubs were content to stuff the prisons and build more when those got full. On civil liberties, most erosions have been from the drug war (historically a republican policy) and from terrorism-scare measures which, aside from R. Paul, were swallowed whole by repubs. The only significant resistance aside from him, however feeble, came from the democratic side of the aisle. The only one on this I'll give you is the 2nd amendment, and I mentioned that in the original post.

And, in the guise of "privatization", which is repub code for "crony no-bid contract system" repubs are the kings of giving tax money to private interests for, well, no good reason. Again, the dems win, if only marginally.

Come on, SIV, the Republican party has gone so far and deep into the Dark Side that it is painful to see Libertarians still line up like lemmings for them. At least Ron Paul gets to show them something of what a libertarian republican is supposed to look like.

|11.19.07 @ 7:36PM|#

1. Libertarian Party: Eric Dondero

Great. As if they don't have enough problems getting elected already.

Eric Sundwall|11.19.07 @ 7:38PM|#

As a former Conservative Party member in NY and a happily settled LP devotee, I'm hard pressed to find any succor in a Rudy or Hillary choice. Ain't never been an elephant or donkey.

If RP were the miraculous GOP nominee I'd still vote for Donald Duck if that's who the LP ran. Either way Hil takes NY and my vote is tossed into the Electoral College dustbin of history. I'd rather put the vote in the LP column than adhere to any fantasy scenario. A reality soon coming for the RP revolution . . . where will they go after Feb. 5th ? Just home ? Let's hope that the 50K+ Meetup volunteers learn to collect signatures in their own congressional districts and let the next Ron Paul come from that lot of hopefuls. Fifty volunteers at a 100 sigs add up. the LP would be happy to have you . . .

Whatever happened to the good old fashioned protest vote ? That's why I voted for Paul in '88. I have no interest in thinking I'm on the winning side of the existential hell that is either/or voting . . . us niche voters need an outlet too you know.

Of course what old Gordo is suggesting is that the LP change the bylaws on the floor of the convention to entertain another Paul LP run. Whether or not Paul will is the real question. He's better off keeping his seat and being the lifelong gadfly to power that he has always been. Half a million to a million votes is nice for a small state's Senatorial race . . . not much beyond that.

|11.19.07 @ 7:43PM|#

Eric,

I got the impression that you opposed the existence and enforcement of laws against harmless conduct (like seat belt laws, anti-prostitution laws, and those criminalizing the possession / use of marijuana). If that is the correct impression, then how can you support Giuliani who jailed more people for smoking marijuana than any previous or subsequent NYC mayor?

Here's the source: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/167/giuliani.shtml

As for prostitution, well, that became one of Giuliani's "quality of life" offenses, which he vigorously enforced while mayor. He arrested johns and confiscated their cars as contraband. Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/reportsfromabroad/champblog/2007/07/excuse_me_madam_but_your_list.html

How does any of that fit in with your libertarian views?

Thanks,

Spencer

|11.19.07 @ 7:44PM|#

in answer to the thread of Ron Paul is too soft on the war on terror.

The "Islamo-Fascists" should be quaking in their sandals at the prospect of a Paul presidency.
Because.
1. They will have to come to the US which for them is a difficult logistical task. There are very few "fish" in the sea over here for them to swim with in the Maoist sense.
2. While they will happily kill us at this point no matter what we do or where we are some of their financial backers are more discriminatory.
3. As the enemy we provide a unity that could not otherwise exist. Many of them would rather fight perceived Islamic heresy.
4. A successful attack on the U.S. will not result in photogenic cruise missile strikes. It will mean bounty hunters with letters of marquise.
5. Non-interference means just that. It means the US will look the other way and keep on trading with countries that feed them feet first into grinding machines.
6. With Ron Paul all wars will be declared. In the U.S. a declared war means the destruction of all enemy forces and either the annexation or partition of their territory. See Mexican-American War, American Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII. We tried taking Canada in the War of 1812 but didn't quite manage instead settling for a draw where we kept the Louisiana Purchase. Which could have been lost if the British had been able to dictate terms. I'm sure the Brits would have just given New Orleans back after they learned that a peace treaty had already been signed when they captured it.

|11.19.07 @ 7:48PM|#

There is no such thing as Islamo-fascism; such an ideology does not exist. It is part of a propaganda tactic designed to elicit the fear response in the weak-minded and uninformed public. The grand strategy is to extend Imperium Americana into oil-rich lands of Arabia and Persia, but this can only be done with the submission to authority of the population. Since the economic benefits of empire are realized only by a relative few, the people need to be convinced that they are benefiting in some other way. The imaginary war against Islamo-fascism is an idea that appeals to irrational cowards like Dondero; they think that war is benefiting them by ensuring their survival, that they would die if not for the war, but the truth is the opposite. War is the greatest threat to their liberty and survival.

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 7:53PM|#

JParker:

A lot of that sounds great, and #3 is particularly true...however, on #4 (letters of marque), most nations no longer recognize them as legitimate due to the Declaration of Paris; while the US is not a signatory, any such act by the US probably would not be perceived as distinguished from an actual act of war (which is the whole point, to take action short of war).

On #6, I think territorial acquisition as a legitimate endpoint of modern war is neither feasible nor wise. All wars should be declared, though, you are right about that.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 7:55PM|#

Isaac, you display your gross ignorance of Libertarian movement history by implying that the Vietnam War was the reason Libertarians started the LP in 1971.

Ask David Nolan, LP Founder.

Story goes, he was watching the Nightly News, and Cronkite came on and announced that Nixon was imposing wage & price controls. It was that single issue, that led Nolan to call the first meeting of the Libertarian Party in Westminster (not Denver), Colorado, on Dec. 11, 1971.

In addition, the Military Draft was more of an issue to Libertarians at the time, than the Vietnam War.

Anti-War Libertarian propogandists have cleverly spined early Libertarian opposition to the Draft, to opposition to the Vietnam War itself. Not the case at all.

Just ask any of the oldtimers who were around at the time like Dana Rohrabacher or Kevin Bjornsen.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 7:55PM|#

Household item:

Obviously, someone posted a comment under my name about 5 or 6 above this one. Those are not my words.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 7:58PM|#

Please note, as for Anthony Gregory, he's a complete Newbie to the libertarian movement. He popped up his grubby little grad student head in the libertarian movement about 3 or 4 years ago.

He knows nothing about the libertarian movement from the 1970s, 80s and 90s, only what he has heard from extremely biased sources like Justin Raimondo, Rockwell, and Garris.

Gregory likes to think there was never such a thing as the Libertarian Defense Caucus, and that Pro-Defense Libertarianism is something brand new created by me, and a handful of others.

He needs to go back and read some old copies of Reason, LP News and American Libertarian, before he starts spouting off garbage to us oldtimer Libertarians.

Francois Tremblay|11.19.07 @ 8:00PM|#

Why is this Eric Dondero troll not banned yet?

Nash|11.19.07 @ 8:00PM|#

Eric I don't understand how you can declare war on the entire arab world and dump hundreds of billions of dollars into overseas intervention and then claim to be fiscally conservative. Sure you can keep taxes low but that just runs up the deficit which is just taxation on future generations.

If you can explain to me how we can continue to wage these wars and be "fiscally conservative" simultaneously I'll give you a gold star for the day. You can't slash the welfare state and end up in the black either, military expenditures are simply too great.

No, the only solution is to stop the military adventures abroad. Yes the welfare state is unbecoming as well, but tax and spend conservatism is the reason I often vote L in protest. Nation building is too expensive and until the GOP acknowledges this I can't overlook their other shortcomings. Sorry.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 8:04PM|#

the drug war (historically a republican policy)

Holy Christ not this again. You can't be that historically ignorant. You must be trolling, I'll bite:

Drug prohibition is a progressive policy.It began at the Federal level under Wilson.FDR and the New Deal Congress banned marijuana. Tip O'Neil and a Democrat Congress gave us the zero tolerance/mandatory minimum draconian Federal Laws we have today.Clinton's Justice Department
raided Med MJ clinics. The WoDs is bipartisan but the ideology of banning and regulating "dangerous substances" is wholly from "Progressive" tradition.

Freedom4America|11.19.07 @ 8:07PM|#

Dr. Ron Paul is the only Statesman running. As for Ghouliana I would NOT vote for that monster in a million years.

There are over a hundred Firemen that can NOT vote next year and many of their deaths can be blamed on Ghouliana's incompetence and greed. Check the site below.

therealrudy.org/radios?utm_source=rgemail

Forget about the so-called scientific polls that the MSM are showing. They are totally bogus. A Blind Poll was done by Zogby and Dr. Paul received 32.8% of the votes from a total of 1009 hard-line Republicans.

Tomorrow Zogby will be making a Press Release on this on their site. For now you can read the results that the purchaser posted.

truthseeds.org/2007/11/19/ron-paul-wins-latest-zogby-poll/#comment-211

ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country,
Freedom4America

ACJohn|11.19.07 @ 8:08PM|#

Hey Eric,

Thomas Kean Sr. endorses Mccain

ACJohn|11.19.07 @ 8:13PM|#

Forgot, maybe if Rudy read the 911 Commission Report he might have gotten the endorsement

Brian Defferding|11.19.07 @ 8:17PM|#

Rudy thinks Iran is a greater danger to America than Iraq. Now I've disagreed with many candidates on things here or there. But any candidate who says THAT is, quite frankly, a nutbar and isn't worth my time, isn't worth my support, isn't worth my vote. Sorry Eric.

He could be a nice Secretary of Defense though. It would be great comedy. Think of the general in Mars Attacks and you get the idea.

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 8:22PM|#

Perhaps you were asleep (or not yet alive) when the Rockefeller drug laws (what party was he from again?) made drugs from a fourth-tier somewhat-lower-than-parking-ticket prioritized offense to public enemy #1? Both parties abandoned prohibition of alcohol (which was the main target of turn of the century progressives) well before Rockefeller laws became the new war on the 4th amendment.

By the time Clinton meandered into office the entire american political spectrum had slid so far to the right on drugs that no politician could suggest anything but zero-tolerance and hope to retain their seat. However, in the '60s-'80s (particularly the latter half) democrats were still fighting the medicine v. crime fight and republicans had a big ol' stick up their ass. O'Neill had to corral a very unhappy liberal wing of his party to push any legislation on waging the drug war, and many of them didn't vote for it anyway. The Republican opposition during those years? Pretty much...Ron Paul.

And while banning 'dangerous substances' may be a progressive tradition, locking people up and throwing away the key for two-buck crimes is firmly a republican mainstay, and that has pretty much never changed (since, well, TR).

iih|11.19.07 @ 8:23PM|#

Is there an LP Presidential nominee yet?

|11.19.07 @ 8:39PM|#

The "LP was started by Republicans, therefore the LP should align itself with Republicans" argument glosses over one key fact. The former Republicans who started the LP and have served as its Presidential candidates were just that - FORMER Republicans. They LEFT the Republican party.

Ron Paul fled back to the Rs (for good reason as he's not a libertarian - a mostly consistent anti-federalist, but no libertarian) - and the fact that the Neanderthals in the Conservative party are getting all moist about Ron Paul is proof that libertarians should run - not walk - away from him.

|11.19.07 @ 8:42PM|#

According to CNN, Ron Paul has pulled ahead of Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.

|11.19.07 @ 8:43PM|#

If the Libertarian Party could manage to suck it up, declare this Presidential election cycle the exception, and then throw it's support to Ron, then I promise to speak with my people and do the same with the Peaceful Anarchist Party.

(Okay, for the few dull here, there is no Peaceful Anarchist Party, plus I have no "people." In other words, I'm joking.)

|11.19.07 @ 8:44PM|#

"To me, Ron Paul is the leftist cause of his soft pacifist views on fighting Islamo-Fascism. While Rudy who is strong on defense, is more the Right-winger."

Correction... Ron Paul is strong on defense. Rudy is strong on offense and weak on defense.

|11.19.07 @ 8:46PM|#

In regards to #6 I never said we would have to keep it ourselves. We could just as easily break it into smaller states or let other neighboring countries claim it. Like was done to Austria-Hungary and Germany.
In regards to #3 I understand that a Letter of Marquise is thin cover for what would otherwise be considered a terrorist act. That a coordinated American campaign of assassinations could result in international relations problems. But assuming that Ron Paul is unsuccessful at pulling us out of the UN (I believe the Senate would have to approve it) a veto on the Security Council makes you sanction-proof. Besides I don't think Russia or China would care one bit. An attempted sanction by the EU could tear the EU apart.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 8:47PM|#

Perhaps you were asleep (or not yet alive) when the Rockefeller drug laws (what party was he from again?)

New York State Law not Federal.

"Rockefeller Republican" is a synonym for Liberal Establishment Republican and was the preferred slur among Conservatives until it was replaced by RINO.

Republicans and Democrats are equally bad on the WoDs but the ideology behind it is un-equivocally Progressive as opposed to
Conservative.

This "Dems are better on the Drug War" meme crops up every election along with the distortion that Republicans/Conservatives are going to revive the Draft(who supports that now?..."National Service"). I presume it is an attempt to sway some of the apathetic youth vote.

Nash|11.19.07 @ 8:48PM|#

"Ron Paul fled back to the Rs (for good reason as he's not a libertarian - a mostly consistent anti-federalist, but no libertarian)"

RP is a member of the Republican party because that is how manages to get elected to congress and gets a place at the podium in the debates. If he is a libertarian he gets none of these benefits.

It is simply more practical for him to run as a Republican.

Libertarians who refuse to support Paul because he is only 95% libertarian and happens to be pro life and tough on the border need to wake up and realize he's done more for the movement in that last 9 months than the entire party has done in 40 years.

Edward|11.19.07 @ 8:52PM|#

Maybe some smart libertarian can explain to me how racism is collectivism but fundamentalist Christian nationalism isn't. Fundamentalist Christians like Ron Paul divide the world into the colectivities of Christian/non-Christian, Saved/Damned, and all sorts of other absurd dichotomies. Why should we trust this particular wingnut religious fanatic?

Nobody has ever answered my question about Ron Paul's contention that God is mentioned many times in the Constitution. Is he lying or is he just an total ignoramus?

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 8:57PM|#

SIV: The Rockefeller laws were used as the model for Nixon et al.'s WoD. And I don't grant the notion that the WoD is purely of "progressive" ideological stock. Conservatism of the traditional paleo-American sort (the dominant strain for a long, long time) looked upon drugs the way that Puritans looked upon rum, as another assault on good family American life.

Social conservatives were so very happy to ban everything in sight in the name of morality, God, the troops, apple pie, saving marriages, and preventing communism, and to say that this was somehow a Progressive idea alone is quite literally absurd. The constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol had broad support amongst both progressives and social conservatives, and the amendment to repeal the same ironically only got support from the one of those two: progressives.

The only ideology whose hands are mostly clean on the issue of drugs is the libertarian, and even they are wont to account for the effects of drugs that at the point of use negatively affect people who had no role in the choice to partake. While I mostly agree with the libertarian view on drugs, it is somewhat problematic that the ideology has little effective or constructive to say on the halo effects of drug use.

ACJohn|11.19.07 @ 8:58PM|#

Edward,

'Nobody has ever answered my question about Ron Paul's contention that God is mentioned many times in the Constitution. Is he lying or is he just an total ignoramus?"

Where and when?

|11.19.07 @ 9:00PM|#

God was (indirectly) mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, but certainly not Jesus.

In the Constitution, only indirectly at the end as a means of dating ("In the Year of Our Lord 1787"...etc).

SIV|11.19.07 @ 9:03PM|#

Elemonope,

So where are these "liberaltarian" Democrats? Or any leftist who supports Individualism over Collectivism. I asked Neu Mejican this question and all he could come up with was Cynthia McKinney.(that joke is even funnier if you live in her district)

thoreau|11.19.07 @ 9:04PM|#

Nobody wants to answer your questions, Edward. We just want to mock you mercilessly. And we do.

|11.19.07 @ 9:04PM|#

Question to SIV:

Two men are running to be governor of your state. One is Bill Richardson, the other Orin Hatch. Who do you vote for?

|11.19.07 @ 9:04PM|#

Hey, Edward has not answered my question. And my posts are worthy of consideration.

|11.19.07 @ 9:10PM|#

I don't understand why any libertarian would run under the Libertarian Party. Why stack the odds against yourself more than you have to? All libertarians should join the Republican Party. To change the system you have to join the system and change it from the inside out.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 9:12PM|#

Cesar,

I stay home. But to answer your question hypothetically, Richardson is the only option in that pairing.Counter examples would lead to the Republican choice much more often. Jeff Flake and Henry Waxman.... make your choice.

|11.19.07 @ 9:21PM|#

Jeff Flake and Henry Waxman.... make your choice.

Flake, no contest. I guess my point was both parties have their more authoritarian and less authoritarian wings. moralistic Christian Conservatives vs. free market, pork-busting conservatives on one hand, "nanny state" liberals vs. "lifestyle"/civil liberals on the other.

SIV|11.19.07 @ 9:28PM|#

Cesar,

The Party thing kind of confuses the issue.
I imagine there are a few "libertarian-leaning " Democrat Politicians out there in local offices and Western/Southern State legislatures.

I reject any idea of common ground between left-liberals and libertarians on the grounds that leftism is collectivism. Conservatives and libertarians do share an individualist ideology.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 9:30PM|#

Cesar, guess you don't know your Libertarian Party history now do you?

Orrin Hatch was the Keynote Speaker at the Libertarian Party National Convention held in Salt Lake City, UT in 1998 (I might be slightly off on that year.)

So, Bill "Ban smoking everywhere in New Mexico" Richardson vs. Orrin Hatch?

I'll take Hatch, thank you.

|11.19.07 @ 9:31PM|#

I love RON PAUL because he is authentic and is
NOT FOR SALE to the lobbyists. I have never been
so excited about a pres. candidate. GO RON.....

|11.19.07 @ 9:33PM|#

So, Bill "Ban smoking everywhere in New Mexico" Richardson vs. Orrin Hatch?

Medical marijuana is just a tad more important to me than smoking bans.

That aside, you'll vote for Giualiani.....even though he avidly endorsed smoking bans and wants the feds to raid medical marijuana clinics? And hes a gun-grabber?

iih|11.19.07 @ 9:34PM|#

Eric:

You still owe me an apology. I demand it! You, as a patriot, should realize that you have offended a fellow America-loving human being (ma) who serves her so proudly. I insist!

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 9:36PM|#

This one's for rah62,

You've got your facts wrong. Go back and study Libertarian Party history. Ron Paul is NOT the only former LP Prez candidate to rejoin the GOP.

Roger MacBride, 1976 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate rejoined the GOP in 1985. He eventually became the National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus and served in that capacity til his untimely death in 1995.

Dr. John Hospers, the LP's first Presidential candidate from 1972 rejoined the Republican Party, and even very publicly endorsed George W. Bush in 2004. Dr. Hospers was on our Advisory Board for Libertarians for Bush in 2004.

It is heavily rumored that Andre Marrou has also found his way back to the GOP.

Russell Means, who ran against Ron Paul for the LP nomination in 1988, now serves as the South Dakota RLC State Contact.

Those who remain in the LP include: Ed Clark, David Bergland, and Michael Badnarik. Though, notably, Badnarik endorsed Ron Paul recently.

iih|11.19.07 @ 9:37PM|#

"ma" -- "me", duh!

|11.19.07 @ 9:37PM|#

Eric-

Libertarian!=libertarian.

Thanks for playing.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 9:41PM|#

Nash, and what do you think the cost will be to the US Taxpayer if Islamo-Fascists strike again, maybe a dirty bomb in Houston, Chicago or Las Vegas?

How much is a few hundred thousand American lives worth?

Pacifism is as good as telling the Terrorists: "We're weak, we won't fight back, here are the keys to our country... Do as you wish."

The French tried that approach a few times. Didn't work out too well for them.

And I'm sure there were some French taxpayers in the 1910s, 20s, and 30s, who were saying the exact same thing you are today: "What about the costs of building up our Military to fight against the Germans to the French taxpayers?"

Comprenez vous?

|11.19.07 @ 9:44PM|#

And I'm sure there were some French taxpayers in the 1910s, 20s, and 30s, who were saying the exact same thing you are today: "What about the costs of building up our Military to fight against the Germans to the French taxpayers?"

Actually, they spent millions upon millions of txpayer francs on a worthless, inefficent monstrosity known as the Maginot Line which completely failed to stop the Germans from advancing.

And trust me, the f-22 raptor would be about as effective at stopping a group of terrorists with a dirty bomb as the Maginot Line was at stopping German Panzers.

If you think France had low defense spending in the 1930s, you're historically illiterate pal.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 9:45PM|#

Tina, if you think Ron Paul is authentic, you don't know the man very well.

I worked for him as his Top Personal Aide for nearly 12 years. During that time, I watched him go from being a diehard Libertarian Party member to a Buchananite (1992), to a "Bush Republican" (1996), to a leftist populist conspiratorialist (post 2001).

Ron Paul has more stripes than two Zebras in heat.

I liked the 1996 Ron Paul. The current version of RP is doing a great disservice to the Libertarian Republican movement, by making us all seem like a bunch of ghoulie-eyed wierdos.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 9:46PM|#

Okay, what's your point Cesar?

Are you then advocating surrender?

You say that to build up our Military to fight back against Radical Islam is not the answer. Then what is? Capitulation?

iih|11.19.07 @ 9:52PM|#

Comprenez vous?

Oh la la... Monsieur Dondero parle en français!

Monsieur Dondero, vous ne faites pas

|11.19.07 @ 9:53PM|#

Okay, what's your point Cesar?

My point is (a) you shouldn't use historical analogies when you're wholly ignorant of history, and (b) spending more money doesn't automatically buy you protection of you spend it on wasteful, ineffective projects. I guess you didn't get that in the last post.

You say that to build up our Military to fight back against Radical Islam is not the answer.

More money for Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other military contractors isn't the answer. Perhaps, re-allocating money towards emergency services so we will be resiliant and bounce back quickly if another attack comes is. Building more stealth bombers isn't going to stop attacks from happening in the future, Eric. We could, however, focus on using law enforcement and on recovery if another attack happens.

|11.19.07 @ 9:55PM|#

Pacifism is as good as telling the Terrorists: "We're weak, we won't fight back, here are the keys to our country... Do as you wish."

Maybe you should tell our military personnel. You know, most of whom have donated to Dr. Paul? Maybe they feel that they should not fight and die trying to exterminate people that aren't worth a hair on their ass, but feel it's worth it to fight them if they try to come here.

It's worth pointing out, once again, that a non-interventionist policy will likely cause terrorist fundraising to dry up.

iih|11.19.07 @ 9:56PM|#

Damn html tags...

Comprenez vous?

Oh la la... Monsieur Dondero parle en français!

Monsieur Dondero, vous ne faites pas des excuses!

Marc Scott Emery|11.19.07 @ 9:57PM|#

Mayor Giuliani had 283,000 New Yorkers arrested (many jailed overnight for one night minimum) in his 8 year term for marijuana-related offenses, up from 84,000 in the previous 8 years of NYC administration (when non-libertarians Koch & Dinkins were Mayor).

Giuliani has said he will accelerate even those draconian arrest rates once he is President. Giuliani has boasted on the campaign trail, " No one has had more drug users arrested than me. " This is a record and a boast of authoritarianism, or despotism. This is not libertarian in any way whatsoever, certainly not "mainstream libertarianism".

By contrast Ron Paul said he would repeal the entire federal war on drugs, end the Drug Czar's office, terminate the DEA, respect states rights on medical marijuana & industrial hemp. Ron Paul has promised to pardon the pot people, end mandatory sentencing, and is promising, as his 10 term Congressional voting record validates PERFECTLY & CONSISTENTLY, to be completely libertarian in his policies and philosophy regarding personal drug use. He has promised to uphold the Constitution, none of which empowers the US federal government to wage a drug war, or regulate drugs in any way.

Giuliani has not been endorsed by any well known or recognized libertarians for this Presidential election. A person who recommends Giuliani, who has no libertarian tendencies, is ergo, themselves not a libertarian. If Hilary Clinton endorsed a tax cut, does this make her libertarian? Good grief, no.

Eric Dondero is an angry, vicious racist (you should hear the filth he spewed against peaceful US Muslim citizens on his radio show where I was unfortunately a guest who had to hear this cruel invective) with the most deviated idea of libertarianism I have ever beheld. His shilling for Israel is the real reason he supports Giuliani, that and his admiration for a Mussolini-type strongman who promises to annihilate the Islamic world with militarism.

iih|11.19.07 @ 10:00PM|#

Okay, what's your point Cesar?

Are you then advocating surrender?

You say that to build up our Military to fight back against Radical Islam is not the answer. Then what is? Capitulation?

Eric, they called the defense (not the offense department for a reason). Build the wildest, most sophisticated, badest defense system in the world and those terrorist bastards will never be able to harm this country. By going to them we fulfill their wildest dreams of portraying themselves as the defenders of the "ummah". Hence, they recruit more and we only end up with more terrorists!

SIV|11.19.07 @ 10:01PM|#

Eric,

I'm aware of Hatch being "right" on a lot of issues but I have never seen a more frightening defense of the use of State power against individuals than he made on some PBS Frontline documentary.That SOB is pure evil (and I'm one of those, much despised on H&R, "Right-Wing libertarians" ).

Does anyone recall what the piece was?
(I think it was done by Ofra Bikel)

|11.19.07 @ 10:03PM|#

and I'm one of those, much despised on H&R, "Right-Wing libertarians" ).

SIV, then maybe you could get it through Dondero's head why Giuliani is not a libertarian?

iih|11.19.07 @ 10:05PM|#

Marc:

Do you have a link for Dondero's alleged rant (see Dondero, I assume you are innocent until shown otherwise) against Muslim citizens? He's certainly cautious when I am around, except this one time here. He has not apologized yet!

Mike|11.19.07 @ 10:08PM|#

Dr. Paul is well positioned...

http://truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

SIV|11.19.07 @ 10:21PM|#

IMO Giuliani is preferable to Hillary Edwards and Obama as well as Huckabee Romney and McCain but he is no libertarian and has shown no signs of even "leaning" that way. If Dondero wanted to make the case for a "leading" GOP candidate being "mainstream libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning" he should have gone to work for Fred.

|11.19.07 @ 10:32PM|#

Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, bother to respond to Eric Dondero with proof of Rudy's complete disregard of libertarian beliefs. All you will get is him responding to someone else with a bland history lesson of the Libertarian Party, or perhaps the Republican Liberty Caucus, neither having anything to do with the current discussion. Letting Dondero dictate the terms of the debate is a losing proposition. Ignoring him is more profitable.

|11.19.07 @ 10:35PM|#

Dondero being hyperbolic here:

I'm a libertarian, NOT a Conservative like Sean Hannity, yet I'd join him in calling those who oppose the War on Islamo-Fascism as "Liberals." Worse, they're Fascist-Patsies, who want to invite the Islamo-Fascists to invade our country; clothe our women in ugly burqas, throw our marijuana smoking buddies in jail for life, outlaw free speech, make booze and gambling illegal, and stone loose women to death in our town squares.

Wake up! Don't be a coward. We need to win this War on Islamo-Fascism, or we will all be sent off to the gas chambers by the Radical Muslims.

|11.19.07 @ 10:40PM|#

throw our marijuana smoking buddies in jail for life, outlaw free speech, make booze and gambling illegal, and stone loose women to death in our town squares.

Funny, Giuliani probably favors three of the five things Dondero says "Islamofascists" want to do to us.

Marc Scott Emery|11.19.07 @ 10:53PM|#

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian/blog/2007/03

Date / Time: 3/13/2007 6:30 PM
Marijuana Legalization, Guns, Tax Cuts & Immigration
Full Show: Marc Emery, Publisher of Cannibas Culture Mag., Rabbi Adam Bernay on Islamo-Fascism in Europe. Gun rights update. Rep. from Utah Taxpayers Assoc. on School Choice.

Every week it is a pro-Giuliani, Muslim bashing festival on this bizarre radio show purporting (falsely) to be from a libertarian perspective. Eric Dondero is a rude, combative, obnoxious host shedding much more heat than light on any given subject.

iih|11.19.07 @ 10:56PM|#

Marc:

Is it just a matter of being obnoxious, or is he actually dangerous? I'll be in the Houston area in February, should I check behind every door first if he's around? You know I fear for my life. But thanks for the link.

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:02PM|#

Marc:

I am listening to it now. Is his show only online or on actual radio, too?

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:03PM|#

And there are 11 listeners (one of them is Eric). Is that all?

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:06PM|#

One last question, what is playing now (I have not clicked on anything --it just started when I opened the link), is that live? Is that why he's not on the forum now? These damned internets!

Marc Scott Emery|11.19.07 @ 11:07PM|#

I'd never before heard some one on a radio show saying peaceful demonstrators in Michigan were " muslim trash" and "garbage" along with much hysteria about Islamo-fascism. Dondero has already admitted he used those words and he's proud of his Zionist anti-Muslim baiting, so its not like he's ashamed of his corrosive words and opinions, he revels in them.

I thought Dondero's claim to want to protect " our pot smoking buddies " was dumbfounding considering his Duce Giuliani holds the record as the nation's leading incarcerator and arrester of the pot population in his 8 year term. But its all anger and resentment from Dondero, his seething hatred for Ron Paul is proof of that dictum that some people will turn on you in direct proportion to how nice you are to them. I know Dr. Paul was always polite, decent, and gentlemanly to Dondero, and this is how Eric pays back Dr. Paul, with flailing backstabbing and open collaboration with the fascist enemies of a free America.

Its interesting that Eric was on the payroll for several years before being fired, and prior to his termination (with excellent severance pay) obviously did not feel Dr. Paul was getting too extreme enough to merit Dondero actually quitting in protest.

|11.19.07 @ 11:17PM|#

As a longtime Libertarian I sincerely hope my fellow LP members truley understand the significance of Ron Paul's campaign as a Republican to restore Liberty to our Country.

Ron Paul is the best thing we Libertarians have had in a longtime to a Constitutional, Libertarian Presidency!!

Please do everything you can as Libertarians and Americans to help Ron Paul's bid for President, we might not see another one like this for a long time!!!!
Donate to Ron Paul's campaign on Dec 16th with 1000's of others to give Ron Paul a huge financial boost the main stream media can not ignore!!

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:18PM|#

Great! An African American Ron Paul supporter caller just smashed ED saying that the neo-nazis support Ron Paul based on the illegal immigration question and nothing else. Great call in.

ED is stumped! ED and his friends from TN/HI are on the defensive, doing some further smearing of Dr. Paul.

|11.19.07 @ 11:21PM|#

The LP should not run a candidate and should just endorse him already. We don't have the time nor resources to be nitpicking about details. So what if he is pro-life? He's a Federalist first. And Federalism is the answer when things that we as Libertarians espouse are too "sticky" to handle without -some- state control.

Jacob|11.19.07 @ 11:33PM|#

Dondero,

How is going around the world bombing people "defense"? Would you please enlighten me? In particular, I would like to know how putting all of our troops in Iraq enhanced our defense. Maybe then I will understand how Rudy is "strong" on defense and Ron Paul is "weak".

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 11:37PM|#

Aww geez Marc, and I thought we were friends. You were so nice to me when you wanted to come on my radio show. Maybe it was just a ploy to allow you to pawn your rag of a magazine to an American audience.

Well, I guess some gratitude is in order on my part, for introducing Reason H&R readers to Blog Talk's "Libertarian Politics Live" show.

Hey, Reason Editors. Twas not I who gave a shameless plug for my show. It was some Dweeb from Canada.

For the record, Reason's own Brian Doherty has been a guest on LPL, one of our highest rated shows. It's in the archives if any of you all here would like to listen. www.blogtalkradio.com/libertarian. And Angela Keaton, Brian's girlfriend/wife was a guest on the show, as well.

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:37PM|#

Eric's friend guest (or was it ED? not sure): "Do you want to end the war on drugs? Do you want to let all the black people out of prison?"

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 11:39PM|#

Jacob, how is it that doing nothing is "an adequate defense"? Do you wish to just abolish the Military? No response after we were attacked after 9/11?

It's called cajones little boy. Go see if your daddy can lend you some. He obviously didn't pass them down to you, since you are a coward pacifist who runs from rampaging Islamo-Fascists like a little girl.

Elemenope|11.19.07 @ 11:41PM|#

SIV - You can't find any libertarian democrats on the national field, just as you can't find them in the republican field...except Ron Paul, the anomaly, the example that disproves the rule. The only real difference is that democrats are by-and-large not pretending to be something they're not, which the republicans have been doing for decades, and libertarians have by-and-large lined up and dutifully salivated at Pavlov's bell of "small government, I promise!". It was that devil's bargain they made to halt the threat of Global communism (as if the democrats wouldn't), and then they forgot why they made it.

When it comes to "the ideology of the individual", conservatism in America has almost never been about the individual in any duly philosophically respectful way; paleo-cons talk about personal responsibility, but always do so in a way that makes clear that the responsibility is owned of the person to the society, not to other free persons. And, surely enough, when power comes into their hands they are just as willing to crush the individual for the greater good. It seems more palatable to you that when they do so it is cloaked in rhetoric more comfortable to your ideals? Then you've been played.

Libertarianism can just as naturally evolve from a leftist position as a rightist one. I know, as that's where I approached Libertarianism from. I grew up in a liberal household, and still value many of the ideals that come from that tradition: respect for difference, a concern for the downtrodden, a commitment to justice as social healing instead of retribution. However, I slowly began to realize as I got older that the world I wanted to see created could not be forced upon people, and also that the power of the state inevitably corrupts all good intentions. I still care about most of the things all good liberals (tm) care about; I just don't believe that the coercion of the state (nor any other coercion that deprives the action of willful intent) is a proper instrument to create the things I seek.

It is a distortion, both of history and of present reality, to argue that Libertarianism is in better hands or makes better friends with Republicans instead of Democrats, which is what this argument was about from the start. That many of you have drunk the Republican kool-aid is one of the reasons that I have hesitated for so long to call myself a Libertarian. I have no desire to be associated with that party who shares none of my ideals but is willing to lie about it to get elected.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 11:44PM|#

A poster above says that anyone who supports Giuliani or thinks he leans libertarian, is an absolute "idiot."

Hey, just wondering. Does that include Sally Pipes, Research Director at the Pacific Research Inst. and a longtime friend of the Reason Foundation?

Sally is Giuliani's Top Advisor on Health Care, and is widely speculated to be in line for an Administration Post, if Giuliani wins.

Have the courage of your convictions. Is Sally Pipes, and "idiot"?

Oh, and two Cato Institute Fellows just signed on with the Giuliani campaign as well: Ronald Rotunda, and Nicholas Quinn.

Are they idiots as well?

Cato, Pacific Research Inst. they're not libertarian, right?

|11.19.07 @ 11:45PM|#

Your obvious, deep-seated masculinity issues aside Dondero, you are the one who has gone crying to the federal government and Big Daddy Giuliani to protect your from those big bad Muslims.

Eric Dondero|11.19.07 @ 11:46PM|#

Elempope, please explain to us why it is that every single Libertarian Party presidential candidate since 1972, except for 1, has come from the Republican Party?

Just a coincidence?

And you mention Ron Paul as the only elected "libertarian" Republican. What about Jeff Flake, Butch Otter, Sarah Palin, Tom McClintock???

Joshua Holmes|11.19.07 @ 11:51PM|#

Do you wish to just abolish the Military?

After the past 200 years, it sure as shit couldn't hurt.

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:51PM|#

Eric Dondero is now smearing Rockwell on his show!

Eric, I have to give it though, you sound much nicer in real life than you do on H&R.

iih|11.19.07 @ 11:53PM|#

Where's my apology Eric?

Seriously, I promise to listen to your show as much as I can if you do. I might just as well call in some time. But, apologize first!

|11.19.07 @ 11:54PM|#

I'd like to go back to having a small standing army blostered by state militias called up in times of (real--as in declared by Congress war, not pretend/existential "war" against an undefeatable "enemy"). But I mean, thats just crazy talk. Real Men like Dondi think spending billions every year while we borrow money to fund military contractors is a good idea.

|11.20.07 @ 12:06AM|#

Notice, nowhere did the word "abolish the military" or "pacifist" appear in the post I made above. Now, observe as Dondi accuses me of both in his next post. I also expect he will call me a "faggot" or "little girl" or something along those lines. Such a great mind!

ACJohn|11.20.07 @ 12:14AM|#

Happy Holidays Eric,

http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=9553271769

Elemenope|11.20.07 @ 12:23AM|#

Eric Dondero-

The examples you give are a mixed bag at best. As I said, the criteria was national politicians (which excludes governors, being as they are creatures of the states) so Otter and Palin are not really on the table (but if they were, Palin's pretty decent, but Otter sucks from a libertarian point of view.) On Flake, he's pretty good, but he has some lingering paleo baggage that drags him down into bad habits. I don't know enough about McClintock to hazard a guess.

My point, if you have been paying attention, is that I agree with you that Libs and Repubs have been in bed with one another since the beginning of the modern Lib movement. My point is that that relationship has been a basically abusive one, with the battered wives being the libertarians, by far. On many issues Libertarians have more to gain from talking to dems than they do if they keep going back to their old abusive relationships with the pachyderms.

Re: Giuliani, there is nothing I have ever seen or read that convinces me that Giuliani isn't anything other than in love with the power of the state, the increase of police power and police presence in American lives, both for the basically sham reason of fighting "terr'rists" and from the nanny state hysteria reason of busting people for having fun with drugs and hot women who like money for their services. The first time I read you calling him a Libertarian my eyes spun in their socket 360 degrees (it was a painful experience).

Edward|11.20.07 @ 12:34AM|#

Can you really support a candidate who either has never read the Constitution or lies about what's in it?

From The War on Religion by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion.

Charlie|11.20.07 @ 12:39AM|#

Marc Scott Emery-

I listened to the podcast of you on Dondero's show, and I have to say you are a better man than me. Listening to Dondero's racist diatribe about not allowing Muslim immigration into this country because he doesn't like "their culture" was truly nauseating, as was the assertion that "they" hate "us" because of Britney Spears, not because, say, the United States has been propping up dictators and bombing countries in the Middle East since at least 1953.

And his substantive criticisms of Ron Paul? "He looks old..." "He has bad knees..." "He has no sense of humor" (that last one is considered to be a "vital" attribute according to our resident political scholar).

After all of Dondero's anti-Paul screeds, the most damning anti-Paul fact I can come up with is that, at one point, he employed Eric Dondero. Somebody needs to ask the Texas Congressman just what the fuck he was thinking.

Edward|11.20.07 @ 12:39AM|#

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is it men cannot be made to believe!

-Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, April 22, 1786. (on the British regarding America, but quoted here for its universal appeal.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Edward|11.20.07 @ 12:48AM|#

"The case, however, is, that the Bible will not bear examination in any part of it, which it would do if it was the Word of God. Those who most believe it are those who know least about it, and priests always take care to keep the inconsistent and contradictory parts out of sight." --Thoma Paine "The Tower of Babel," The Prospect, 24 March 1804

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." --Thomas Paine "An Answer To A Friend Regarding The Age Of Reason," The Prospect, 12 April 1804

Edward|11.20.07 @ 12:50AM|#

Those piously religious Founding Fathers are a figment of Ron Paul's Christian nationalist imagination.

Elemenope|11.20.07 @ 1:05AM|#

Edward, you seem to be rehashing obliquely what all of us already know--religion and the founding fathers made uncomfortable bedfellows. That was the gestalt of the times; Thomas Paine was an outspoken Atheist, and the others were various shades of deist, pantheist, and unitarian.

Ron Paul misspoke if he asserted that the US Con is replete with references to God, as it obviously does not. However, I imagine the guy has a better practical understanding of its intended use since he manages to vote more consistently for a federal separation of power from the states, and for curtailing the expansionistic excesses of both the bureaucracy and the assertion of congressional authority. Of the candidates, I'd expect Paul, Obama, Giuliani, Edwards, and H. Clinton to have the greatest familiarity with the constitution in a technical sense, since Paul has made it his business to take its text seriously and the others were practicing lawyers and/or law professors of significant repute. Of those, only Paul and Obama have given any indication they actually care what the constitution says.

Of course, the only candidate so far this race that has said anything approaching sensible regarding religion in politics has been Obama, who argued quite pointedly that religion is next to useless in designing policy not because revelation is not important, but simply because it is personal and its logic is ineffable. In a pluralistic society, a constituent deserves that public policy be discussed in terms that are universally accessible; the language of faith and the revelations that accompany its practice do not lend such a universal vocabulary, and so cannot inform a policy debate in which everyone ought to be invited to partake.

Since Paul has widely and repeatedly abdicated the temptation to use the fed as a power bludgeon to Christianize any part of American life, I consider him with few reservations to be almost as safe as Thomas Paine on actually preserving some sense of religious freedom.

Edward|11.20.07 @ 1:12AM|#

Elemenope,

I must say you're very tolerant of Ron Paul's stupid distortion of the Founding Fathers' views on religion and the contents of the Constitution. Don't you think Ron Paul wants the same thing for America he claims the Founding Fathers wanted?

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."--Ron Paul "The War on Religion

Edward|11.20.07 @ 1:20AM|#

In any case, if Ron Paul is such a champion of the Constitution, he must know it very well. Doesn't that mean that he's lying about its many references to God? What sort of person lies about such matters? Does he think we can't read?

Duckman|11.20.07 @ 1:22AM|#

"After all of Dondero's anti-Paul screeds, the most damning anti-Paul fact I can come up with is that, at one point, he employed Eric Dondero. Somebody needs to ask the Texas Congressman just what the fuck he was thinking."

Now THAT truly is a scandal!

Oh, and Edward, in reference to this:

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

I think Ron Paul is suggesting the state should shrink to be even less important than churches, not that the churches should grow to be more important than this form of state.

I also agree that Ron Paul, despite his religiosity, will fairly apply his libertarian ideals and keep alive the spirit of religious freedom.

Edward|11.20.07 @ 1:24AM|#

Duckman,

Why trust an obvious liar?

Elemenope|11.20.07 @ 1:28AM|#

Edward, it's pretty simple from where I sit. People can endorse all the silly ideas they wish (and I'm quite sure I hold many that many others consider silly). The measure of a man for political office is not merely the simple calculus of his/her position papers and ideological commitments...it is differential equation of weighing the motion of that variable over against their reticence or willingness to use the powers of office to remake things to conform to their desires.

I think many of Ron Paul's personal ideas on how America should be and where its ideas originated are downright silly. However, he is the only candidate on the board who has repeatedly demonstrated by word and action that he is reticent to a fault in imposing those silly ideas on the nation. That means, for me, he wins. Duckman got it in one; why do I care if R. Paul believes that churches will be more important than the fed in the preferred future of a neutered fed? All I care about is a fed cut down to size...what rushes into the vacuum is a fight for a future time.

I like Ron Paul more as the federal government reset button. It captures the same sentiment of ThJ's "refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots" through periodic revolution...without all the messy bloodshed that all entails. We need a fresh start, which means tearing down all the cruft that has been accumulating on the edifice of federal government. Paul can throw a wrench in there...he's my guy. If he doesn't make it, I'm voting for a democrat (except Hillary!), because when it comes down to statism I'll take left-nanny state over right-nanny state any day of the week if those are the only options left.

Edward|11.20.07 @ 1:32AM|#

Elemenope,

Amazing.

|11.20.07 @ 7:01AM|#

"Oh Isidur, I'm so sorry. Did I forget to mention a teensy weensy little fact about Giuliani?

HE CUT TAXES 23 TIMES AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK!

And he slashed the welfare rolls.

Don't like endorsements? Don't like surveys?

Fine. Look at the record.

And Giuliani's record of fiscal conservatism is quite strong."

Yeah, and his respect for that pesky 4th Amendment is pretty WEAK, sometimes that pesky Constitution issue concerns us, you know.

|11.20.07 @ 7:51AM|#

HE CUT TAXES 23 TIMES AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK!

FactCheck.org makes short worl of debunking that chestnut.

Former NYC mayor takes credit for too many tax cuts.

Eric, have fun rewriting the history of the LP and the libertarian movement. Big Brother will reward you handsomely, I'm sure.

|11.20.07 @ 8:27AM|#

Great. Looks like Eric and Edward ruined what could have been an interesting discussion.

I have always said that any place that promotes free speech should not ban any poster, but look... these guys are tantamount to yelling "fire" in a movie theater.

If we can't ban them, can someone tell me how to block their posts?

Thanks again...

Mad Max|11.20.07 @ 9:00AM|#

". . . the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God . . ." Declaration of Independence, Preamble

". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ." Declaration of Independence, Preamble

". . . a firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence . . ." Declaration of Independence, resolving paragraph

". . . the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth . . ." Constitution, conclusion of main text

If you think that the reference to "our Lord" in the Constitution is simply a throwaway line, a meaningless bit of ceremonial deism: Why is the politcally-correct crowd trying to replace "Year of our Lord" with "Common Era" if the terminology is so meaningless? And if "Year of our Lord" is meaningless, what about the reference to the twelfth year of the independence of the USA? Is that, too a throwaway, meaningless line?

|11.20.07 @ 9:07AM|#

Guys, Just ignore Eric. He is a little snake who was fired by Ron Paul. His whole mission is to prove how stupid he is. Trust me, I had the disgrace of once knowing him. Strange Duck!

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:15AM|#

Yeah Isaac, thanks for pointing that opinion piece from a liberal magazine out to us.

I guess that's why the NY Times said of Giuliani:

"He's not even a real Republican. He's more of a budget slashing, welfare cutting, extremist Ayn Randian."

Must have been those "exagerrated" tax cuts that earned Giuliani the label of "Ayn Randian" from the Times, 'eh?

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:17AM|#

Ron Paul not only employed me, he employed me for 12 years, as his Personal Assist./Travel Aide, Scheduler, Campagain Coordinator - Twice, and Senior District Aide.

"Eric, your enthusiasm for liberty is infectious. Stay that way. Your help is deeply appreciated." -- US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:25AM|#

Elemenpope, I would argue exactly the opposite when it comes to the Libertarian-Republican relationship for the last 30 to 40 years or so. Yes, it has been abusive. But it's mostly been abusive from the Libertarian side towards the GOP. Libertarians are foaming at the mouth, vicious cynics when it comes to the subject of the Republican Party.

Why shouldn't the GOP react with skepticism. After all, who wants people at your meetings who do nothing but bash you and call you a "fascist"?

Yes, I agree, there was a time in the 1980s and the early 1990s, when the Republican Party was not a warm and welcoming environment for libertarians. The Reagan era was the worst time to be a libertarian Republican IMHO. The Cons were feeling their oats, "we don't need you damn libertarians..." and all.

I personally experienced it when I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus in Florida in 1990.

That was the Gov. Bob Martinez years. He was a god awful fanatic Pro-Lifer Republican. His people were downright nasty towards libertarians and social moderates.

The only people in the Florida GOP in the early 1990s, who would have anything to do with us libertarians were the tiny band of Pro-Choice Republicans and a few of the Moderates(Ann Stone, Marlene Woodson-Howard, et.al.)

But we libertarians fought and fought for a place at the table (in Florida). Jeb Bush even made some kind remarks about us, and even once or twice called himself a "libertarian" in front of the Young Republicans.

Nowadays, the Republican Liberty Caucus is one of the most respected GOP organizations in the State of Florida.

The RLC has come a long, long way, (mostly due to the leadership of Phil Blumel.)

You are correct about the GOP in the past. But these days the door is wide open for libertarians.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:29AM|#

ihh, I'll gladly apologize to you for whatever, as soon as you post your real name and not some stupid-ass initials like ihh. What in the hell does that mean, ihh?

And wuzzup with people on this forum? Why do so many post under assumed names?

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 9:29AM|#

Dondero may be right about a lot of things, but he is certainly WRONG WRONG WRONG about his characterization of libertarianism as "Republicans who want to have a good time." The commitment to economic AND personal freedom must be principled enough that you can't toss either of them aside to support a neo-fascist like Ghouliani just because you're afraid of the big bad boogeyman.

And I have to say -- I'm a "newbie" to a lot of political things. I wouldn't try to dictate LP history to Dondero or anyone else (mostly 'cause I don't give a crap), but a person either understands principle or they don't. Dondero is never more irritating than when pulling out the whole grizzled "back in my day we wore an onion on our belts, 'cause there was a war on..." I can tell you I would never stand aside and let some clown like Dondero have the floor just because he's an "oldtimer."

Finally, YES -- there ARE pro-defense libertarians. Don't concede the point to neo-cons like Dondero. EVERY Paulite believes in a strong national defense. History proves that the USA took on the imperial mantle of Britain and France in the Middle East. They were glad to give it to us. And we have become weaker and more vulnerable as a result. There may be some serious obstacles along the way, but fearmongers like Dondero and Ghouliani will never allow us to deal with the root causes of our national vulnerability.

I might say I do think Paul is a little soft on some defense issues, but there is a huge, huge spectrum between him and the neocons. Dondero is vain enough to believe that it is either/or -- Paul or Dondero (with Dondero imagining himself as the last bastion of freedom). But there are many, many places on the spectrum. Am I wrong, Eric?

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:34AM|#

Elemenpope, you say, "Butch Otter is no libertarian". Really?

I think if you polled Libertarians 99% of them would call him that, and would even say he's better than Sarah Palin.

Facts:

Otter was featured on the front cover of Reason Magazine a year and a half ago, as a "libertarian" Congressman running for Governor.

Otter was a friend of the Idaho Libertarian Party for decades as Lt. Gov. and then as a Congressman, even attending two of their conventions as a guest speaker.

Otter has been calling himself a "libertarian" for decades.

Otter is on record in support of "alternatives to the War on Drugs."

Otter is one of a few Republican Congressmen who voted against the Patriot Act, due to privacy concerns. (Not saying I agree with his vote.)

Otter has been repeatedly called a "libertarian" by the Idaho press since he became Governor, for his repeated proposals to slash government agencies. Democrats have attacked him viciously for this.

iih|11.20.07 @ 9:37AM|#

Eric:

ihh, I'll gladly apologize to you for whatever, as soon as you post your real name and not some stupid-ass initials like ihh. What in the hell does that mean, ihh?

I think that this is good progress. I will give it to you. I have a sense of aversion towards the internet. I do not feel entirely secure on it. For one thing, if I do not understand how it works (and I certainly do not), I would not feel secure about it. God knows what people are capable of doing. Any unfriendly or hostile attacks on me could be bad for my career (which I have indicated in the linked post upthread is quite secure, but would do well without the negative publicity). Of course, I am not talking about you. I am talking about others who may be sinister.

In any case, you made your intention clear that you would apologize if I gave my name. But what is in a name? I will consider the apology delivered. Thank you. Friends? ;-)

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:38AM|#

To DR:

Firstly, how can a NeoCon be Pro-Choice? Is there such a thing as a "NeoCon for Legalized Drugs"? Or "NeoCons for Prostitution & Gambling"?

Secondly, Libertarians ARE essentially "Republicans who like to have a good time." That's what libertarian guru pegged us (and him) as for years in the 1990s with all his books like the classic "Republican Party Reptile." PJ is a regular at Reason Foundation and Cato Institute banquets.

Do you wish to claim that PJ isn't a "libertarian"?

I'm not the one who came up with that phrase. It was PJ O'Rourke. And in the 1990s O'Rourke was universally accepted as the Number One libertarian in the Nation.

ACJohn|11.20.07 @ 9:38AM|#

"Eric Dondero

Yeah Isaac, thanks for pointing that opinion piece from a liberal magazine out to us.

I guess that's why the NY Times said of Giuliani:"

Well if the NY Times printed that, being the bastion of Libertarian/Conservative thought that it is, you have converted me.

John
Typing knee deep in sarcasm

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:39AM|#

Friends, but how 'bout you sending me a private email with your name at ericdondero@yahoo.com

Or at the very least give us your first name. I can't stand responding to initials.

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 9:41AM|#

I might also add that Dondero's argument about the "connection" between the GOP and LP is unconvincing. Every polity in the world bring parties into coalition with one another. The reason minor parties appear more subservient in the USA is because we have a polity that favors the already established parties and makes it harder for small parties to be represented. It is systemic, not ideological.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:44AM|#

Sure ACJohn, I knew some of you would come back and say the Times is liberal.

However, kind of shows how out-of-the-mainstream libertarians are these days, doesn't it?

The NY Times, which is regarded by the left as only "moderately liberal" calls Giuliani an extremist government slashing, "Ayn Randian."

Libertarians here at H&R call Giuliani a "gun grabbing, tax raising Fascist."

Well, which is it?

Truth, like always, is somewheres in the middle. No, Giuliani is certainly no extremist libertarian. Nor is he some sort of authoritarian.

He's a basic Moderate Northeastern Republican with lite libertarian leanings.

And folk, that's the best we can ever, ever hope for in American politics.

A hardcore libertarian like say Jeff Flake or Butch Otter or Tom Coburn or Mark Sanfod, will never be elected President of the United States. The press would slaughter them as a "radical government slashing extremist libertarian."

Giuliani scores a 60/60 on the ontheissues.org survey. That's what he is. He's right on the edge of the Moderate and Libertarian Quadrants, (a lot like Arnold and CA Cong. David Dreier and Jack Kemp too.)

Face it, that's the best we're ever going to get in our lifetimes.

iih|11.20.07 @ 9:45AM|#

I like PJ a lot. I got to know of him first from Wait Wait Don't Tell Me. He's hilarious.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:46AM|#

So DR, then why didn't a Democrat found the Libertarian Party?

And why haven't a single Democrat State Legislator in the last 35 switched to the LP?

And why haven't there been any former Democrats running for President on the LP ticket?

|11.20.07 @ 9:47AM|#

"Libertarians ARE essentially "Republicans who like to have a good time."

A leftist aquaintance of mine once told me that libertarians are "thinking Republicans".

iih|11.20.07 @ 9:47AM|#

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:47AM|#

ihh, I am a 100% PJ O'Rourke libertarian Republican.

You've seen the bumper stickers. My credo is slightly different:

"If PJ O'Rourke said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

In my mind, he's the second greatest living libertarian of all-time, next to Dana Rohrabacher.

And he's a Republican!

iih|11.20.07 @ 9:50AM|#

Damned html tags...

Friends, but how 'bout you sending me a private email with your name at ericdondero@yahoo.com

OK, why don't you give me a name. You know that I am of Arab origin and that I am Muslim. Choose your favorite Arab Muslim name and give it to me. OR, how about my grand father's name, just call me Ali.

I would really never secure giving anyone my name online. I have zero tolerance policy about this.

adrian|11.20.07 @ 9:50AM|#

I think Dondero has some major daddy issues with respect to dr. paul. It is pretty sad watching this.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:50AM|#

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question I posed late last night.

If Giuliani is such an "idiot" and such an opponent of libertarians, than why is it that Sally Pipes, Research Director for the Pacific Research Inst. (aligned with Reason), is on Giuliani's Campaign Team?

And why is it that two Cato Scholars have just signed up with Giuliani?

|11.20.07 @ 9:51AM|#

"So DR, then why didn't a Democrat found the Libertarian Party?"

"And why haven't a single Democrat State Legislator in the last 35 switched to the LP?"

"And why haven't there been any former Democrats running for President on the LP ticket?"

There are former Democrats who have joined the Libertarian Party. They are usually Democrats who have learned that welfare is not where it's at.

iih|11.20.07 @ 9:51AM|#

And he's a Republican!

I am not anti-Republican. I am anti-stupidity --Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. Stupid irrational human action is what gets us humans in trouble.

iih|11.20.07 @ 9:52AM|#

If Giuliani is such an "idiot" and such an opponent of libertarians, than why is it that Sally Pipes, Research Director for the Pacific Research Inst. (aligned with Reason), is on Giuliani's Campaign Team?

And why is it that two Cato Scholars have just signed up with Giuliani?

Because this is still the land of the free. May be?

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Eric -- I won't give you my name, but as you have showed up to talk for real, I will apologize for my personal attacks on you earlier and will refrain from that in the future.

1) About neo-cons: The defining characteristic of a neo-conservative is a pro-America, militaristic Idealist foreign policy based on reshaping the global map by force. So, can a neo-con be pro-choice? Maybe not in principle, but in practice.

But specific to Giuliani, he is an archetypical neo-conservative: a Democrat who took on some free market ways. But underlying that transition is a continuing love for power. Giuliani's pro-choice commitment is probably nothing more than a) political expedience or, at the most, b) a pet issue disconnected from a principled view of liberty. I had hopes for Giuliani too, Eric, but if you look at his long, long public record you can't turn away from the type of man he is -- a proto-typical neo-con. The fact that his foreign policy advisor council is made up of Podhoretz and other neo-cons only bolsters my point.

2) As for the "Republicans who like to have fun": this is a catchy phrase to be sure, and it doesn't surprise me that O'Rourke coined it. But it just SOUNDS like something that was created to tickle the ears as a sound byte. And in NO WAY should those types of statements ever replace a deep study of principle. PJ is not an architect of liberty, despite what others may have said about him (people say Giuliani is a lib, but, even putting aside foreign policy, he is NOT). Give me Hayek, Friedman, Hart, Berlin and Nozick.

I find your appeals to O'Rourke's status as "number one" characteristic of your appeals to authority. I find that disturbing.

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 9:53AM|#

See, this is what I'm talking about -- you don't argue IDEAS, Eric -- you DROP NAMES and play to authority. It's unconvincing.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Answer the questions Rattle Snake Jake.

Where are the "Libertarian Democrat" state legislators in the LP? I came name you 8 former legislators who came from the GOP who are now Libertarians. Not a single former Democrat.

Where's the "Libertarian Democrat" Presidential candidate? 35 years of the LP, and every single LP Prez candidate, save one came from the GOP. Oh, and that one exception was an Independent NOT a Dem.

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 9:55AM|#

To answer your question, Eric: people from think tanks join presidential campaigns so that their ideas will have influence. Giuliani is perceived to be the frontrunner, so people cut him slack. Moreover, I work with people all the time who I profoundly disagree with but I can work with them on ONE issue.

You have to get past the name dropping to see the truth, Eric.

ACJohn|11.20.07 @ 9:56AM|#

Eric,

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/121958.html

Yep Rudy is a freedom loveing Libertarin

Edward|11.20.07 @ 9:58AM|#

If we can't ban them, can someone tell me how to block their posts?--Taktix

Yeah, when you support an Christian nationalist creep like Ron Paul, it's a bummer when those blinkers slip down, isn't it?

|11.20.07 @ 10:00AM|#

"A hardcore libertarian like say Jeff Flake or Butch Otter or Tom Coburn or Mark Sanfod, will never be elected President of the United States."

Tom Coburn, a hardcore libertarian? He's too conservative on social issues and foreign policy.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Aha! Gotcha DR, you're screwed. You can't answer the question. You know that there really is no such thing as a Pro-Choice NeoCon. Kind of ruins your neat little template now doesn't it.

There are three legs to the political ideology stool:

Economics
Social Issues
Foreign Policy/Defense

A NeoCon would be someone who is Moderate on Economic issues, Conservative on Social Matters, and Interventionist on Foreign Policy.

A Pro-Defense Libertarian would be someone who is Free Market on Economic issues, Tolerant on Social Matters, and Interventionist on Foreign Policy.

That's a big difference there.

A Pro-Defense Libertarian would be: Dennis Miller, PJ O'Rourke, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, John Hospers, Tammy Bruce, Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, William Weld, et.al.

A NeoCon would be Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, et.al.

Now you tell me, would the likes of Meese, Kristol, Barnes and Bauer feel comfortable in the same room as cigar-chomping, occasionally marijuana-smoking, poker playing, cussin', two-girls on one arm PJ O'Rourke or Dennis Miller?

Not only NOT, BUT HELL NO!!

Again, there's no such thing as a libertarian NeoCon. They are two near polar opposites on the political spectrum. Granted, they may be two extremes of the Republican Party, but that's where the association ends.

|11.20.07 @ 10:02AM|#

Enough with the fucking history lessons already. We all know that Rudy is a gay-hating anti-abortion fundy x-tian, because otherwise why would Pat Robertson endorse him.

ISN'T THAT YOUR ENTIRE FUCKING ARGUMENT, YOU FUCKING TOOL DONDERO?

When I need Sally Pipes to tell me how to fucking think, I'll let her know.

|11.20.07 @ 10:02AM|#

Yeah Isaac, thanks for pointing that opinion piece from a liberal magazine out to us.

Eric, facts do not change because they are stated by liberal sources.

So, yes, taxes were cut twenty-three times during Rudi's tenure but he only initiated about a third of those cuts.

And as for cutting welfare, almost every mayor and governor in the country cut welfare at the same time. Oddly enough it had something to do with virtually the entire country enjoying one of the most intense periods of prosperity in its history.

Democrats like to give Bill Clinton the credit but that's as much bunk as giving it to Giulianni.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:08AM|#

DR, but these people are associated with LIBETARIAN think tanks. We're NOT talking Heritage, or American Enterprise Inst. here. We're talking Reason and Cato.

As hardlined as libertarians are, don't you think that the bosses at Cato and Reason (Ed Crane, Dave Boaz, Bob Poole, et.al.) would have a shitfit if their employees signed up with say the Hillary Clinton campaign?

They'd not only fire them, they'd run them out of town.

The big bosses at these think tanks know that Giuliani has some strong libertarian leanings. They know he's someone they can work with.

Hell, three weeks ago, Mike Tanner (a diehard longtime Libertarian Party member), who is Cato' #1 Policy Advisor on Health Care Reform, wrote an incredibly favorable article (I believe in the WSJ?) about Giuliani and his Health Care Reform proposals.

Can you imagine someone from Cato doing the same for Hillary Cliinton?

Cato, Reason, Pacific Research Inst., Manhattan Inst., and numerous other libertarian/free market think tanks nationwide know that Giuliani is someone who has an open ear to free market ideology, and to some extent, even leans libertarian.

It's not just cause he's the frontrunner.

Romney is the frontrunner in NH and IA. You don't see any libertarian think tankers rushing to his campaign do you?

|11.20.07 @ 10:08AM|#

I apologize for my tone in that last post. I forgot to take my medicine. I don't apologize for the basic gist of it, though, because all Dondero gives us is history lessons and arguments from authority and it's fucking tiresome.

VM|11.20.07 @ 10:09AM|#

Taktix:

Eric the 1/2 a Bee has a greasemonkey filter for Firefox that would do the job.

love and kisses,
Not a Ron Paul Supporter

(that's just for Edweirdo's benefit)

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:10AM|#

I guess the Giulani bashers here are losing it.

Now Giuliani is a "Gay hating, Pro-Life, Religious Right extremist."

Wow! First Giuliani is too socially tolerant, and now he's too socially intolerant.

An amazing fella that Giuliani.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:12AM|#

John-David, is there something wrong with history lessons?

Shouldn't a political movement hold true to its orginal tenats? Or, should they just throw caution to the wind, and just go with the flow.

Upp!! Today libertarian should mean this. Never mind what it meant 10 years ago. And while we're at it, let's purge all those oldtimers in the movement.

|11.20.07 @ 10:19AM|#

Good hell, Eric, you're the one getting away from the original "defend America - avoid intervention and empire" tenet.

Ah, fuck it, it's not really any fun any more.

Fluffy|11.20.07 @ 10:23AM|#

Eric -

Please produce evidence that Rand or Goldwater would have supported torture, concentration camps, and collective punishment, or stop associating your political position with theirs, please.

Do you think that I have forgotten your advocacy of collective punishments and genocide in that thread a couple of days ago?

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Eric, come on... you're being sloppy:

Your Lib/Neo-Con template is very nice in theory. However, I never fundamentally disagreed with you. What I am saying is:

1. That the pro-choice position, especially when it has been sliced and diced the way Ghouliani's has, is not sufficient to make one a libertarian. The proof: Fred Thompson refuses to endorse a pro-life constitutional amendment because of his federalist beliefs. This does not make Fred a "libertarian"; it makes him a conservative who believes in federalism. But it is the same "pro-choice" position that Ghouliani has campaigned on!!!

2. Pretty much everyone but dovish liberals believes in some sort of national defense, even if that means no foreign bases and only a National Guard. BUT -- this does not mean that "pro-defense" libs share anything in common with today's neo-cons. Yes, Goldwater was wildly obsessed with fighting the Communists. But the neo-cons are set apart not by the desire for DEFENSE, but to REMAKE THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THEIR IDEOLOGY. It is an IMPERIAL philosophy -- and even Goldwater never went that far. Goldwater believed in DEFENSE. Neo-cons believe in OFFENSE. If you have read Ghouliani's Foreign Policy article, you will know that this is what he believes.

Finally, Michael Tanner is my case in point: I doubt that Tanner cares for much about Ghouliani, but he is willing to work with him on the healthcare issue. I have no doubt that this is the same rationale for the other think tanks. Ghoul does have free market inclinations, but that does not in itself make him a libertarian.

The reason Tanner wouldn't write an article for Hillary is because she would never propose a free market solution. But Tanner could write an article for Romney, McCain, Paul or Tancredo b/c their plans are basically interchangable.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:34AM|#

DR, you're getting sloppy. I can rip you a new one on every single one of your points. But I'll only address a couple.

1. I'm Pro-Defense too. I was all in favor of minding our own business in the 1990s, up until that fateful day of Sept. 11, 2001. Then balls to the wall, kill the living shit out of everyone connected with the attack, their families, their friends, and burn their mother fucking villages down to the ground.

Nation building? Yeah, that's nice and all. It'd be nice if Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries, could become democracies. But that's not the be all and end all, and certainly NOT my main motivation. My motivation is REVENGE!!!

2. You assert "pretty much everyone believes in national defense, even dovish liberals."

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!!!

That's a load of horsecrap. Very few of you here believe in even the smallest of national defenses. None of you provides a prescription for defending us against Islamo-Fascism. You avoid the question like the plague, with some admittedly occasional references to the nutty idea of Marque & Repisals.

I would not categorize your views in any manner, shape or form as "pro-national defense." They're exactly opposite. Your pacifistic views are pro-surrender.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:37AM|#

Fluffy, let's get you on the record:

Do you or do you not believe that water-boarding is "torture"?

Do you or do you not believe that sitting individuals in a gas chamber for 10 minutes and making them remove their gas masks is "torture"?

Is blaring Heavy Metal music into a jail cell with the lights on 24/7 "torture"?

Waking someone up in the middle of the night, or super early like 4:00 am?

How about forcing someone to do 50 push-ups?

If you answer yes to any or all of these questions, you are essentially saying that the United States Military engages in torture of its own recruits.

The Democratic Republican|11.20.07 @ 10:39AM|#

And now we plunge into the heart of Dondero's psychological and ideological issues. You can be motivated by revenge all you want, but that does not make a foreign policy. You may want "liberty" in your personal life, but you have no right to try to create political distinctions based on your desire for revenge.

About my views: shut your stupid mouth. You don't know what I believe. In your mind, it's Dondero = Ghouliani = National Defense. I've got news for you, pal -- you aren't the standard bearer of national defense. And I won't waste my breath talking about all the reasons you're wrong. You're a rabid fundamentalist who's so scared he's going to get blown up that he'll kill everyone else in the world to save his own sorry hide.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 10:45AM|#

I have to jump off here for now.

But, here's my fundamental point, that nobody has addressed:

Standard "Reagan" Conservative = Fiscal Conservative, Social Conservative, and interventionist on Foreign Policy

NeoCon = Centrist on Economic issues, Social Conservative, and interventionist on Foreign Policy

Pro-Defense Libertarian = Fiscal Conservative, Socially Tolerant, and interventionist on Foreign Policy

Pacifist Libertarian = Fiscaly Conservative, Socially Tolerant, and non-interventionist on Foreign Policy

Now I ask you. What relationship does Pro-Defense Libertarianism have to do with "NeoConnism"?

Yes, Pro-Defense Libertarians are closer to Reagan Republicans. But nowheres near NeoCons.

Pro-Defense Libertarians or "Goldwaterites" are Centrists on the overall Right, half-way between Radical Libertarians and Reagan Conservatives.

Giuliani?

Fiscally Conservative, Socially Centrist, Interventionist on Foreign Policy

So Giuliani is a half a degree away from Pro-Defense Libertarians, and only a degree away from even Radical or Non-Interventionist Libertarians.

Interestingly enough, he's also only a degree away from Reagan Conservatives.

And he's a degree away from NeoCons.

You might say he'd make the Perfect Republican Presidential candidate for 2008.

Bye for now...

iih|11.20.07 @ 10:59AM|#

Eric,

You don't have any favorite Arabic Muslim names to call me by? I suggested Ali, do you like that one? It is my (grand father's) name.

|11.20.07 @ 11:02AM|#

I can't even begin to express my disgust for Eric Dondero. The idea that you would turn on someone like Dr. Paul just sickens me.

What is this war on Islamofacism? Its blatantly false. Made up. Are you really scared of terrorists? I know I'm not. I know that I have a greater chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a terrorist.

What I do know though, is that the more we meddle in the Middle East and pretend American foreign policy is benign instead of blatantly malignant to our national security and economic health, the more likely it is that we'll be attacked again, and again, and again.

Lead the world through example. Look at China. Yes, there are still grave humanitarian concerns in China, and they still have a dictator. Yet, our trading with them had made them realize how profitable the free market is, and because of these free markets, their country is gradually becoming more and more free. The free market produces greed, but in order to acquire wealth, it requires a certain amount of individual freedom. The freer you make a people, the greater the wealth coming in will be.

My family has donated thousands to Dr. Paul's campaign so far this year. I've donated several hundred, as much as I can afford thus far. But I can guarantee you my commitment won't end there. If he doesn't secure the nomination we'll be donating thousands more for his Congressional campaign, too. You don't have a chance.

|11.20.07 @ 11:04AM|#

One last thing. Your definitions are incorrect. There is no such thing as a pro-defense Libertarian who believes in an interventionist foreign policy. Those who believe in intervention are NOT LIBERTARIANS.

Warfare causes poverty and the loss of freedom, personal property, money, and life back home.

Those are NOT libertarian views. Those are fascist neoconservative viewpoints.

Attempting to run the rest of the world how we see fit is the complete antithesis to libertarianism.

You sicken me.

|11.20.07 @ 11:15AM|#

I realize you're gone for the day (or whatever) Eric, but maybe you'll come back and see this.

I love history lessons. The problem is you can't base an argument on who was there when the LP was founded, particularly to legitimize a candidate who is running today, not 30 years ago.

The only other argument you bring when it comes to Rudy's "libertarian credentials" is that some authority said he's Randian, or a "moderate libertarian", or whatever. Or, because Sally Pipes is affiliated with him. Strange how that only works one way, though. You'd think Pat Robertson's affiliation would say as much as Pipes, but that would kind of destroy your whole argument.

|11.20.07 @ 11:15AM|#

If you answer yes to any or all of these questions, you are essentially saying that the United States Military engages in torture of its own recruits.

Good God Almighty, if you are unable to distinguish between doing these things as part of the training of our military personel and using them on detainees to extract confessions then you are either an intellectual midget or a moral leper.

I'm going with a dollop of both.

Fluffy|11.20.07 @ 11:18AM|#

I think everyone should bookmark this post, because I can't find the last one where Dondero used essentially this same quote:

"Then balls to the wall, kill the living shit out of everyone connected with the attack, their families, their friends, and burn their mother fucking villages down to the ground."

Eric in no uncertain terms advocates murdering the families of terrorists and suspected terrorists. He is a self-admitted genocidal maniac. He wants us to identify the regional or national identity of those responsible for terror attacks, and he then wants us to kill everyone in that region. This is by his own admission.

Everyone please remember that this is what he means by "pro-defense libertarianism".

iih|11.20.07 @ 11:21AM|#

Talking about history lessons...

http://americanhistory.libsyn.com/

|11.20.07 @ 11:22AM|#

John-David

I love history lessons.

The trouble with Eric's history is that it consists of a pinch of facts out of context (eg most prominent LP candidates came from the GOP) with cupfuls of his distorted viscious, hateful worldview all stirred into a huge pot of name dropping and I-was-there anecdotes.

I could probably drop a lot of those names too and tell you what most of them told me they think of him.

ACJohn|11.20.07 @ 11:30AM|#

"Eric,

1. I'm Pro-Defense too. I was all in favor of minding our own business in the 1990s, up until that fateful day of Sept. 11, 2001. Then balls to the wall, kill the living shit out of everyone connected with the attack, their families, their friends, and burn their mother fucking villages down to the ground.

Nation building? Yeah, that's nice and all. It'd be nice if Iraq, and other Middle Eastern countries, could become democracies. But that's not the be all and end all, and certainly NOT my main motivation. My motivation is REVENGE!!!"

I think you should send the above to Rudy; maybe he could use it at the next debate. While you are at it, ask him to finance an archeological exploration to find the Arc of the Covenant, so our troops can carry it into battle.

Your Rambo Doctrine leads me to believe one thing; you are truly unhinged and are clueless about libertarian beliefs.

Eric, arm needle remove.

John
-2 for lame movie references

iih|11.20.07 @ 11:34AM|#

Isaac:

This is very interesting:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard52.html

Funny how Rothbard got it right vis-a-vis NPod. Replace Pod with Don (no offense Eric, it is just my view) and it all makes a lot of sense.

|11.20.07 @ 12:09PM|#

...kill the living shit out of everyone connected with the attack, their families, their friends...

It is simply not possible to hold this view and, simultaneously, be a libertarian.

|11.20.07 @ 12:13PM|#

"I would not categorize your views in any manner, shape or form as "pro-national defense." They're exactly opposite. Your pacifistic views are pro-surrender."

Eric's views don't amount to national defense. They are just the opposite in that our meddling foreign policy encourages more terrorist attacks against us. We are not surrendering if we send in special forces to kill or capture those responsible for 9/11. Eric's position is a position of emotional racism, to go in and kill people just because they're Middle Eastern Muslims. Why should we equate them with al Queda? They were'nt responsible for 9/11. Eric just doesn't have a clue.

iih|11.20.07 @ 12:25PM|#

... And he wants me to give him my real name. Yeah right.

|11.20.07 @ 12:50PM|#

Dondero, although steeped in Libertarian history, you've somehow managed to be surrounded for years and years by some of the brightest and most intellectually honest people in the history of government, and missed the point entirely.

You are in essence a neocon-libertine. It is small wonder the idea of a crossdressing warmonger as president gives you goosebumps.

|11.20.07 @ 1:24PM|#

ERIC DONDERO is secertly in love with Ron Paul, and was FIRED by Ron Paul, tells, me Ron Paul is a smart man...eric dondero is as sketchy as the day is long ...what a fag and what a loooooooser, shouldt you be out campaigning for your bid to unseat Dr. Paul, or beating your wife??

|11.20.07 @ 2:36PM|#

Dondero's ignorance is showing...there is no way that Ayn Rand was a foreign policy interventionist.

She said of WWI that it led, not to 'democracy', but to the creation of three dictatorships: Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. The Objectivist Magazine, June '66

And WWII?

World War II led, not to 'Four Freedoms', but to the surrender of one-third of the world's population into communist slavery. ibid

oh, and Viet Nam?:

It [the Vietnam War] was a shameful war ... shameful because it was a war which the U.S. had no selfish reason to fight, because it served no national interest, because we had nothing to gain from it, because the lives and the heroism of thousands of American soldiers (and billions of American wealth) were sacrificed

Gosh, I wonder what she would have had to say about our little overseas adventures nowadays?

I have a guess. (hint to the slow: see bolded text).

AR

VM|11.20.07 @ 2:43PM|#

Ayn_Randian kickin' ass again!!

yooo da man!!!

B Reyes|11.20.07 @ 3:04PM|#

LP = tied to GOP's hip? No.

Dondero = tied to Dr Paul's hip.

Anytime there's a positive mention of the good doctor, Dondero appears, like a pestilence destroying the good cheer and honest debate.

This is, of course, no surprise as Dondero hates freedom, the very thing for which Ron Paul stands. Go away Dondero, nobody likes you and nobody agrees with you.

Eric Dondero|11.20.07 @ 4:44PM|#

B. Reyes, I'm not here to win a popularity contest. "Nobody likes me..." Aww, shucks, I guess that's going to scare me away.

I'm here to destroy the propoganda hoisted upon the libertarian movement by the Rothbard/Raimondo Radical Caucus machine for decades now, that the movement is "non-intervenionist."

There's only one way you're going to shut me up. And that's to kill me.

I'll be correcting the record on proper libertarian movement history for another 30 or 40 years to come up until the day that my nimble fingers can't continue typing on the keyboard. And even then, I'll hire a nurse so she I can dictate to her.

YOU WILL NOT WIN WITH YOUR BULLSHIT THAT LIBERTARIANS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NON-INTERVENTIONIST, NOT SO LONG AS I AM ALIVE.

Bye, moving on to the next thread.

|11.20.07 @ 5:39PM|#

I can't understand why Dondero won't respond to my (and several other posters') questions re: Giuliani's horrific record of locking-up pot smokers (and bragging about it) and seizing and selling the cars of suspected "johns" while mayor of NYC.

I've even given him my first name (like he asked).

Instead of responding to the inquiries re: Giuliani's authoritarian, drug warrior ways, Dondero seems intent on referencing various endorsements by libertarians and libertarian-leaning think tanks. That's great and all, but what about the mayor's actual record re: marijuana and prostitution?

I guess I was hoping for too much and Giuliani's complete lack of support for freedom to ingest marijuana and pay for sex shorts out Dondero's circuitry because it goes so much against Dondero's stated reasons for being a libertarian (so that he doesn't have to wear a seatbelt while driving home after smoking a little pot with a prostitute).

Thanks,

Spencer

JenS|11.20.07 @ 8:17PM|#

PuuuuLLLLLLLLLLeeeeeeaaase. I'm an ex Dem. Many Libertarians ARE. And we love PAUL because liberty is for everyone.

Mad Max|11.20.07 @ 11:23PM|#

"I worked for him as his Top Personal Aide for nearly 12 years."

You worked for a Nazi-loving conspiracy theorist for 12 years? Why would you do that?

|11.21.07 @ 12:49AM|#

You guys rock! This is my first visit to Reason.com, and I'm so heartened to see logic prevail, and nobody buying what that intellectually-dishonest shill, Eric Dondero, is selling.

A turd-sandwich is a turd-sandwich no matter how you wrap it. Giuliani is a fascist at his core, and the thought of him as Commander-in-Chief is genuinely scary.

|11.21.07 @ 2:08AM|#

Does Eric have a real job, or does he sit around all day posting nonsense?

|11.21.07 @ 2:21AM|#

Dondi - I am not a Rothbardian, Rockwellian or a fan of Raimondo in the slightest. If you don't believe me, look me up at Rebirth of Reason; I frequently castigate the "hate America" wing of the libertarian movement.

I am an Objectivist, a Randian, through and through, and the lies you're peddling about Ayn Rand make me sick. She was explicitly non-interventionist and an admirer of the beliefs of the "America First" crowd. There are plenty of interventionist Objectivists you can use for your argument that libertarians should intervene overseas.

Ayn Rand ain't one, son.

Ron Boozell|11.21.07 @ 1:12PM|#

"I do not believe in or advocate
the initiation of force (or fraud)
as a means of achieving political or social goals."

Libertarians, please consider this~
As a member of the Libertarian Party,
and an officer of my local county LP,
I have agreed to support LP Candidates.
IT IS OUR STATED GOAL.

We have worked hard to invite and cultivate
good libertarians to run for office,
and now, officers of our own party
are turning their backs, and their wallets,
on them to support a Republican, that IMO
is not the best libertarian candidate running.

IT IS SHAMEFUL that Shane Corey, and others,
on the LNC have decided to betray the LP,
and our Candidates, by financially supporting Paul, while ignoring our own.

The Libertarian Party is in crisis!
Our leadership has no vision,
and without vision, the people perish.

After speaking with each of our Candidates at least once, as recently as last week, I have discovered that they are having difficulty reaching libertarians with their message.

Their campaigns have been overshadowed by the Ron Paul campaign, which has been getting some coverage as a libertarian-Republican Candidate.

Libertarians are confused and excited by Paul and his message because of the national spotlight on issues relating to Liberty and Individual Rights. Great.

The problem is, he is not the -best- libertarian Candidate, as he does -not- support your Body-Ownership-Rights.

Steve & Christine & George do.

The issue at hand is that many registered Libertarians are giving money to Paul, while our Candidates are struggling to keep their campaigns alive.

NOTA? What an insult!
We ask them to run and then we disrespect them when they do? What kind of assholes are we?

They support our Body-Ownership-Rights,
and we need to support them!

My thinking is this;
Ron Paul has no real chance to win, so,
if we are going to spend our time and money supporting a "longshot" candidate, then we should do so to promote -real- libertarians that support -real- choice.

How can we be free if we cannot own and control our own bodies?

SUPPORT THE CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT YOU!

Thank you for your time and consideration.
PLEASE DONATE TO THEIR CAMPAIGNS TODAY!

~Ron Boozell aka stoneman76
founder and host of Liberty Bandwagon
also LP of Oregon Board Member
and LPDC Secretary

Over 1000 libertarian members:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LibertyBandwagon/
including all 3 LP Presidential Candidates:
Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, & George Phillies!

Eric Dondero|11.22.07 @ 2:53PM|#

Mad Max,

Ron Paul has changed a great deal over the years. In the 1990s, he was more of a typical South Texas Conservative Republican. He was even mildly supportive of Governor Bush. He was Pro-Defense. He was the "Taxpayers Best Friend." He hardly ever talked about foreign policy. And when he did, it was always couched in terms of "Support our Veterans," "Support the Troops," "Don't close down the AFB in San Antonio," that sort of thing.

Then 9/11 hit, and almost immediately he moved hard left.

George Phillies|11.25.07 @ 12:56AM|#

Steve Gordon is, to my memory, correct.

The statement "If you are a supporter of the Paul campaign and you want to send a message to the delegates of the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, you have the option to do so with this new program...if you feel that the LP should not run a presidential candidate in 2008, you can put your support behind NOTA (none of the above)."

It is indeed unprecedented for the National Committee Staff of a serious political party to be working to advance the campaign of a Presidential candidate of another political party and, in equal measure, for the National Committee Staff of a serious political party to be working for the defeat in convention of all the candidates for the Presidential nomination of their own political party.

Prior to the launch of this Libertarian National Committee fundraising campaign, I was asked by the Party Executive Director if I wished to participate. I informed him that I declined to participate. After he adjusted the rules, we had a further discussion, and he agreed then I had again declined to participate. I know find that in contravention to my stated wishes the Libertarian National Committee is using my name and likeness for their fundraising campaign. I urge that Libertarians who wish to support the campaign of a candidate for their Party's Presidential nomination give to the campaign of that candidate.

It was an act of fraud in violation of the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles for the National Committee in the form of its staff to inform me that I had the option of participating, and cause me to waste my staff's time in considering whether or not to participate, when "participation" was not optional on my part.

George Phillies
Candidate, Libertarian Party Nomination
for President

|11.28.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Erik, about those taxes Giuliani cut ...

He was against them all. His city council passed them over his objections. Then he took credit for them.

Do you really think that is the act of someone fiscally conservative or fiscally libertarian?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements