The New Republic on Ron Paul

Michael Crowley's excellent, short profile of the Ron Paul campaign is up at TNR's website, complete with a quote from noted author/journalist/adventurer Brian Doherty:

Paul's candidacy leaves some of his erstwhile libertarian fans cold--particularly the intellectuals who congregate in Washington outfits like the CATO Institute or Reason magazine. "He comes from a more right-wing populist approach," explains Brian Doherty, a California-based Reason editor and author of Radicals for Capitalism, a history of the libertarian movement. "Culturally, he strikes a lot of the more cosmopolitan libertarians as a yokel." (Doherty himself is a Paul admirer.)

And, while some libertarians criticize Paul from the left on social issues, others are swiping at him from the right over the war. "Will Libertarianism Survive Ron Paul?" asked one article on the America's Future Foundation website, before continuing, "Paul's prominence threatens to make his blame-America instincts the defining characteristic of libertarianism in the public imagination. If libertarianism becomes inextricably associated with radical pacifism, will young people with classically liberal instincts be discouraged from serious political engagement?"

The latter quote is from Reason contributor John Tabin. Me, I'm impressed that Peretz didn't insert any innuendos into the piece.

Comments

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

Wait a minute! You guys don't like Ron Paul? I am thoroughly confused. How do you treat candidates you do like?

Is this all an illustration of that axiom about the gods noticing those whom they will destroy?

grylliade | May 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

Paul's prominence threatens to make his blame-America instincts the defining characteristic of libertarianism in the public imagination. If libertarianism becomes inextricably associated with radical pacifism, will young people with classically liberal instincts be discouraged from serious political engagement?

How the bloody fucking hell do people write/say things like this with a straight face?!? Since when is "I think we should only fight when attacked" "radical pacifism"? What are Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, etc., then?

Oh, that's right. Anything other than complete, total support for the war position the Bush administration has farted out this week is evidence of serious moral defect, possibly even mental insanity. If you don't shout support for the administration on the war until you're hoarse, you might as well be a pacifist. No room for moral nuance here; no need for it.

Warren | May 25, 2007, 11:14am | #

I feel like an underpants gnome.

Phase I: Collect Ron Paul MSM citations.
Phase II: ???
Phase III: Profit

But hey I'm on board with the Ron Paul express. I think he can I think he can I think he can. Choo Choo!!

______ | May 25, 2007, 11:16am | #

Wait a minute! You guys are "intellectuals who congregate in Washington outfits like the CATO Institute or Reason magazine"

Intellectuals?
Elitist snobs

dude | May 25, 2007, 11:20am | #

Words are powerful:

"blame-America instincts" Sounds like traitor talk. Even while certainly doesn't mean America is evil and deserves it.

"radical pacifism" Sounds like a bunch of ty-dyed wimps holding hands and singing Puff the Magic Dragon. When it really embodies the belief that the best offense is a solid defense.

Unfortunately, people seem make split second voting decisions on these types of quips...

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 11:22am | #

I think NR did a very fine job with the article. The reporter Michael Crowley, most accurately quoted me and portrayed my views.

I was very happy to read the comments from the America's Future Foundation, which reflected my views, as well. That is a very, very real threat we face to our libertarian movement, due to Ron Paul's campaign and his remarks at the debate: Young people who agree with us on Economic conservatism and Social tolerance, may now be turned off to libertarianism, thinking that we're a bunch of Pacifists or "Surrenderists," who don't recognize the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism.

That is the saddest part of Ron Paul's candidacy. We may have just lost a great many recruits to the libertarian movement.

Thanks a bunch, there Ron. Thanks for running people away from the libertarian movement.

dude | May 25, 2007, 11:24am | #

i.e.

Oh, he's the guy who has blame-America instincts and is a radical pacifist.

Cool! I don't have to think anymore. Go Rudy!!

DA | May 25, 2007, 11:27am | #

> "...the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism"

What Paul is suggesting is that we should try to further understand what also contributed to that 'rising threat.'

Warren | May 25, 2007, 11:29am | #

Eric Dondero,

I've worked shoulder to shoulder with libertarians. Libertarians are fiends of mine. You sir are no libertarian.

Gimme Back My Dog | May 25, 2007, 11:29am | #

Eric,

If you are looking for a political movement that strives to tell people what they want to hear, you could always become mainstreamdemocrat or mainstreamrepublican.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 11:33am | #

Dondero:

So you slammed Paul for being a radical pacifist, even though he isn't, so it's clearly his fault that people might now think of him as a radical pacifist. Yeah, okay.

P Brooks | May 25, 2007, 11:35am | #

"Young people who agree with us on Economic conservatism and Social tolerance, may now be turned off to libertarianism, thinking that we're a bunch of Pacifists or "Surrenderists," who don't recognize the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism."

And what will you say to the people who think your Global War on Scary Badguys is driven by hysteria and personal cowardice?

val | May 25, 2007, 11:36am | #

How the bloody fucking hell do people write/say things like this with a straight face?!? Since when is "I think we should only fight when attacked" "radical pacifism"? What are Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, etc., then?

Oh, that's right. Anything other than complete, total support for the war position the Bush administration has farted out this week is evidence of serious moral defect, possibly even mental insanity. If you don't shout support for the administration on the war until you're hoarse, you might as well be a pacifist. No room for moral nuance here; no need for it.

Uhm people can say that with a straight face because they dont need to have only those two choices. And they dont need have complete, and total support for Bush's useless adventurism to realize that Paul's foreign policy position is just as wacky, only polarized to the other side of the spectrum.

People seem to feel that the US foreign policy is made up wholly of Iraq (or middle east). If Paul were president I highly doubt we would have ever been in the Balakans for example. Which to me was a completely necessary and justified 'war'.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 11:41am | #

Islamo-Fascism

Who is responsible for making this word up and getting it in the mainstream?

I want to kick him in the balls.

tarran | May 25, 2007, 11:44am | #

Oh come on, I cannot see how anyone can claim the Balkans was a neccessary and justified war and that Iraq was not.

Please.. The arguments in favor of bombing Yugoslavia were even more tenous than the justification for Iraq.

BTW, weren't the Fort Dix 6 involved with the KLA, the guys we were providing air support for?

Warren | May 25, 2007, 11:44am | #

val,
So what your saying is that anybody who opposes foreign intervention that you (in hindsight have) deem(ed) completely necessary, is "just whacky".

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 11:45am | #

Quick unscientific poll:

Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?

How about who would want to have a beer with him?

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

Val:

Uhm people can say that with a straight face because they dont need to have only those two choices.

Wait, what? I've lost track of what you're replying to here.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

Quick unscientific poll:
Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?
How about who would want to have a beer with him?

I want to kick him in the balls.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

highnumber:

No and no.

rdkraus | May 25, 2007, 11:50am | #

I would spill a beer on Dondero !

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 11:58am | #

Which [Balkans] to me was a completely necessary and justified 'war'.

Further proof that there is little real difference between (D) and (R). Both see nothing wrong with sending our boys over to places where we have no compelling interest. That's the real import of Paul here. We've been meddling with the affairs of others for so long that it's inconceivable for a mainstream politician to imagine any other way. It just messes with the whole program. Such people must be silence at any cost.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Oh come on, I cannot see how anyone can claim the Balkans was a neccessary and justified war and that Iraq was not.

A very good point, and Im sure you know what the difference between the two is. One we 'won' (achieved a preset realistic goal) and the other is an open ended nation building mission which we are 'loosing'.


val,
So what your saying is that anybody who opposes foreign intervention that you (in hindsight have) deem(ed) completely necessary, is "just whacky".


Yes, Warren, Paul opposes all foreign intervention untill we are attacked, and I consider that wacky and unrealistic. His position doesnt come from any consideration of current global politics and power struggles, but of what was written in our constitution, back when America had zero ability for foreign intervention and zero need for it. Gee maybe if the Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, and the US still got involved in WWII, you would feel that would be unjustified and unconstituional, right?

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 12:02pm | #

His position doesnt come from any consideration of current global politics and power struggles, but of what was written in our constitution [...]

That's a feature, not a bug.

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 12:04pm | #

val,

I think you have oversimplified both America's place in the world immediately following its founding, and the real world applications of Ron Paul's vision for foreign policy.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:06pm | #

That's a feature, not a bug.

LOL, good one. And I realize that many here are strict constructionalists, and that explains some of their positions. Im not however.

James Anderson Merritt | May 25, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Val said, "If Paul were president I highly doubt we would have ever been in the Balakans for example. Which to me was a completely necessary and justified 'war'."

I agree that President Paul would not have committed us to the Balkans adventure, for any number of reasons. On the other hand, I view that as a good thing: I am wondering how that adventure was "completely necessary and justified," as none of the Balkan countries was a credible threat to us -- they weren't aggressing against us first, and we didn't even have bogus "intel" that they would or could, as was claimed in the run-up to the Iraq adventure.

I think grylliade had it right. If anything, Paul and other libertarians say, "hell yes, we'll fight if attacked." Some add "and we'll nuke anyone who tries back into the stone age." I find it hard to describe that position as "pacifism" of any kind, much less "radical pacifism." Yet it is libertarian, by upholding people's (and nations') rights to self-defense, while recognizing their responsibility not to aggress.

Self-described libertarians who would fight aggressive wars are either lying to themselves or to those they would lead: they are no libertarians. Still, you can stand proudly WITH the libertarians without actually being libertarian. But trying to get libertarians to accept and promote non-libertarian views and approaches, solely to allow non-libertarians to call themsevles libertarians without appearing to be either clueless or liars, strikes me as a crazy approach. Let's gladly and gratefully accept the help of non-libertarians who find common-cause with us. But it is not necessary for everyone who contributes to the attainment of liberty to declare himself a libertarian, or be thought of as one. George Orwell, for example, was a self-professed socialist, but opened millions of people's eyes to the dangers of statism in such works as Animal Farm and 1984. By doing so, he struck a blow for liberty and inspired many libertarians, including myself. But I don't think of him as being a leader or exemplar of libertarians, and there's nothing wrong with that.

P Brooks | May 25, 2007, 12:12pm | #

"Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?

"How about who would want to have a beer with him?"

Paging Mr Montag! Guy Montag! Phone call at the desk for Mr Montag!

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 12:14pm | #

P Brooks,

I said "readers." I don't think he actually reads anything other than what he wrote himself, so he is excluded.

Daze | May 25, 2007, 12:14pm | #

I am a cosmopolitan libertarian who considers Ron Paul a yokel, and proud of it.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:17pm | #

I think you have oversimplified both America's place in the world immediately following its founding, and the real world applications of Ron Paul's vision for foreign policy.

Also true, its pretty difficult to discuss all nuances of complicated topics on these forums (way too much typing). But seriosly I dont think Ron Paul foreign policy is grounded in realty. He is a constructionalist and that explains it. But he attempts to write off our foreign policy completely by continuosly pointing out that our presense in Iraq has made the place worse then before (I would be curious to hear the Kurdish position on this, but argely agree)and that we were the ones who trained Osama (again true). But those are examples of failed (maybe stupid) ventures in a policy that should be examined to seek room for imporvement and adjustment not reasons to completely scrap the existsing policy.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 12:18pm | #

""Paul's prominence threatens to make his blame-America instincts the defining characteristic of libertarianism in the public imagination. ..."

Heaven forbid libertarianism become associated with having been right on Iraq from the beginning.

James Anderson Merritt | May 25, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Val said, "Gee maybe if the Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, and the US still got involved in WWII, you would feel that would be unjustified and unconstituional, right?"

You should read more history. There is a very convincing case to be made that we were not necessary to stop Hitler; that the Russian Winter of 1941-42 did that for us. Also, that our entrance into WWI allowed such a crushing defeat of the Germany of the time, that the Allies could dictate intolerable Armistice terms to Germany, making the rise of Hitler and WWII almost inevitable.

That is to say, our participation in WWI and WWII was neither necessary nor very wise. It was, however, Constitutional in each case, because Congress declared war, which they are empowered to do for any reason, whether or not it agrees with libertarian principle.

The Iraq and Balkan Adventures, however, were VERY unconstitutional, never being formally declared. If you read the "Authorization of Force" for the Iraq war, it even seems as if the conditions of the authorization are satisfied. So WHY ARE WE STILL THERE and even ESCALATING our presence?

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Eric "Dondero" wrote:

"Thanks a bunch, there Ron. Thanks for running people away from the libertarian movement."

And yet a completely phony libertarian like you stays around making the rest of us look like warmongering maniacs.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Eric Dondero, for the love of God, PLEASE stop calling yourself a libertarian. Smurf Jones was bad enough.

Massachusetts Yokel | May 25, 2007, 12:24pm | #

I like Ron Paul.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:28pm | #

You should read more history. There is a very convincing case to be made that we were not necessary to stop Hitler; that the Russian Winter of 1941-42 did that for us.

My friend, Im from the former USSR, trust me in you have had more history regarding WWII then me(admitedly some of it was propogandstic), then you are a WWII scholar or take a very large interest in the topic. The Russian winter definetely played a large role in this case, as it had a multitude of time through out history, but I dont beleive that it would have been enough to completely wipe out the German army. Worse case scenario would have been Hitler keeping a grip on all of europe and maybe some of USSR and stretching this war into countless years, or even making peace with Stalin.

That is to say, our participation in WWI and WWII was neither necessary nor very wise. It was, however, Constitutional in each case, because Congress declared war, which they are empowered to do for any reason, whether or not it agrees with libertarian principle.

I will concede to you the point about consitutionality of those wars, but will disagree about the wisdom and necessity.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 12:41pm | #

"Islamo-Fascism"

Who is responsible for making this word up and getting it in the mainstream?

I want to kick him in the balls.

According to Wikipedia, it was a French Marxist by the name of Maxime Rodinson.

NoStar | May 25, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Dondero a libertarian?

Hell, he isn't even a Liberty Caucus Republican anymore. He has quit that organization three times and from what I infer from Bill Westmiller, they don't want him back.

Dondero is a run of the mill, war loving, big government Republican who also comes across as a baby who throws man sized temper tantrums.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 12:48pm | #

That is to say, our participation in WWI and WWII was neither necessary nor very wise. It was, however, Constitutional in each case, because Congress declared war, which they are empowered to do for any reason, whether or not it agrees with libertarian principle

Winner of the thread!

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

I've watched this Eric Dondero trainwreck for the past 2 weeks, and now I have to speak up.

Somebody, for the love of God, PLEASE make a documentary or write a book on Eric Dondero. This guy is a classic example of the neoconservative brain disease in effect. Neoconservatism managed to poison this guy from being a libertarian (if he ever really was one, but I'll just assume it for now) into being the same kind of neocon political hack as the Bushies or the Giulianites.

Eric Dondero is a classic example of what is wrong with the Republican Party. He is no Republican, nor is he a libertarian. He is merely a Bushie.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Do a Google search for Dondero and the second item that comes up is an essay he wrote in 2005, wondering why Bush's critics can't admit that they were wrong and Bush was right about Iraq. Dondero notes how, as Bush predicted, it was a smashing success, caused no problems in the Middle East, and even spurred democracy in the region.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

According to Wikipedia, it was a French Marxist by the name of Maxime Rodinson.

Fuck. He's dead. Skeletons don't have balls.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 12:54pm | #

While all Anti-War libertarians are incredibly big losers in the recent successes of the Bush Doctrine — Democracy breaking out with lightening (sic) speed in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi and even Israel/Palestine post-Iraqi Elections — it is Lew Rockwell of LewRockwell.com and Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.com and their allies who are the absolute BIGGEST LOSERS.

Just think about this for a second. Rockwell and Raimondo have been saying for years that Bush was going to be a huge failure. That the entire Middle East was going to explode over our invasion of Iraq. That it would NEVER cause democracy and freedom to flourish in other Nations in the Region. (Some would say that it even has had coat-tails outside of the Region, witness Ukraine).

So, why is it that Rockwell and Raimondo and the Paleo-libertarians are not being called on the carpet about all this?

Why is it that they are getting a free pass. Nobody is questioning them to explain why it is that all their predictions were DEAD WRONG???

--Eric Dondero, March 3, 2005

(Jennifer's speculation: Maybe because they were in fact DEAD RIGHT?)

joe | May 25, 2007, 12:55pm | #

It's so cute when Iraq hawks act like they are anything but a discredited minority.

Ohnoes! Conservatives are going to call libertarians "anti-war!" Boy, in an America that is opposed to the Iraq War by a 2:1 margin, that's intellectual death!

Next time one of you libertoids is sneered at by a Republican on Fox Nooz for not falling in lockstep behind Commander Guy and his Really Big Idea That Couldn't Possibly Go Wrong, reply with, "Don't forget, we also think you guys were wrong about Terry Schiavo."

Eric the .5b | May 25, 2007, 12:55pm | #

That is a very, very real threat we face to our libertarian movement

The greatest threat to the five or six guys in your little "libertarian movement" is contact with actual libertarians.

joe | May 25, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Christ, Eric, I'M a better libertarian than you!

Ray Harmon | May 25, 2007, 1:04pm | #

I think it's very interesting to view establishment libertarians wring their hands over Ron Paul. The telling difference is where the rubber meets the road and the challenge is being pragmatic while not selling out the very principles underpinning what you represent.

Ron Paul has found solid ground that resonates.

Yes, I'd love to live in a world of free people without borders where people can intermingle in the spirit of universal harmony, but the practical side of my brain tells me that as long as the welfare statists and global terrorists draw breath, securing our nation's borders and controlling the flow of immigration is a reasonable and constitutionally appropriate task for our government to undertake.

Pig Mannix | May 25, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?

Ummmm......

How about who would want to have a beer with him?

Well, I guess I'd go to his funeral if they served free beer and let people piss in the casket.....

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:10pm | #

"Oh come on, I cannot see how anyone can claim the Balkans was a neccessary and justified war and that Iraq was not."

Hi, Warren!

I agree, if we look at the question purely in terms of ideology and principle, the case for both wars is remarkably similar.

That's why, for a couple of months in 2002, I found it very difficult question. Saddam Hussein really was that bad.

What it came down to, for me, was practicality. Kosovo was a bite-sized mission with many fewer complications, while Iraq was a much larger, more complex problem. This meant that Iraq was going to be a lot more difficult - not only in the sense that it would be more costly (both in absolute terms, and in opportunity costs, such as we saw at Tora Bora), but also in that we would have a much lower chance of success, and the price of failure would be much higher. Add to this the fact that George Bush is a drooling moron and Dick Cheney a deluded fanatic, and it becomes clear which way the scale tips.

I agree, it's tough to articulate a set of principles that endorse our intervention in the Balkins and reject Operation Iraqi Freedom. For me, it came down the judgement that our action in Kosovo was likely to succeed, whie those in Iraq were likely to fail; and that failing in Yugoslavia would have minimal consequences, while failing in Iraq would have terrible consequences.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:11pm | #

"My little libertarian movement" consists of the likes of Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, PJ O'Rourke, Dr. John Hospers, Dr. Jack Wheeler, Tammy Bruce, and other "Goldwaterites" who are strong on free markets, are completely socially tolerant and supportive of civil liberties, yet are also strong on defense.

Oh, how quickly some would like to forget libertarian movement history.

FACT: Dana Rohrabacher is the Founder of the Modern Libertarian Political Movement. (1966-69 when he was the leader of the Libertarian Caucus of YAF.) Dana is Pro-Defense, and always has been.

FACT: Dr. John Hospers, the Libertairan Party's first Presidential candidate was and is now, a Pro-Defense Libertarian. Hospers was even a "Libertarian for Bush" in 2004.

FACT: Dr. Earl Ravenal, the LP's 1984 Presidential Nomination candidate who eventually lost to nutso Leftwing Libertarian Bergland, was hardcore Pro-Defense.

FACT: The Libertarian Defense Caucus headed by Mike Dunn, was an active and well-organized group within the LP for nearly two decades. One of their most prominent members was of all people, REASON MAGAZINE'S OWN BOB POOLE.

FACT: The Nation's Number One Libertarian Radio Talk Show Host Neal Boortz is stridently Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.

FACT: The Nation's most prominent self-described "libertarian Democrat" Radio Talk Show Host Tammy Bruce is stridently Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.

FACT: The Nation's Number One libertarian Author of all time (save possibly John Stossell), is stridently Pro-War and has been all along: Cato Institute's darling PJ O'Rourke.

You wanna run that by me again? What was that you said? "Pro-Defense Libertarians are just a tiny small little insignificant group..."

Pro Libertate | May 25, 2007, 1:11pm | #

Well, I don't think Paul is a pacifist, but, even if he were and he made pacifism the first thing people thought of when they thought of libertarianism, so what? It's not like we're winning hearts and minds with our more basic messages. Unless we've reverted to a Constitutional government since I started eating lunch.

Derrick | May 25, 2007, 1:13pm | #

"Culturally, he strikes a lot of the more cosmopolitan libertarians as a yokel."

I consider myself a cosmopolitan snob, and yet I roll my eyes at this.

val | May 25, 2007, 1:13pm | #

joe,

Since you dont describe yourself as a libertarian, Im curious to know what your opinion of R.Paul is?

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Do a Google search for Dondero and the second item that comes up is an essay he wrote in 2005, wondering why Bush's critics can't admit that they were wrong and Bush was right about Iraq. Dondero notes how, as Bush predicted, it was a smashing success, caused no problems in the Middle East, and even spurred democracy in the region.

Wow! I didn't know that he started dating Ann Coulter.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims - who want to:

Outlaw all pornography

Outlaw all prostitution

Outlaw all forms of gambling

Stamp out all alcohol use in society

Outlaw marijuana and jail all those who deal in drugs

Censor any depictions of the "Prophet" Muhammed in newspapers, magazines or other media

Cut off the heads of all "Zionist" Jews who do not repent their beliefs in front of video cameras

Have we libertarians forgotten that we are the ones who are supposed to stand up for civil liberties, including sexual liberties?

Why the maddening silence from the libertarian community about the atrocities against freedom committed by Radical Muslims in Western Europe and even right here in the United States?

NEVER FORGET THEO VAN GOGH!!!

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Where Paul's foreign policy goes off track is that he imagines a fantasy world in which there is the degree of global trade that now exists, with a huge percentage of the world that is still not governed by consent of the population, in which a global economic power can avoid meddling in other nation's affairs.

It. cannot. happen.

Inevitably, a trading giant is sucked into lending at least tacit support to despotic regimes, and in the process becoming enemies of the elements of populations that resent said despots. It matters not a whit that those resentful elements may be just as despotic in their desires; the fact that our trade relationship helps keep the current despot in power suffices to make us enemies. Now, when we become enemies of resentful elements who are so poor and downtrodden that they lack the ability to strike, it never rises to any discernable level of concern. When we become enemies of resentful elements who are highly, motivated, and have access to resources, violence proceeds apace.

When Ron Paul begins suggesting that we go back to the trading and economic patterns of the late 18 or early 19th centuries, then his foreign policy will begin to make sense. Of course, this would conflict with other elements of libertarian thought, which is a conclict shared by many libertarians.

Jackson | May 25, 2007, 1:17pm | #

In the CNN Situation Room that Ron Paul took part in, it's very clear in his answer to a very direct question that he supports shifting resources to go after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden -- which was supposed to be the primary goal after 9/11 -- but he doesn't support the Iraq War and other military adventures.

How the fuck is that pacifist, really? I call it common sense.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 1:18pm | #

You wanna run that by me again? What was that you said? "Pro-Defense Libertarians are just a tiny small little insignificant group..."

I'm a pro-defense libertarian. I'm, also, an anti-offense libertarian.

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Well, Dondero's last post thoroughly convinced me. After all, if talking heads on radio shows and partisan magazines support Dondero's simple-minded world view, it must be the right one.

George W. Dondero for President!!!

Jackson | May 25, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Also, Eric, why exactly were you fired by Ron Paul? Inquiring minds would be more than interested in the answer from your perspective. It would seem to me that your bone to pick with Ron runs a bit deeper than you seem to let on.

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Eric Dondero,

Libertarians [heart] Radical Muslims? Wha?

Is Little Green Footballs having server problems again? Go home, faketarian, go home.

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:24pm | #

val,

I didn't describe myself as a libertarian.

Just a better one than Eric Dondero.

I am also a better Catholic than Pol Pot.

As for my opinion about Ron Paul, I think he makes important contributions to the debates he is involved in, because he articulates a point of view that isn't given enough attention.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 1:24pm | #

RADICAL HOMICIDAL MUSLIMS SUCK!

Happy now, Eric?

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:27pm | #

I agree that people who ally themselves with brutish authoritarians with no respect for individual liberty cannot rightly call themselves libertarians.

So, Eric, how is "Libertarians for Guiliani" doing, anyway?

Would you care to give that question a shot? Or 41?

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Mike -

George W. Dondero does not accept your comments. You forgot to put the word "FASCIST" next to "Radical" and "Muslim".

Also, you forgot to say that they hate us because of our freedom.

Michael Nolan | May 25, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Dondero, you sir are a moron.

Join the Democrats, lefty.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 1:30pm | #

I agree that people who ally themselves with brutish authoritarians with no respect for individual liberty cannot rightly call themselves libertarians.

So, Eric, how is "Libertarians for Guiliani" doing, anyway?

Joe just won the thread.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Let me clear something up here. It was touched upon in the New Republic piece from today. But the reporter did not go into detail.

There's a common misperception that Ron Paul is "not a Pacifist" but rather he's just against the War in Iraq. Paul fanatics offer up his support for the War in Afghanistan as an example to back this up.

I am saying this here for the record on Reason.com, (for publication):

I had to beg and plead with Ron Paul, to the point of threatening to resign in October of 2001, to get my former boss Ron Paul to support Bush's resolution to go into Afghanistan. He was not going to vote in favor of it.

I'd like to think it was my threats to resign that finally got him to vote in favor. But quite honestly, it probably had a lot more to do with nearly the same threats from other District staffers, most notably then District Director Jackie Gloor of Victoria.

Jackie was literally horrified at the thought that Ron would not support the President and ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan. She told him straight out days before the vote, if he did not vote for the resolution he would lose all of Victoria's support (Victoria is hardcore Bush Conservative Country), and that he might as well not even run for reelection.

Addtionally, even Ron Paul's family members strongly advised him to vote in favor of the resolution. I cannot confirm this, but I suspected at the time, that even Ron's own wife Carol told him that he absolutely must vote for the resolution.

On the day before the vote, Ron advised his staff that he would indeed vote in favor. Obviously, we were all relieved.

But for those who think that Ron Paul is some sort of "Strong on Defense, but opposed to the Iraq strategy" sort of guy, you need to consider, that Ron Paul, came within literally hours, of joining Cong. Tammy Baldwin of Madison, WI (Was it her or another Congresswoman from San Francisco, maybe?), in being one of only two Members of the US Congress to vote against War against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

(Note also an aside. Ron Paul is also fiercely opposed to the death penalty for any reason, including first degree murder.)

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 1:33pm | #

Inevitably, a trading giant is sucked into lending at least tacit support to despotic regimes,

I've denounced trade with China in the past, on the grounds that it mostly enriches the party faithful and makes eventual freedom for the common man ever less likely. This might not be libertarian orthodoxy--and I don't really care what the orthodox view is in this case--but in my mind it fits the principles as I see them of pursuing self-interest only while doing no harm to others.

In short, there's nothing "inevitable" about trading with despots. We are perfectly free to choose not to trade with them.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Just who is Authoritarian here? Rudy or Ron?

Let's see now. Rudy Giuliani supports a women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. He doesn't think that women who have an abortion in the first trimester should be thrown in jail for choosing to have this procedure.

Dr. Ron Paul does not support a women's right to choose. He takes a more Authoritarian view. He has no problem with States outlawing abortion and even sending women to jail for long prison sentences for having the procedure done.

Which view is more "Authoritarian"?

grylliade | May 25, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims

When did we do this? Did I miss the memo?

Eric, your buddies in the neo-con movement are the ones who want to do all the things you list above. And they're actually in America, with American votes. So even if, for the sake of argument, I grant that "only defend our interests" is the same as "fight for Muslim extremists," I'd rather align myself with a bunch of people in the Middle East who will never have political power in the US and never be able to put their regressive programs into effect than people who already hold political in the US and have already attempted to put their regressive programs into effect. I think there's a Bible verse to the effect of removing the plank in your own eye before criticizing the speck in others — your fundie buddies could probably help you operate your computer to look it up.

He was not going to vote in favor of it.

Yet in the end he did. Here in the real world what people actually do matters, not what they mighta coulda done had things been different. Get together with Harry Turtledove and write an alt-history novel if you want to talk about what Ron Paul might have done.

(Note also an aside. Ron Paul is also fiercely opposed to the death penalty for any reason, including first degree murder.)

This is what is known as a "principled position." Go look up the definition of "principles" before you embarrass yourself further.

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Ron Paul is also fiercely opposed to the death penalty for any reason, including first degree murder.

Cool, me too. [I don't think there's any orthodox position on the death penalty.]

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Mr. Dondero, I am not only not a pacifist, but actually consider pacifism nearly as evil as totalitarianism, yet I too oppose the death penalty for 1st degree murderers. To be a death penalty supporter, one must have a truly moronic degree of faith in the state. Are you such a moron?

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 1:40pm | #

grylliade-

The only memo I got was about the new cover sheets on the TPS reports.

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Call 911!
Blood vessels are bursting like crazy in Dondero's head.

Hey, Dondero,
I guess we'll find out what PJ O'Rourke thinks of Ron Paul on Maher's show Friday. Should be interesting, eh? What do you think will happen?

SM | May 25, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

"According to Wikipedia, it was a French Marxist by the name of Maxime Rodinson.

Fuck. He's dead. Skeletons don't have balls."

The next best thing is to bring one to Christopher Hitchens's groin being as he's the one who popularized the phrase beyond all measure.

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #

He has no problem with States outlawing abortion and even sending women to jail for long prison sentences for having the procedure done.

I have no problem with that either, as long as it's not the state I'm living in.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Dondero -

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims [...]

If you really think that "we shouldn't go halfway around the world to kill innocent people in a country that's never attacked us" equates to "let's ally ourselves with bad, faraway people," you're not qualified to be elected junior high class president, much less to the House of Representatives.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Jackson asks "Why were you fired by Ron Paul, Eric?"

Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."

Ron was praising me the other day in our local paper, the Brazoria County Facts as a "credible candidate."

For three years I've been using Ron (and most certainly my friend Tom Lizardo, Ron's Chief of Staff), as an employment reference.

Two years ago I had to go though an incredibly probing resume check process with AIG (Multinational Insurance Corp.), to be a Translator. It was a month long investigation of my background. Since most of my adult life I've been employed by Ron Paul, I have to presume they checked with him on my past employment status and reasons for leaving. I was hired by AIG. And not only that, they offered me a full benefits package.

Then there's the pesky little detail of my bonus. When I left Ron Paul's employ, I got a $10,000 bonus from him.

Oh, and this little fact: I actually resigned from Ron's employ to pursue a career in Interpreting/Translation in late 2001 (I think I've got the dates right here). I was gone for about 10 months. Carol, Ron's wife, was dismayed and confused. She pleaded with me to stay on. Well, 10 months later, I'm teaching English in Mexico, and I get this email from Tom Lizardo. They want me back. Ron's scheduler at the time, nice young Christian girl named Grace, got herself pregnent (out of wedlock). It was a bit of an internal Ron Paul Office scandal.

I agreed to come back to fill in as Scheduler til they found a replacement. Well, Ron wanted me to stay on longer as his Personal Assistant and Travel Aide. So, one year led to another.

I believe I still have the old email exchanges asking me to come back to work for Ron. Let me see if I can dig those up.

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:46pm | #

If you believe a fetus is a person, then supporting laws against abortion is no more authoritarian than supporting laws against murder.

I disagree with Rep. Paul on this question, and agree with Mr. Guiliani, but that has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

I will also note that Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance is not part of the standard Christianist package, alongside opposition to contraception, dirty magazines, gay sex and other body-control issues.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Eric, given that you've said that legalization of prostitution is one of your "top three issues" ...

"Legalization of Prostitution is one of my top three issues. Not sure where you got the idea that I don't support legalized prostitution from? I'm an ex-Sailor. I absolutely used the services of Prostitutes overseas in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Spain, all over the world, when I was a young buck Sailor. And each time was worth every penny.

As a matter of fact, it's an absolutely tragedy that the US Military is not allowing servicemen these days to utilize prostitutes in Iraq. There are severe restrictions on prostitution for Military Personnel nowadays. We Libertarian Republicans need to work to overturn that."

... how is it that you are supporting the guy who "cleaned up" New York City's 42nd Street, getting rid of all of the peep shows, streetwalkers, grindhouse theaters, etc. and turning it into Disneylite?

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Just who is Authoritarian here? Rudy or Ron?

Let's see now. Rudy Giuliani supports a women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

2 things, George W. Dondero:

First, this may just be the most hilarious post you've made yet. I didn't know a single person who has had the sheer gall to call RON PAUL a bigger authoritarian than RUDY GIULIANI until you showed up. That takes some chutzpah, guy. I'll have to give you credit for that one.

Secondly, it is a "woman's" right to choose, not "a women's" right to choose. If you plan on running for office, you better learn to use proper English. Oh wait, you're running on the Bushie like, so I suppose botching common English is part of your campaign strategy.

GEORGE W. DONDERO/ERIC CHENEY in 2008!

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:48pm | #

rhywun, the trouble is that in a republic with regular elections, it becomes nearly impossible to restrict trade to nations that have similar practices; there becomes way to many constituencies which will be economically harmed by such restrictions, even not factoring trade in mineral resources which the entire electorate demands.

Look, I'm not saying I have an easy answer to this, but I am saying that Paul's approach is completely nonsensical in a consumer society which demands trade. The days of no-meddling are over, and they ain't ever coming back. It is a contradiction which libertarians have yet to address coherently.

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:48pm | #

'Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."'

No, it's not. You answered the very same charge just a few days ago on this very same web site.

You really are a Guiliani groupie, aren't you?

val | May 25, 2007, 1:49pm | #

To be a death penalty supporter, one must have a truly moronic degree of faith in the state.

should that be a moronic degree of faith in the jury of the your peers?


He has no problem with States outlawing abortion and even sending women to jail for long prison sentences for having the procedure done.

I have no problem with that either, as long as it's not the state I'm living in.

Thats pretty fuckin dispicable.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."

Is this like Giuliani claiming to have never before heard of blowback during the last debate? Because I definitely saw a post by you in which you were complaining about how Ron Paul was saying you'd been fired (and you were saying you'd quit).

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 1:50pm | #

joe,

Since Rudy loves the drag, maybe Eric can be his 8th wife.

Jackson | May 25, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Hook, line, and sinker.

Thanks, Eric. You've said enough.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."

Sure, Eric. Whatever you say. After all, Paul is known for having no principles, whereas you are the epitome of consistency.

"No way, man! They didn't fire me! I QUIT!"

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:54pm | #

"Iraq never attacked us..."

Really? How'se that?

1987, USS Starke, Saddam Hussein's forces lob a missile killing 37 US Sailors. (I was on the USS Luce the Starke's sister ship out of Mayport, FL.)

Jayna Davis, former CBS Investigative Reporter for Oklahoma City has extensively documented "Middle Eastern connections" to the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1994. Davis concluded that the most likely connections directly to Terry Nichols from the Middle East were from Iraqi Intelligence. Her book and findings are endorsed by former CIA Director James Woolsey.

Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Richard Miniter, Robert Spencer and other Middle Eastern investigative journalists have extensively documented links between Muhammed Attah and the Iraqis, most notably two meetings in Prague in 2000, before the 9/11 attacks.

Iraq was harboring two Terrorist training camps before we attacked in 2003: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam. The latter had direct ties to Al Qaeda; Basically Al Qaeda in Iraq under a different name.

But hey, there were no connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, right? Ole' Saddam was just a jolly ole' man who liked the ladies, large swimming pools, and gold laced palaces. He didn't have any ties to terrorism. No Siree.

val | May 25, 2007, 1:58pm | #

I havent been on this blog long enough, or followed the Eric vs Ron fight, but why is everyone immediately assuming that Eric Dandero is the one lying about being fired and not Ron Paul. Both would have an equal amount to gain from this. And its not like Ron Paul has the best record of keeping track on what is happening with in his organization. So why all the animocity? Someone want to enlighten me on the history?

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Not really, val , given the degree to which juries can be manipulated by a process in which they often aren't even allowed to examine all evidence, and the degree to which evidence can be manufactured. Now, there's a chance I could reconsider my oppostion to the death penalty, if public defender's offices had their budgets increased by at least a factor of 10. Until then, one has to have a moronic degree of faith in the state to support the death penalty.

val | May 25, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Will, fair enough, nice to see an articulated position on the issue.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Eric,

Do you believe that the President is a good man who only has the best interests of the American people in his heart?

James Anderson Merritt | May 25, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Val said, "The Russian winter definetely played a large role in this case [Hitler's defeat in WWII], as it had a multitude of time through out history, but I dont beleive that it would have been enough to completely wipe out the German army."

We can agree to disagree, my friend. The numbers-based arguments I have read strongly suggest that Hitler was on the way down once the winter of 1941 hit. It wasn't just because of the winter itself. Hitler's adversaries had much more in the way of troops and armament at their disposal, much as the North had in fighting the South during the US Civil War. The German generals were extremely talented and the German troops were extremely motivated, as the South's generals and troops were in our own war. But in the end, the bigger machine won. Accidents and miracles do happen. By simply hanging in there for as long as he could, Hitler might have benefitted from such an accident; on the other hand, he might have suffered from a different one. Who knows? The point is that saying the US had to jump in against Hitler because it was NECESSARY to defeat him, is much like saying that it is necessary for a second high-school senior to help out a classmate who is shaking down the 8th grade bullies for THEIR lunch money.

Incidentally, as you are from from the former Soviet Union, I would like to offer my respect to your ancestors, who poured MILLIONS of men into the "Eastern Front" (your "Western Front") meatgrinder during the winter of 1941 and the several following. The US lost less than a third of a million combatants IN ALL THEATRES. The USSR lost some 18 million, by the best estimates I have seen, while the Germans lost a little over 4 million. Maybe it was necessary for US involvement to minimize the further loss of Soviet lives. But, it seems to me that the USSR and Germany were beating each other to a pulp at the time, and the participation of the US wasn't actually needed. True, we got to be a "superpower" by our efforts in WWII, but we saw that status to be a very mixed blessing in the ensuing decades.

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Eric,

You really did drink the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid, didn't you. Didn't leave any for your friends or nuthin'.

You got your war, you wasted thousands of American lives, wasted billions of dollars, but you still won't be happy until you convince everybody you were right. Pathetic.

What next bit of foreign adventurism are you buttering us up for, anyway? Where's the next 3rd world shithole you are so eager to spend American lives in? Iran? Syria? What's the endgame? For fuck's sake, how much blood will it take to please you neo-con corpse-fuckers?

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Regarding the military capabilities of the Soviet Union in WWII, was not U.S. material support critical?

joe | May 25, 2007, 2:10pm | #

"why is everyone immediately assuming that Eric Dandero is the one lying about being fired and not Ron Paul."

Because Eric keeps getting caught lying.

Like, for example, his claim that this is the first time he's heard that he was fired.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Val -

Dondero has a long history of being full of shit. As a single example, he claims to:

Speak 10 to 15 languages; including Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, German, Chinese & Filipino. [from his blog info]

He won't name the others, though I seem to remember him referring to his Spanish as "vacation Spanish." Elsewhere, he claims to speak "over 20 languages," so he apparently lost at least six at some point.

He has also spent a long time pretending to be a libertarian (generally posting on H&R to try and get all of us libs to vote for various Republicans), which is clearly not the case.

Frankly, his credibility is at zero. If Dondero were in an argument with a carnival barker, I'd bet money on the carny being the honest one.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Do I think the "President is a good man who has only the best intentions at heart?" I dunno. Why don't you ask that to Ron Paul. After all it was Bush and Karl Rove who essentially got Ron Paul elected in 1996, after he won the GOP nomination. Of course, Ron would never admit to this.

And it was Ron Paul who praised Bush at numerous "Bush for President" functions in Texas in 2000 - Corpus Christi, Wharton GOP Annual Dinner, ect... where Ron Paul introduced Gov. Bush.

Oh, and it was Ron Paul who had Bush's picture (speaking with Ron at a meeting at the White House) PROMINENTLY displayed on the FRONT WALL ENTRANCE to our Congressional office in Freeport for years.

And it was Ron Paul who signed a letter in 2000 (may have been 2002?) for then loyal Bush Republican Congressional candidates Brian Bilbray and Jim Rogan (sorry, I don't think I have this name correct?), against their Libertarian Party opponents that year. In the letter, requested of Ron by the then Bush Appointee at the RNC at the time - and mailed to all registered Libertarian Party members in those respective Districts, Ron specifically asked Libertarians to "Vote Republican for Congress."

Warren | May 25, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Eric D,
Please. Just go away.

joe | May 25, 2007, 2:17pm | #

"1987, USS Starke, Saddam Hussein's forces lob a missile killing 37 US Sailors."

1987, USS Vincennes downs an Iranian jetliner, killing over 100 civilians. Like the Iraqis, whom we were supporting at the time, the cause was the misidentification of the target as Iranian military. Eric, I don't think you should be accusing the United States navy of attacking Iranian civilians like that.

I'm not even going to bother Fisking the claims about Atta in Prague and Iraqis in OKC, as I find it impolite to mock people's religion.

"Iraq was harboring two Terrorist training camps before we attacked in 2003: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam. The latter had direct ties to Al Qaeda; Basically Al Qaeda in Iraq under a different name."

Eric knows that the Ansar camp was in Kurdish territory, its organizers having fled the Saddam regime in order to avoid the secret police execution that awaited them. Eric knows this, and writes this crap anyway.

Why do people take Ron Paul's word over Eric Dondero's, val? Because Eric is a transparent liar, that's why.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Joe, you dumbshit. That line about this "being the first time I heard I was fired..." was obviously rhetorical and a smart-allecky remark on my account. It was not meant to be taken literally.

The first time I heard this was two days ago, when Dave Wiesgal here at Reason emailed me the Ron Paul interview.

But it is quite noteworthy that 4 days ago, RP was praising me in the Brazoria Facts, "as credible," and then two days later starts slamming me as "a fired employee." And now today, one of Ron Paul's henchmen is out there in the media calling me a "driver" and a "looney tune."

Something has happened in the last two days to change the official line on Dondero.

I suspect the fact that yet another GOP primary challenger has emerged to Ron Paul. That's probably sent him/them over the edge.

Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Dondero, not everyone who opposes the Iraq adventure is a pacifist. Only a tiny, tiny minority are.

But I know I don't really need to tell you that. You know goddamn well that Ron Paul is not a pacifist by any definition of that word. But then as others have observed you and the truth are total strangers.

And it was Ron Paul who praised Bush at numerous "Bush for President" functions in Texas in 2000 - Corpus Christi, Wharton GOP Annual Dinner, ect... where Ron Paul introduced Gov. Bush.

Since at that time Bush was promoting a "humble" foreign policy (as opposed to the ambitious nation-building policies of the Clintonistas) at the time, this was hardly inconsistent for Ron Paul.

FACT: Dr. Earl Ravenal, the LP's 1984 Presidential Nomination candidate who eventually lost to nutso Leftwing Libertarian Bergland, was hardcore Pro-Defense.

Earl Ravenal has also advised against every interventionist war, including Iraq. Being Pro-Defense and being Pro-Iraq War are not equivalent positions.

And PJ O'Rourke has pretty much dismissed the Bushies as incompetent boobs on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. Yes, he was in favor of deposing Saddam but he thinks the Administration has seriously mishandled the war.

And neither one of them would give you the time of day. And from now on neither will I.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:23pm | #

What the fuck?

Joe, are you honestly saying with a straight face that because Al Aswar-Al Islam was physically located in Kurdish Territory it was "not inside Iraq."

Holy Shit. This is the first time I've heard anyone claim that the Kurds had their Independence under Saddam Hussein's rule.

Why don't you try telling that to the families of the some 200,000 Kurds who were brutally gassed by Saddam from the early 1990s to 2003.

I suppose you're now going to tell us that Pol Pot was the legitamate ruler of Cambodia, and that the over 2 million Cambodians he killed is an "exaggerrated number."

You worthless Anti-War so-called Libertarians will go to any extent won't you to avoid the fundamental point of how to respond to murderous World Totalitarian Dictatorial leaders.

Evil exists asshole. And if we don't confront it, we will all be marched off to the gas chambers.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:23pm | #

And it was Ron Paul who praised Bush at numerous "Bush for President" functions in Texas in 2000 - Corpus Christi, Wharton GOP Annual Dinner, ect... where Ron Paul introduced Gov. Bush.

Bush seemed like a very different person in 2000. Hell, in 2000 even I kinda liked Bush. Stuff like "humbler foreign policy" really resonated with me... too bad Bush turned out to be such a lying piece of shit.

Oh, and it was Ron Paul who had Bush's picture (speaking with Ron at a meeting at the White House) PROMINENTLY displayed on the FRONT WALL ENTRANCE to our Congressional office in Freeport for years.

OH MY GOD! A PICTURE OF THE SITTING PRESIDENT IN A CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE! AND THERE ARE WORDS IN ALL CAPS! SOMEONE CALL A SWAT TEAM!

Eric, I hate resorting to the ad hominem, but I must say that you're an absolutely worthless waste of skin. Go lie down until the voices in your head stop screaming.

b | May 25, 2007, 2:25pm | #

To Brian Doherty:

Thanks for the "yokel" quote. Ron Paul rulez, dood. But now that you've branded him as a lame-o, we'll never have liberty in America.

Oh well.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Warren D.

Please, just go away. Leave us real libertarians alone, and stop polluting our movement with your pacifist crap.

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:26pm | #

I have no regard for Dondero, but I suppose there is a chance that his characterization of Paul's reluctance to strike at the Taliban is true, and if so, this speaks very, very, poorly of Paul.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:28pm | #

You worthless Anti-War so-called Libertarians will go to any extent won't you to avoid the fundamental point of how to respond to murderous World Totalitarian Dictatorial leaders.

Maybe we could start by shipping Eric Dondero to them. It's a win-win!

Evil exists asshole. And if we don't confront it, we will all be marched off to the gas chambers.

Welcome to the post-Godwin portion of the thread!

Warren | May 25, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Leave us real libertarians alone

Those voices in your head, are not other people.

Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Eric -

Look, if you want to advocate Trotskyite eternal war to export the ideals of the American Revolution, I suppose a certain case can be made for that.

But that case only works if you can actually deliver the Iraq war I was promised: the short one with few casualties and minimal fiscal costs. I also demand the rose petals - showers and showers of rose petals.

If you can't deliver that war, then the question becomes a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis: Has the Iraq war brought us benefits that are worth the 3500 [and counting] dead, the thousands more wounded, and the $500 billion [and counting] dollar cost? I don't think it has. I don't think it's brought any lasting benefit at all, since the crowning achievement of the war - the Iraqi democracy - will last about five minutes after our ultimate withdrawal, whenever that would be. And there have been other costs to the war as well - increased anger against us in the very regions of the world that produce terrorism, an assault on civil liberties that date back to the Magna Carta, shredding of American capability with the world community, etc.

Our choice isn't between some fantasy war policy where everything is wonderful because it's run by Mr. Dondero, and dhimmitude. Sorry.

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Jake, your remarks interest me somewhat. I KNEW Bush was going to be horrible in regards to domestic policy; how could a guy who made his pile off the abuse of eminent domain and taxpayer subsidy avoid being horrible? Regarding foreign policy, I think his views were derailed and then reconstructed by the VP's office after 9/11, but I had no doubt going in that Bush would be a terrible President in regards to domestic policy.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Look, for those of you who still think Ron Paul is not a pacifist, don't take my word for it. Ask him yourselves.

Specifically, ask he why he opposes the death penalty, even for brutal Serial Murderers.

Ron and I used to argue about the death penalty for hours and hours in the car on the way to campaign events.

I'll give him one thing: He is consistent. He is opposed to Abortion, opposed to the Death Penalty, opposed to Euthanasia (Terry Schiavo stuff), and opposed to all War for any reason.

Doubt this?

Ask him if he feels that our intervention in WWII was justified.

I'll guarantee you that you'll get some long drawn out historial lesson about how FDR knew of the Japanese attacks before hand, rather than a straight out answer, that "Yes, Hitler's Nazis and the Japanese needed to be defeated."

The guy is a total pacifist. Accept that.

I mean he does get an 'A' for honesty and consistency. But don't keep trying to spin this tired-old line that "Ron is not a pacifist, he just opposes the Iraq War" bullshit.

dhex | May 25, 2007, 2:36pm | #

"Young people who agree with us on Economic conservatism and Social tolerance, may now be turned off to libertarianism, thinking that we're a bunch of Pacifists or "Surrenderists," who don't recognize the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism."

thankfully, those who would use terms like "surrenderists" or "islamo-fascism" aren't going to be interested much in economic conservatism or social tolerance, so it's basically a draw.

Ray Harmon | May 25, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Politics of fear versus politics of reason. I choose reason. Understanding is far more constructive than the blind, chest pounding tribalism that I hear spouting from the representatives of the status quo.

In fact, one should realize that the politics of fear is the same tactic being used by the rabid extremists on both sides of this "war".

Both sides are equally wron