Giuliani=Libertarian Reagan?

Katherine Mangu-Ward | July 5, 2007, 12:05pm

WSJ Giuliani Those teases at The Wall Street Journal see libertarianism in the bold Giuliani-led Republican future:

Mr. Giuliani's lead in the polls -- and in the latest round of fund raising, according to new reports Tuesday -- may hint at the declining clout of those voters and their issues within the Republican party, and perhaps a shift back toward a more libertarian emphasis....
He also disarmingly gives audiences permission to disagree with him on some issues -- a trait rarely evinced during his mayoral terms -- but still support his campaign. "I don't agree with us on everything," he regularly adds. That message appeals to Republicans who fear a 2008 drubbing if the party focuses too narrowly on family-values issues, as it did in the past two presidential races.

The article also gives Giuliani the much-coveted Reagan comparison:

Mr. Giuliani's candidacy could be helping to redefine the Republican party, just as Ronald Reagan's did in 1980, when pundits initially dismissed Mr. Reagan as too conservative for his party's mainstream.

Stay tuned for the definitive Giuliani treatment from Dave Weigel in an upcoming issue.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Send this article to:

Comments to "Giuliani=Libertarian Reagan?":

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO, YOU WUSSY BITCHES!! | July 5, 2007, 12:22pm | #

REAL libertarians bomb the shit out of everybody we don't like! You fucka wit' my country, I fucka wit' yours! Ron Paul's poll numbers suck! Ron Paul is a fucking pussy! Love of authority is the defining libertarian trait! I'm cancelling my subscription! Raimondo needs to admit Bush was right about Iraq! BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!

Michael Pack | July 5, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Check out his recod as a U.S. attorneys general.He makes law as he goes along.

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO, YOU WUSSY BITCHES!! | July 5, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Ron Paul hires frothing jackasses to work for him!

joe | July 5, 2007, 12:28pm | #

The WSJ is using "libertarian" to mean "business conservative." That's all.

Warty | July 5, 2007, 12:32pm | #

You're a better libertarian than Benito is , joe.

charlie | July 5, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Well, if the word "libertarian" means unquestioningly supporting a never ending expansion of the military-industrial complex in the name of fighting "terror," the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" and the suspension of habeas corpus, the contiuned prosecution of millions of nonviolent drug offenders -- especially those oh-so-dangerous pot smokers -- and an ever-expanding police state (remember immigrants -- don't reach for your wallet unless you're looking to get shot 41 times), then I guess Rudy Giuliani is as libertarian as they come.

But I guess people like "Instapundit" paved the way for an authoritarian-libertarian fusion ticket in '08. It all goes to show that "libertarian" means nothing more than a typical Bush Republican who happens to watch Will & Grace.

joe | July 5, 2007, 12:35pm | #

A true libertarian would never shoot a guy who's reaching for his wallet.

;-P

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! | July 5, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Well, if the word "libertarian" means unquestioningly supporting a never ending expansion of the military-industrial complex in the name of fighting "terror," the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" and the suspension of habeas corpus, the contiuned prosecution of millions of nonviolent drug offenders -- especially those oh-so-dangerous pot smokers -- and an ever-expanding police state (remember immigrants -- don't reach for your wallet unless you're looking to get shot 41 times), then I guess Rudy Giuliani is as libertarian as they come.

Goddamned right he is. I've been a libertarian since 1985. Don't tell ME what libertarianism is, fucking noob.

Vote me for Congress! I've had sex with hookers!

dhex | July 5, 2007, 12:41pm | #

"A true libertarian would never shoot a guy who's reaching for his wallet."

that's true.

might get winged by an objectivist if he was giving money to a homeless guy though.

Troy | July 5, 2007, 12:43pm | #

I hate all this "true libertarian" crap I've been reading on the threads lately. Jesus fucking christ, hasn't anyone heard of the True Scottsman Fallacy?
Thanks Joe for the explication.

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 12:43pm | #

I'm reminded of an analogy: Stick one foot in boiling water. Stick the other in salty ice water.

Congratulations! You must be comfortable, because the two extremes averaged cancel out.

jimmydageek | July 5, 2007, 12:45pm | #

PL,

Have you received your Bibertarians tee yet? Just curious.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 12:45pm | #

He also disarmingly gives audiences permission to disagree with him on some issues -- a trait rarely evinced during his mayoral terms -- but still support his campaign.

It takes a truly tolerant man to accept money and media exposure time from people who disagree with him.

That message appeals to Republicans who fear a 2008 drubbing if the party focuses too narrowly on family-values issues, as it did in the past two presidential races.

Once again proving my point, most of the people left in the Republican Party are idiots; hopefully the Paulites can maintain a small kernel of sanity in that clusterfuck.

You won the last two presidential races, idiots. And you didn't lose in 2006 because of family-values issues, idiots; you lost it because of the war that Giuliani supports with every fiber of his unfortunate existence, idiots.

Dennis | July 5, 2007, 12:46pm | #

This is all about the abortion issue defining a politician yet again. Giuliani falls into the pro-choice camp (at the moment, we think. sort of) and that somehow makes him a "libertarian."

Never mind his utter disrespect for civil liberties and his support for the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. And the fact that he has exploited a national tragedy for the purpose of amassing political power.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 12:52pm | #

I seriously wonder what issue Republicans think Giuliani will run on that will give them traction in '08. They're friggin nuts if they think running on continuing the war in Iraq is going to keep them from getting a drubbing. If you throw out the family-values issues and (ha!) limited-govt issues in the economic sphere, there aren't really any Republican positions left.

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 12:53pm | #

jimmydageek,

Not yet. I got a delivery notice and expect it by this weekend or so.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 12:55pm | #

If you throw out the family-values issues and (ha!) limited-govt issues in the economic sphere, there aren't really any Republican positions left.

He walked around New York looking somewhat competent on 9/11. What more does a modern Republican candidate need?

Nine-eleven. Nine-eleven nine-eleven. Nine eleven? Nine-eleven; (nine-eleven nine-eleven), nine-eleven.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 12:56pm | #

Huh. If you type "nine eleven" over and over again, it starts looking almost German or something.

jimmydageek | July 5, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 12:53pm | #

jimmydageek,

Not yet. I got a delivery notice and expect it by this weekend or so.

Good to know. Hope you get good use out of it :)

BTS | July 5, 2007, 1:01pm | #

Man, I was waiting for the shouts of "Eric Dondero!" and ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! delivered faster than I could have hoped. Kudos to you.

Urkobold™ | July 5, 2007, 1:03pm | #

NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NINE ELEVEN.
NEUN ELF.

GOTT IM HIMMEL! BOUNCY JENNIFER, YOU ARE RIGHT!

Robert Stacy McCain | July 5, 2007, 1:04pm | #

Stay tuned for the definitive Giuliani treatment from Dave Weigel in an upcoming issue.

"Treatment" = evisceration.

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! | July 5, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Man, I was waiting for the shouts of "Eric Dondero!" and ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! delivered faster than I could have hoped.

That's what the hookers I fucked in the Navy used to say!

Brandybuck | July 5, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Someone with too long of a handle writes:

Ron Paul hires frothing jackasses to work for him!

Actually, Ron Paul doesn't need to hire frothing jackasses. They just seem to accrete on him of their own accord. Just go check out www.ronpaulforums.com. The place is absolutely crawling with truthers, nutters, conspiracy freaks and fourteen year olds in their parent's basement. The latest group to latch onto the campaign are the chemtrailers.

As a Ron Paul supporter for twenty years, I am ashamed and embarassed by the other supporters in the campaign. I want to wear a mask when I go out in public. The problem is that Ron Paul is too nice of a guy. He won't tell the kooks to smeg off.

lunchstealer | July 5, 2007, 1:07pm | #

So the only criteria for being a libertarian are apparently as follows:

* Not shooting gay people on sight
* Failing to foam at the mouth upon hearing the word "abortion"
* Being in the GOP

Don't get me wrong, I don't want him to change on the first two points, but I think 'libertarian' might be around an 8 on a liberty scale that goes to eleven. Rudy's doing well to get to a three.

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! | July 5, 2007, 1:12pm | #

Actually, Ron Paul doesn't need to hire frothing jackasses.

But he did anyway! Where do you think I got my fucking start?

Vote me for Congress!

Dave W. | July 5, 2007, 1:25pm | #

He walked around New York looking somewhat competent on 9/11.

First, he couldn't use his expensive command bunker because it was too dangerous to go there.

Then when he learned that the Towers were likely to come down and he evacuated himself instead of the firefighters.

If that is looking competent . . .

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 1:26pm | #

If that is looking competent . . .

But his hair wasn't mussed in the slightest. That's what matters.

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 1:26pm | #

but I think 'libertarian' might be around an 8 on a liberty scale that goes to eleven

Why not just say that 10 is the highest liberty score and libertarian is around 7.3?

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Why not just say that 10 is the highest liberty score and libertarian is around 7.3?

Because eleven is one higher than ten.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 1:34pm | #

thoreau,

Because saying something is "around" a number with a decimal part is pretentious and, frankly, sissy.

joe | July 5, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Funny Story about Guiliani in today's Boston Globe.

The reporter went down to North Carolina, to a Rudy Guiliani political event, and couldn't find a single person among his admirers would could name a single notable thing he did on 9/11.

He provided leadership. He displayed emotion. He looked good. No one could name anything useful that he did. But he walked around and got on camera and stuff.

Warren | July 5, 2007, 1:38pm | #

I shot around a 71

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 1:40pm | #

he was just so strong when the country needed him to be.

Bazil | July 5, 2007, 1:41pm | #

That bald prick is no libretarian. I'll vote for Ron Paul if I have to write him in.

No more "lesser of the two evil" nonesense, I'd rather vote my Conscious for a candidate that has no chance than sellout to the likes of Gugliani (sic), at least I'll sleep comfortably at night. I voted for W back in 2000 and still feel unclean from it.

joe | July 5, 2007, 1:44pm | #

If CSPAN were to devote an evening to reruns of the public statements Bush and Guiliani made in the week following 9/11, our political culture would be thrown into disarray.

There is a huge mythology about the depth of leadership they displayed, and it is based on nothing except the fuzzy memories of people who were desperate to view their political leaders in the most favorable light, in order to allow themselves to feel safer.

LarryA | July 5, 2007, 2:07pm | #

He also disarmingly gives audiences permission to disagree with him on some issues -- a trait rarely evinced during his mayoral terms -- but still support his campaign.

It’s certainly nice that Giuliani gives audiences permission to say things he disagrees with. It’d be much more “libertarian” if he let them do those things without sending in a SWAT team.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:11pm | #

And Dennis, what's wrong with the abortion issue defining someone's political ideology?

It's a huge issue. Some of us joined the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party precisely because we believed the LP to be Pro-Choice.

Don't any of you all remember the bumper stickers the LP used to produce back in the 1990s, "Libertarians: Pro-Choice on Everything."

Giuliani, the Great White Hope of Libertarianism | July 5, 2007, 2:15pm | #

"Libertarians: Pro-Choice on Everything."

Except drugs. And sex-themed businesses in Times Square.

Urkobold™ | July 5, 2007, 2:15pm | #

ADMIT IT JOE, YOU ADMIRED BUSH'S LEADERSHIP AND MANLY VISION IMMEDIATELY AFTER 9/11. YOU WANTED TO BE LIKE HIM. AND NOW, YOU ARE WRACKED WITH GUILT AT YOUR FOOLISHNESS.

THE URKOBOLD HAS PICTURES OF YOU HUGGING GIULIANI IN A BIPARTISAN WAY, AS WELL.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:15pm | #

You Ron Paul partisans need to now step up and face a cold hard fact: You will either have to vote for Giuliani, who is moderately libertarian for 2008, or Hillary Clinton, or some low-level no-name Libertarian Party candidate like George Phillies or Steve Kubby.

While voting for Phillies or Kubby might make y'all feel good, I dare say the result of helping to make Hillary President, will be regretted by each and every one of you a year or two into her Administration.

Suck it up and Vote for the tax cuttin', welfare privatizing, Pro-Choice guy from NYC.

Giuliani, the Great White Hope of Libertarianism | July 5, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Suck it up and Vote for the tax cuttin', welfare privatizing, drug-users-in-jail-puttin', Pro-Choice guy from NYC.

Giuliani, the Great White Hope of Libertarianism | July 5, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Whoops! Almost forgot!

Suck it up and Vote for the tax cuttin', welfare privatizing, drug-users-in-jail-puttin', jack-shit about "blowback theory" knowin' Pro-Choice guy from NYC.

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Eric, you're being hopelessly out-performed by your impersonator.

If you're so darn devoted to your cause, stop wasting time here and go try to convert a more receptive audience.

And leave us to enjoy Jennifer's satire.

x,y | July 5, 2007, 2:18pm | #

All the WSJ means to convey is that he's pro-choice and/or not against civil unions.

Giuliani, the Great White Hope of Libertarianism | July 5, 2007, 2:20pm | #

Nothing says "libertarian" like a plunger up the ass.

Jake Boone | July 5, 2007, 2:21pm | #

While voting for Phillies or Kubby might make y'all feel good, I dare say the result of helping to make Hillary President, will be regretted by each and every one of you a year or two into her Administration.

As would helping make Giuliani president. I'm not seeing enough of a difference between the lemon-lime flavored urine-based beverage and the orange flavored urine-based beverage for me to order either one.

dhex | July 5, 2007, 2:22pm | #

i hate to say this, but i'll take hillary over guliani if it came down to that. it's not the lesser of two evils so much as one of them is megafuckinevil.

and as for what he did on 9/11, search me, man.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Would someone here PLEASE explain to me how it is that the stridently non-partisan/no axe to grind website www.ontheissues.com, which rates every single major Democrat and Republican Presidential candidate has rated Rudy Giuliani as "Moderate Libertarian" at a solid 60/60.

FYI, they gave Ron Paul a 70/70.

Only Paul and Giuliani of over 22 candidates had the "Libertarian" label attached to them.

The site, looked excrutiatingly at hundreds of votes and stated positions of all the 22 over decades.

Again, the conclusion:

Rudy Giuliani rates as "Moderate Libertarian."

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:30pm | #

"Not seeing much of a difference" between Hillary and Rudy, 'eh?

Guess that's why the Washington Post (might have been the NY Times?) had a piece a couple weeks ago, titled, "Rudy Giuliani's Libertarian Health Care Plan."

Now, compare that to Hillary's National Socialist Health Care Plan.

Which would you prefer being implemented?

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Serious question for the real Eric Dondero: how does imprisoning people for using the wrong drugs tie into your libertarian theory?

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Les | July 5, 2007, 2:40pm | #

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.

I think only a socialist could say something like this. Or a fascist. Definitely a statist or authoritarian.

Eric, if one supports the drug war (and Giuliani just loves it), it's impossible to be even a tiny bit of a libertarian.

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Darn it, Jennifer beat me to it.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 2:41pm | #

Don't worry, Asharak. If history is any guide, he'll pretend he didn't see our posts anyway.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 2:43pm | #

I really really hope this is the most fucked up election ever, with Rudy and Billary getting less than %40 of the national vote each. I just want people to send a message that this crap is rediculous and we'd rather have no government than the stupid one we have.

joe | July 5, 2007, 2:44pm | #

You know, if the Iraq War never happened, Rudy would be walking all over Hillary among libertarians.

Heck, if the Iraq War never happened, we'd still be talking about the libertarian/traditionalist/big business fusion as the heart of the Republican Party.

Then again, if the Iraq War never happened, George Bush would be remembered as the foreign policy heavyweight responsible for capturing bin Laden and putting Saddam back into his box via the renewed coercive inspections program, and he'd basically be picking the next president.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 2:45pm | #

DOOOOOOONNNNDERRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Anthony Gregory | July 5, 2007, 2:46pm | #

But Hillary is pro-choice, pro-war on terror, and not anti-gay. So if Giuliani is a libertarian, so is she.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 2:46pm | #

joe,

You might be right. the Iraq War fucked this presidency.

Josh | July 5, 2007, 2:54pm | #

If the war in Iraq never happened, Pakistan would have let us pour a hundred thousand troops inside their borders to find Osama? Counterfactuals are fun!

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 2:55pm | #

But Hillary is pro-choice, pro-war on terror, and not anti-gay. So if Giuliani is a libertarian, so is she.

And she and her hubby DID succeed in cutting back the welfare state, too. And her respect for civil liberties is just as great as Giuliani's!

My God. All this time, I never knew.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:56pm | #

So Anthony, did Hillary cut taxes 23 times? Did she privatize so many welfare programs in NYC that it earned her the designation of "Ayn Randian" like Giuliani?

Similarly, has her Health Care program been called "Libertarian"?

And what's her rating on ontheissues.com? 30/60 is a far cry from 60/60.

And how is she on Free Speech issues? Rudy just came out in favor of Free Speech rights for Pro-Life Protestors in Wisconsin (Supreme Court ruling). You think Hillary would adopt such a position?

Oh, and does Hillary have the support of libertarian mainstream entities like the Club for Growth, Steve Forbes and the Wall Street Journal?

And how many movement libertarians are supporting Hillary Clinton? The Rudy Giuliani Campaign is loaded with self-described "libertarian" campaign workers.

Just the tip of the iceburg of questions you non-Rudy supporters who call yourselves "libertarians" need to address.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Yupper, if the Iraq War never happened Saddam Hussein would still be President of Iraq, and gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds every year.

Oh, and let's not forget his two brutally murderous sons Uday and Qusay would be waiting in the wings to succeed Papa.

And you have the audacity to call yourself a libertarian?

Jake Boone | July 5, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Would someone here PLEASE explain to me how it is that the stridently non-partisan/no axe to grind website www.ontheissues.com, which rates every single major Democrat and Republican Presidential candidate has rated Rudy Giuliani as "Moderate Libertarian" at a solid 60/60.

They don't call him a "Moderate Libertarian." They call him a "Moderate Libertarian Conservative", which is their way of saying "he's in the Centrist box on our bastardized version of the World's Smallest Political Quiz, somewhat toward Right Conservative and somewhat toward Libertarian." By their scale, he has a 53 on Personal Freedoms and a 65 on Economic Freedoms.

Not exactly a paragon of libertarianism.

Also, do you really think H&R is a hotbed of Hillary boosterism? We don't have to like Hillary to understand that Giuliani is a total shithead.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Don't worry, Asharak. If history is any guide, he'll pretend he didn't see our posts anyway.

So far, so good.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Does Rudy's stance on Drugs bother me?

Sure! It bothers the hell out of me. Though, I do know that the more libertarians that are involved in his effort, the more chance we have of converting him on the issue.

That's precisely what happened to Pat Buchanan in 1992. Don't you all remember that Liberty Interview with Buchanan for President where he just about came out for legalizing marijuana, all because his staff was loaded with hardcore libertarian activists, including his travel aide, Chris Tremblay of NH, (at the time Republican Liberty Caucus State Chairman).

Secondly, I don't use drugs. But I do have sex.

In the grand scheme of things, for me personally, maintaining the Right to Choose on Abortion is 100 times more important to me than legalizing drugs. Sorry, but that's just how I feel personally.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 3:03pm | #

Perhaps Giuliani is Ayn Randian in that he has a fixed, unmoving opinion and shrieks at others who disagree with his assertions.

Eric, I'm glad that you got your inspiration to spread your special brand of idiocy from a bumper sticker in the 90s, but the grown ups are talking.

P.S. please berate me because you've been a libertarian for soooooooooo much longer than me. It gives me great pleasure. Great pleasure indeed!

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 3:04pm | #

So far, so good.

Let me give him the benefit of the doubt and pretend he really, truly didn't see our posts. So I'll re-do it here, in bold:

Serious question for the real Eric Dondero: how does imprisoning people for using the wrong drugs tie into your libertarian theory?

stephen the goldberger | July 5, 2007, 3:05pm | #

I know everyone likes to play the "Guiliani is a fascist card" but Dondero is right that it's entirely possible for someone to have a libertarian mindset on certain issues and another on other issues. Just because Guiliani likes the drug war/ increased police power doesn't mean he rejects free market economics.

I fully plan to make a statement with my vote instead of settling for the lesser of two evils but to reject all of guiliani's platform because of his belief in a strong police force is unfair and simplistic analysis.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:05pm | #

Hey Jake Boone, Newsflash for ya.

Not everyone is a flaming extremist radical 99/99 scoring anarcho-libertarian.

You may find this hard to believe but there's a lot of folks out there, including self-described libertarians such as myself, who think 53/65 score is not all that bad.

You just proved my point. Thanks for letting the rest of the board here know that Rudy did relatively well on that quiz.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 3:06pm | #

In the grand scheme of things, for me personally, maintaining the Right to Choose on Abortion is 100 times more important to me than legalizing drugs. Sorry, but that's just how I feel personally.

So you believe that imprisoning people who use drugs doesn't in any way contradict the "personal freedom" meme of libertarianism? And the civil-liberty decay that's happened as a direct result of the war on drugs is such a non-issue that you can support a candidate who wants to see said WOD continue?

Jake Boone | July 5, 2007, 3:06pm | #

And you have the audacity to call yourself a libertarian?

I am humbled, as I find myself standing before what must be the very wellspring of all the world's potkettling.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 3:06pm | #

Speaking of free speech, your man also oversaw the policing of the 2000 Republican National Convention in New York. I remember that some peaceful protesters ran into trouble that day...

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 3:06pm | #

And how many movement libertarians are supporting Hillary Clinton? The Rudy Giuliani Campaign is loaded with self-described "libertarian" campaign workers.

Yup, there are some "libertarians" pimping Giuliani. We like laughing at them.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 3:07pm | #

I fully plan to make a statement with my vote instead of settling for the lesser of two evils but to reject all of guiliani's platform because of his belief in a strong police force is unfair and simplistic analysis.

You mean, "to reject Giuliani's platform because of his belief in a strong police force empowered to arrest and imprison people who have harmed nobody, but consumed an intoxicating substance that's not on the officially approved list, is unfair and simplistic analysis."

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 3:07pm | #

Don't worry, Asharak. If history is any guide, he'll pretend he didn't see our posts anyway.

Yeah, I noticed he's been pretty evasive.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:09pm | #

Thanks for putting it in bold. Now to answer your question, simply put, IT DOES NOT FIT INTO MY GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS AS FAR AS LIBERTAIRANISM IS CONCERNED.

Let me say this loud and clear:

I FULLY SUPPORT LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS. Firstly, marijuana, but also I think there's a great case to be made for legalizing all drugs, including hard drugs, to cut down on crime.

Now as to Rudy's stance on the issue: It pretty much sucks!

Now, let's ponder this for a second. There are 22 major contenders for the Presidency of the United States.

Not a single one of them has a position on the issue that's better or any different than Giuliani's. (Maybe Dennis Kucinich?)

Given that, I choose to make up my mind on who to support on much more important issues such as THE ALL TIME MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TAXES!!!

Scooby | July 5, 2007, 3:09pm | #

"But I do have sex."

Does it count if you have to pay for it?

"In the grand scheme of things, for me personally, maintaining the Right to Choose on Abortion is 100 times more important to me than legalizing drugs. Sorry, but that's just how I feel personally."

Then you should be neutral when it comes to Hillary vs. Rudy. Some of us vote "none of the above," or hold our noses when voting for one or the other, but we sure as hell won't try to justify it by calling either statist a "libertarian."

Go peddle your polished turds elsewhere; we aren't buying them here.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 3:11pm | #

Petulant child,
Are you wearing blinders? If you really believe what you said in your 3:09 post, you'd be a Ron Paul supporter.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 3:12pm | #

I'm going to do my damnedest to convince everyone I know to not vote for Rudy, even if that means the "Lizard Queen" gets to be president. I'm just hoping enough of America is smart enough (though I know they aren't) to know they don't have to vote for tyrrany just because that's what the parties give them.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 3:12pm | #

Thanks for putting it in bold. Now to answer your question, simply put, IT DOES NOT FIT INTO MY GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS AS FAR AS LIBERTAIRANISM IS CONCERNED.

Which means your version of libertarianism is one where personal freedom doesn't come into play. Just so we're clear on this.

You do realize that, concerning those hookers you fucked while in the Navy, had you fucked 'em in New York your Libertarian God Giuliani would have locked your ass in jail, right?

Now, let's ponder this for a second. There are 22 major contenders for the Presidency of the United States. Not a single one of them has a position on the issue that's better or any different than Giuliani's.

And you're not pretending they're libertarians, so it doesn't matter.

Jake Boone | July 5, 2007, 3:13pm | #

Not everyone is a flaming extremist radical 99/99 scoring anarcho-libertarian.

Well, you've certainly corrected me on that point. Because to claim that Giuliani isn't a libertarian is, necessarily, also to claim that everyone in the world is a flaming extremist radical 99/99 scoring anarcho-libertarian. Thanks for steering me straight, bud.

You may find this hard to believe but there's a lot of folks out there, including self-described libertarians such as myself, who think 53/65 score is not all that bad.

Those of us who are actually libertarians, on the other hand, find that 53/65 kinda sucks. 53% and 65% aren't passing grades, where I come from.

You just proved my point. Thanks for letting the rest of the board here know that Rudy did relatively well on that quiz.

Your logic isn't like our Earth logic, is it?

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Jennifer, of course it runs contrary to the central core of libertarianism.

But there are tons of political issues out there. I think every one of us can agree that Taxes is by far the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL TIME FOR LIBERTARIANS!!! Far out-trumping Drug Legalization by about 1000 to 1.

And on Taxes NONE OF THE 21 OTHER MAJOR CANDIDATES SAVE RON PAUL IS BETTER THAN RUDY GIULIANI!!!

Now, you have to ask yourself, are you going to vote for a George Phillies or Steve Kubby that agrees with you on 100% of the issues and be one of about 350,000 voters casting their votes for the LP candidate in 2008. Or, are you going to vote for a guy who actually has a shot of winning, who has bad views on Drug Legalization, yet agrees with us libertarians on 6 to 7 out of 10 questions on the WSPQ?

Further, the benefit of voting for that guy is that we get to keep Hillary out of the White House, whom we agree with on only maybe 3 to 4 out of 10 top issues.

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 3:15pm | #

This discussion is silly. The primaries are months away, and there's still a much better libertarian candidate available. Whether Giuliani may mix his authoritarian tendencies with some libertarian rhetoric is irrelevant when there's a real libertarian running, with an excellent record as a libertarian.

Come January, I'm voting for Ron Paul in the Florida GOP primaries. Period. I doubt that Clinton or Giuliani will get nominated, but if they do, I'm going to probably vote LP. I think they both suck. She may be worse, but either one as president would be bad for all of us. Sorry.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 3:16pm | #

No one has yet convinced me that Rudy would be sooo much better than hillary except for a healthcare plan she may or may not get through congress.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 3:16pm | #

So... again... why don't you support Ron Paul if taxes are the most important issue?

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Tell ya what Jennifer. Go ahead and cast your vote for Phillies or Kubby. It's been quite amusing to me to watch you and others here completely avoid that fundamental question. What is it that you're going to do? Vote for Giuliani who is with us on 6 to 7 out of 10 issues, or for the Perfect Phillies or Kubby who will get the typical LP vote total of 350,000 votes.

You don't have the Ron Paul option any more.

Guess you heard that his fundraising numbers were completely inflated: Not the $5 million as his supporters were claiming, but rather a paltry $1.5 million.

So now it's Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton or Kubby/Phillies.

Stop skiting the question Jennifer, and others.

Are you all going to be a bit pragmatic, and vote for the Tax cuttin' guy? Or, are you going to vote to continue our libertarian movement's decline into obscurity by voting for mediocre Party hardy LP faithful candidate like Steve Philles or George Kubby, or whatever the hell their names are?

stephen the goldberger | July 5, 2007, 3:19pm | #

"You mean, "to reject Giuliani's platform because of his belief in a strong police force empowered to arrest and imprison people who have harmed nobody, but consumed an intoxicating substance that's not on the officially approved list, is unfair and simplistic analysis.""

Sure. There's much more to being president than "the drug war."

Chris S. | July 5, 2007, 3:19pm | #

And how is she on Free Speech issues? Rudy just came out in favor of Free Speech rights for Pro-Life Protestors in Wisconsin (Supreme Court ruling). You think Hillary would adopt such a position?

Ah yes, the man who routinely attempted to shut down magazines and other media outlets that were even vaguely critical of him is pro "Free Speech."

Newspeak at its finest, Dondero. Bravo! Let me also nominate McCain and Putin for "Free Speech" advocates of the year.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:24pm | #

ProLiberate: No offense, but you seem to be a bit behind the news curve.

If you've been reading Hit & Miss on a daily basis as I do, you would know that Ron Paul's fundraising for the 2nd Quarter was a miserable $1.5 million. The Campaign and his supporters had been touting "$5 million."

Plus Paul is tanking on the poll numbers. Zogby had him at a high of 3% in March. Now that number is at 0%. Other recent national polls like the CNN poll is similarly showing him at 0 to 1%.

Not quite the "Ron Paul surge" we were hearing about so much by his supporters after the debate where Giuliani socked him on 9/11.

Why not vote for Ron Paul? Beyond the obvious -his views on foreign policy are utterly atrocious, especially in light of the recent London Bomb Plots/Attacks, but more so, cause he has zero chance of winning or even gaining any traction in the GOP. So much so, in fact, that he's now in danger of even losing his Congressional seat.

(Friendswood City Councilman and staunch Conservative Chris Peden just declared against him for the GOP nomination.)

BakedPenguin | July 5, 2007, 3:27pm | #

...the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL TIME FOR LIBERTARIANS!!! Far out-trumping Drug Legalization by about 1000 to 1.

Wow. HYPERBOLE MUCH? I thought Jennifer's satire was a bit over the top, but as with any good satire, it's now hard to tell the real from the fake.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Okay smarty-pants Penguin, are you saying you disagree with my assertion.

Come clean. Do you think that Drug Legalization is a more important issue for the libertarian movement than Tax Cuts?

Let's get you on record.

Waiting...

Chris S. | July 5, 2007, 3:30pm | #

I'll tell you what, Dondero, if it comes down to Guiliani and Hilary, I plan on writing in "Fuck You, Guiliani."

Thus, if Rudy changes his name to "fuck you," he has my vote. He just has to be a little pragmatic about things to get my vote.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Chris, Chris, Chris, no need to take such drastic measures. You can vote for the all-inspiring George Phillies, Libertarian for President or maybe Marijuana Guy the one and only Steve Kubby.

You'll be joining 349,999 other happy American voters, who will be content in knowing that once again they voted for the "Party of Principle."

Never mind that the LP Presidential contender will no doubt continue the Party's decline into utter obscurity.

Vote on Principle. Vote Libertarian.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 3:36pm | #

I'm confused eric, I thought you were going to beat paul out of his seat? Couldn't get that campaign off the ground?

A paltry 1.5 million? Assuming that's true, that's not enough to win the presidency, but it makes for a fine congressional warchest and keeps him active on the speaking circuit, so he can atleast keep people knowledgable about the issues.

Just because you believe winning is more important than right ideas doesn't mean libertarians should bow and scrape to Don Guliani. Maybe he'll be a decent president, but I'm 100% guaranteeing you I've seen enough of Mr. Guliani to know that there will be alot of people voting against him. Think, a coalition of religious fundamentalists and libertarians fighting to keep the same ma out of office. That'll be fun.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Lost in Translation,
according to Brink Lindsay, it'll be the 60s all over again!

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Paul's much more libertarian, and, if you want my frank assessment, I think Giuliani will be dropping out before Paul. He may do better, but he's more likely to vanish after he fails to win key states early on. I don't know any Republicans in my personal circle who plan to vote for him. That may mean nothing, but we'll see. I'll say one thing--Paul may have a small chance, but it isn't zero. And the message he's getting out is worth backing him, win or lose.

I don't see the terrorist threat as worth allowing the continued expansion of federal power. If Paul gets us embarrassed somewhat in the Middle East, that'd be worth it if he could succeed in shrinking the government. The terrorist attacks in 2001 were a terrible thing, but I don't fear al Qaeda or other terrorist groups the way you do. I say we just keep on being successful and powerful, and we'll remain light years beyond them in pretty much every category that matters.

Besides, I don't think Paul is planning to totally ignore the foreign threats. He just plans to handle things differently. After the ineptitude of the Bush administration, that seems acceptable enough.

Anyway, isn't Giuliani the guy who cut and ran the last time he faced Clinton? Why should I give him a chance to blow it again?

Gray Ghost | July 5, 2007, 3:41pm | #

It's not his embrace of the drug war, the 'broken windows' policing or the wrapping himself in the bloody flag during 9/11 that scares me about a Giuliani presidency. It's the actions of the NYPD when he was mayor. His blessing of "stop n frisk" actions of units like the Street Crime Unit absolutely scare me silly, when I think of the power of the Presidency behind them.

I thought we lived in a country where you could go about your business without being accosted with "Papers, please." I understand that the tactics were very effective in reducing gun crime; that's not the point. And I don't mind if the police stop and search people fleeing a crime scene, etc...

What I'm talking about is his idea that the police are justified in interrupting and searching you, while you go about your business, for no reason other than you look suspicious. Those are the actions of an occupying army, not a police force. They are antithetical to liberty To claim that someone who shares those views is a libertarian (never mind Libertarian), is someone who is confused about the definition of the word.

I still think both posters claiming to be Dondero are impersonators; this new one, unlike Mr. Dondero's past work, seems to have figured out that profanity doesn't advance his arguments.

dhex | July 5, 2007, 3:43pm | #

"You know, if the Iraq War never happened, Rudy would be walking all over Hillary among libertarians."

ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not this one bucko.

seriously eric, your hero is a nannystate fucktard. you probably don't live in nyc, so you don't remember his heroic war against streetcart vendors.

also, the fatal dagger through his supposedly libertarian heart: he banned ferret ownership in the city.

NO FERRETS NO PEACE!

dhex | July 5, 2007, 3:44pm | #

"Do you think that Drug Legalization is a more important issue for the libertarian movement than Tax Cuts?"

i do.

the drug war is the heart of the expanding state. who needs taxes when you can just seize property?

BakedPenguin | July 5, 2007, 3:44pm | #

...Do you think that Drug Legalization is a more important issue for the libertarian movement than Tax Cuts?

I can't speak for the libertarian 'movement'. Every libertarian has their own priorities.

As for me, I know we could make several billion $ worth of tax cuts if we weren't spending billions every year on an insane WoD that does nothing but make our streets less safe, send people to prison for non-crimes, and allow authoritarian authorities to shit over the Bill of Rights. We are in desparate need of a political figure to state this clearly to the vast majority of Americans.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 3:44pm | #

Anyone who has faith in plurality voting is clearly an idiot. Eric, seriously, shouldn't you be taking your creepy mustache and waiting outside of a high school someplace instead of wasting your time TYPING IN ALL CAPS TO PEOPLE WHO THINK YOU'RE A MASSIVE DOUCEHBAG? I mean, those Naval Hookers won't fuck themselves, dude. And the great thing about high school chicks is you get older, but they stay the same age.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 3:45pm | #

dhex,

Eric lives in Galveston County, probably Friendswood. South Houston sucks, except for the Kema, Seabrook area.

TrickyVic | July 5, 2007, 3:47pm | #

""""Nothing says "libertarian" like a plunger up the ass."""""

Uh, maybe shooting an innocent guy 41 times, because you're confused.

Rudy is soooo good on the issue of terrorism, he moved his emergency command bunker to the building that had previously been attacked and was still a major NYC target.

I think Rudy's 9/11 popularity is much like the Peter Seller's movie "Being There".

TrickyVic | July 5, 2007, 3:49pm | #

If Rudy is going to be anything like Reagan, he can start by paying off the Iranians.

dhex | July 5, 2007, 3:50pm | #

LIT: ahh. well, that explains a lot. people might call rudy lots of things - good and, well, not so good - but libertarian is not one of them.

stephen the goldberger | July 5, 2007, 3:50pm | #

The main fear i have with guiliani is more about his potentially abusing Kelo v. New London since he's shown in the past to be one who stretches the law to it's limit in order to serve his interests.

Dondero, I don't want a president who cuts taxes significantly in order to pander to "libertarians" while simultaneously borrowing huge sums of money from China in order to pay for his bloated foreign policy. Just because someone cuts taxes does not mean they believe in a fiscally responsible government.

Chris S. | July 5, 2007, 3:50pm | #

Justin | July 5, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Wow. Giuliani strikes me as the LEAST Libertarian of all the Presidential candidates. In both parties.

Scooby | July 5, 2007, 3:54pm | #

Don't just drop your principles- If you vote Giuliani, drop your drawers, and prepare for the plunger.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 3:54pm | #

I think every one of us can agree that Taxes is by far the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL TIME FOR LIBERTARIANS!!! Far out-trumping Drug Legalization by about 1000 to 1.

You're really just a nutso Blue on a bender trying to parody libertarianism, aren't you?

If not, you're a damned fool.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! | July 5, 2007, 3:56pm | #

BOW TO MY CREEPY MUSTACHE! AND VOTE FOR RUDY!

Cesar | July 5, 2007, 3:56pm | #

Eric can you also tell me whats so "libertarian" about secret trials, the power of naming anyone in the country an "enemy combatant" and holding him without a trial, the suspension of habeus corpus, and Guantanamo Bay?

Oh, and is Kurdistan a state of the union? Because, if its not, I don't really care what happens to the Kurds. Sorry, if you want to defend Kurdistan or Israel or whatever foreign country you have a fetish for this week, you are free to form a mercenary group to go fight their enemies. But don't use my tax dollars or the military of the United States, ok?

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Well, Cesar, let's not get crazy. You obviously never read the Kurdlahoma thread.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 4:03pm | #

I think every one of us can agree that Taxes is by far the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL TIME FOR LIBERTARIANS!!! Far out-trumping Drug Legalization by about 1000 to 1.

I disagree. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd vote for a president who swore to end the war on drugs even if he had to increase taxes to do it.

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 4:04pm | #

I'm curious as to why Eric thinks Hillary will win anyway. Granted, a Giuliani campaign could be hurt by the Bible-thumpers staying home (which is a bigger threat to him than the libertarians that he keeps browbeating), but I believe that in the end, they'll hold their noses and go to the polls just to keep Clinton out of the White House.

And if that Law & Order guy gets nominated instead of Rudy, she's definitely toast.

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 4:05pm | #

him=Giuliani

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 4:07pm | #

If the federal government could be reduced to 10% of its current size, the War on Drugs would be limited to a bunch of people saying drugs are bad, m'kay? I'll take the reduced government, which I suppose could happen if taxes were severely cut, over most anything else.

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 4:07pm | #

I disagree. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd vote for a president who swore to end the war on drugs even if he had to increase taxes to do it.

Not to mention that Republican candidates seldom keep their promises about tax cuts.

Asharak | July 5, 2007, 4:10pm | #

And will=might, durrr.

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 4:10pm | #

Eric, why do you spend your time here trying to convince us? Shouldn't you be out there trying to reach those who might agree with you?

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 4:12pm | #

I'll take the reduced government, which I suppose could happen if taxes were severely cut, over most anything else.

Except you know damned well that's not going to happen. Even if taxes were cut government would expand through the wonder of deficit spending.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Justin, you say that "Giuliani strikes you as the most unlibertarian of all the candidates..."

Really. Could you then kindly explain to me how it is that he is rated as a "Moderate Libertarian" by ontheissues.com?

How is it that he scored second highest of all 22 major candidates, at 60/60 just below Ron Paul at 70/70.

One thing to say Giuliani is not a libertarian. Quite another to say he strikes you as the "most unlibertarian" despit him scoring in the Libertarian area of that survey.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 4:15pm | #

Next Eric will be unironically quoting his Hot or Not rating as evidence that he TOTALLY DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY to get those high school girls to sleep with him.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 4:17pm | #

I thought Jennifer's satire was a bit over the top

Ahem. My satire was so NOT over-the-top a lot of it wasn't satirizing Dondero, but plagiarizing him. The overuse of "fucking" and the "you fuck my country/I fuck yours" and "1985" bits, for instance.

However, to the best of my knowledge Dondero never called Ron Paul a pussy. Merely a traitor.

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 4:18pm | #

Jennifer,

Well, that's true enough, but I think deficit spending with a really low revenue stream would have to be greatly reduced, too.

Coincidentally, I just filled out some libertarian poll (can't remember who for, though it had some Paul-specific questions), where I was asked to rank the relative importance of some ten different things. On the list was "reducing taxes" and "reducing government spending". I put the latter ahead of the former.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 4:21pm | #

StephentheGoldberger,

You should be content with Rudy's stance on Kelo. I believe it was Club for Growth, who recently did an extensive survey of his views, and found him to be more than solid on the Property Rights issue.

In fact, I seem to remember the NY Times saying a few months ago that Giuliani was "an extremist Property Rights supporter." And mentioned some cases in NYC where he sided with "evil" Property Rights advocates over environmental interests.

Eric Dondero, 2006 Petitioner for Americans for Limited Government sponsored Property Rights Initiatives in Montana, Missouri, Oregon and Colorado

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 4:24pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 4:25pm | #

All the quips from Jennifer and others are quite amusing. And I fully admit that I put myself out there, so I'm indeed a target, (Though I think you all would agree that someone using my name in full to post under as they have recently here at Reason.com is not at all fair.)

But I'm still waiting for an answer to my very simple question?

Can someone please explain to me how it is that a Presidential candidate who finishes 2nd!!! among 22 other candidates in a very well-respected non-partisan survey as Most Libertarian, can be considered to be so anti-Libertarian by all of you?

Is it that ontheissues.com is biased? Are they clueless? Are the closeted Fred Thompson, Huckabee or Mitt Romney supporters who wanted to paint Giuliani as a "libertarian" to scare off any potential supporters?

Someone please answer the question.

Is the ontheissues.com survey legitamate or not?

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 4:28pm | #

Eric, why do you spend your time trying to convince our tiny group that your guy deserves a decoder ring? I thought you were working for his campaign, in which case you should be focusing on larger and more reachable blocs.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 4:31pm | #

Dondero- this is a legitimate question - what's the background on "ontheissues.com"? The page won't load, and if there is some secret evidence that Giuliani is a libertarian, I will gladly reconsider.

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Can someone please explain to me how it is that a Presidential candidate who finishes 2nd!!! among 22 other candidates in a very well-respected non-partisan survey as Most Libertarian, can be considered to be so anti-Libertarian by all of you?

Ooooh! Let me try!

(clears throat and stands very straight, hand behind back))

Because a bunch of self-proclaimed freedom-loving individualists aren't likely to say "After reaching a conclusion based on my long and careful examination of the evidence, seeing a different opinion in a survey has totally changed my mind?"

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Did I get it right, Teacher? How did I do?

No. Make that: how the fuck did I fuckin' do?

BakedPenguin | July 5, 2007, 4:39pm | #

My satire was so NOT over-the-top...

Right, which I stated later in my post. I haven't been coming to H&R much over the past 2 months, so I had forgotten Dondero's style of writing.

Amazingly, he actually has a couple of posts that don't have anything in ALL CAPS.

Is it that ontheissues.com is biased? Are they clueless?

Probably.

Jake Boone | July 5, 2007, 4:41pm | #

Really. Could you then kindly explain to me how it is that he is rated as a "Moderate Libertarian" by ontheissues.com?

Are you a different Eric Dondero than the one for whom I answered that very same (incorrect) claim in this very same thread?

TrickyVic | July 5, 2007, 4:41pm | #

Just because someone is rated as Most Libertarian of x,y, and z, does not make them Libertarian at all. Just the most of that selected group. Pollsters do that all the time.

I could have a survey that said "who is the most Jewish?

A. Hillary Clinton
B. Fred Thompson
C. Rudy Guiliani
D. Mitt Romney

The winner wouldn't be jewish at all.

Libertarianism is about an ideology. Sure Rudy may have share some of that, and he proabably is the most Libertarian of that group. But that alone doesn't make him one.

The survey is probably legit, but you have to be aware of how they ask the questions to fully understand the answer. Most surveys are somewhat rigged.

Chris S. | July 5, 2007, 4:43pm | #

Is the ontheissues.com survey legitamate or not?

Like Jennifer said, after considering the substantive issues ourselves, we don't feel compelled to take an opinion on ontheissues.org, a non-functional website, as the gospel truth.

You can't understand that, and we really don't care.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 4:48pm | #

that web site puts Ron Paul as a moderate libertarian. And Jeb Bush. And John McCain. I call bullshit.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 4:49pm | #

John McCain:libertarian::Dondero:Awesome

Enrique Donderooooooooooooo | July 5, 2007, 4:50pm | #

Jesus was a libertarian! So was Buddha! So was Ghengis Kahn! So was Julius Caesar!

Jerry | July 5, 2007, 4:50pm | #

If I could vote, I would vote for Hillary. Anything to keep Eliot Spitzer from running in 2012...

TrickyVic | July 5, 2007, 4:52pm | #

If Hillary Clinton won the above poll, I'm willing to bet cable news would ask, Why does America think Hillary is Jewish? But the real answer is they don't, just more Jewish than the others on a very limited list of non-Jews.

Rudy is probably more Libertarian than the others listed in the question.

Here's a fun one.
Who is most likely to represent the Christians way of life.
A. The Devil
B. Darth Vader
C. Conan the Barbarian
D. Freddy Kruger
E. The Pilsbury Doughboy

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 4:54pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 4:56pm | #

Randolph Carter,

Although I wouldn't call Jeb Bush a libertarian, he certainly showed a surprisingly large number of libertarian tendencies as governor, except for that whole Schiavo fiasco.

Like I've said before, the U.S. got the wrong Bush. But I guess my home state did okay.

TrickyVic,

That's easy. Conan.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 5:01pm | #

But I'm still waiting for an answer to my very simple question?

Can someone please explain to me how it is that a Presidential candidate who finishes 2nd!!! among 22 other candidates in a very well-respected non-partisan survey as Most Libertarian, can be considered to be so anti-Libertarian by all of you?

Because, like you, they apparently have a very dim understanding of what libertarianism is.

It's not just

10 WANT LOW TAXES!!!!!!!!eleven
20 GOTO 20

joe | July 5, 2007, 5:01pm | #

Josh | July 5, 2007, 2:54pm | #

If the war in Iraq never happened, Pakistan would have let us pour a hundred thousand troops inside their borders to find Osama?

If the war in Iraq never happened, we wouldn't have had to hire those Talibuddies to guard the back door at Tora Bora, and Osama never would have made it to Pakistan.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Yupper, if the Iraq War never happened Saddam Hussein would still be President of Iraq, and gassing hundreds of thousands of Kurds every year.

You mean like he was in 2000 and 2001? Oopsie. Please, stop pretending you give a crap about Iraqi lives - your cheerleading for continuing this murderous fiasco your sort set in motion makes it perfectly clear that you don't.

And unlike you, Eric, I don't call myself a libertarian, because I have enough a clue to acknowledge that I hold a different set of political beliefs than the Reasonoids.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 5:07pm | #

Ouch! I made a big mistake. It's actually www.ontheissues.org not com. Sorry.

And Vic and Carter, thanks for saying this is a legitamate area of inquiry.

I think once you go to this site, you will see that they are unquestionably unbiased and quite accurate and detailed.

The Rudy skeptics here, MUST answer this fundamental question:

How is it that Rudy can be so "unlibertarian," yet sites like ontheissues.org, and organizations like Club for Growth, and respected periodicals like the WSJ, London Times-Herald, Washington Post, Chicago Trib., LA Times, ect... all view him as very libertarian?

Are they all wrong, and the libertarian skeptics all right?

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 5:09pm | #

And just a question for folks who think cutting taxes will "shrink government" - where exactly do y'all think those trillions of dollars of federal debt come from, if not the government happily spending more than it takes in?

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 5:10pm | #

Eric the 5B, you are absolutely correct. Taxes ARE NOT the be all and end all. There are other issues that matter.

Again, if you go down the scorecard for Rudy Giuliani he scores libertarian on most issues. That's the findings of ontheissues.org as well as the very libertarian-oriented Club for Growth (who recently did an extensive survey on Giuliani's background and stances.)

You're making my case for me. Keep it up! Check the record. Please do check Rudy's record.

So far, most repuatable sources beyond Radical Anarchist sources claiming to be "libertarian" have found Rudy to be surprisingly libertarian.

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! | July 5, 2007, 5:11pm | #

Stop arguing the fucking issues and focus instead on the fucking opinion polls, fuckheads!

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 5:14pm | #

Are they all wrong, and the libertarian skeptics all right?

Funny, statists ask just that question of libertarians about all our kooky ideas. But you tell us you're a libertarian...

Care to actually cite where all those organizations called Giuliani "libertarian" so folks can evaluate your claim and see whether you're misrepresenting matters (or whether the writer you cite is the sort of idiot who calls Bush's policies libertarian)? Surely you must have links to those articles handy if you're pimping the guy.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 5:17pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Well, let's see, the WSJ is basically a center-right organ, the Club for Growth cares only about fiscal issues and is pretty unlibertarian on a lot of other stuff, the WaPo is basically a Clinton-style liberal editorial page, and the Trib and the LA Times are sort of moderate liberal rags...meaning that anybody who says things like "I'm pro business and I don't hate gay people too much" is going to sound libertarian to them.

But for those of us who actually give a shit about our civil liberties Rudy is, quite obviously, not so great. He's for secret Executive powers, he's for the drug war, he's not against government so much as against taxes (OOOHHHHH! WOW!), he says things like "Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." I mean, shit dude, I know you've got that extra chromosome 21 floating around, but I figured even a mouth-breathing mongoloid like you would be able to put that much together.

Now, run along and finger paint, we have more making fun of your mustache to do.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

joe | July 5, 2007, 5:17pm | #

Libertarian, in the mainstream press, means pro-choice Republican.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Eric the 5B, you are absolutely correct. Taxes ARE NOT the be all and end all. There are other issues that matter.

And many issues that matter much more. But hey, sounds like you're making progress; surely you'll realize your error soon.

So far, most repuatable sources beyond Radical Anarchist sources claiming to be "libertarian" have found Rudy to be surprisingly libertarian.

Sooo, every libertarian laughing at you is a "Radical Anarchist". Yeah, that's the ticket.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 5:18pm | #

Eric D,
I saw the ontheissues site, and I'm still not convinced. Also, we don't have any idea what kind of national policies Giuliani would try to enact in re international trade and relations because his only experience is as mayor and prosecutor for a major metropolitan area.
If there's evidence to the contrary, I'll consider it, but from everything the man himself has said, I can't buy that Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian, big L, little l, or otherwise.

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! | July 5, 2007, 5:19pm | #

Care to actually cite where all those organizations called Giuliani "libertarian" so folks can evaluate your claim and see whether you're misrepresenting matters (or whether the writer you cite is the sort of idiot who calls Bush's policies libertarian)?

You've already seen the articles where those publications said Giuliani was pro-choice! It's the same fucking thing! Vote for the tax-cuttin' liberty-stompin' pro-choice guy from NYC!

ERIC DON-FUCKING-DERO!!! | July 5, 2007, 5:19pm | #

And I see Joe made the same fucking point while I was fucking posting.

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 5:34pm | #

It is refreshing to hear a candidate walk around saying things like "I think it's good when we give people more freedom." Hopefully it's not just an empty campaign slogan.

Anyways, the argument that Rudy is libertarian is pretty simple. He's pro-choice, anti-tax, pro-gay-rights, small gov. Basically, he's a socially liberal Republican.

There is a valid question of whether we can trust his view that gun rights in America at large is different than gun rights in NY. But even Dems don't push for national gun laws anymore.

He's clearly wrong on some issues, like medical marijuana.

Overall, probably the best we'll get in a serious Prez contender.

I mean, Hillary or Obama would get my vote in a second if they abandoned the national health care thing and just said no to the War on Drugs. But I don't see that happening.

BTS | July 5, 2007, 5:42pm | #

He's pro-choice

Since when did that become a mainstream libertarian position? I know plenty of pro-life libertarians. It's a matter of whether or not you think that the fetus is a human or not, at least to libertarians, and I've not seen a really consistent stance from all libertarians on abortion.

I personally don't care about abortions, 'cause I ain't gettin' one.

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 5:46pm | #

I know plenty of pro-life libertarians.

I think there is a libertarian argument for the pro-life position (the freedom of the fetus), but most libertarians are againt having the government enforce it.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 5:46pm | #

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm just anti-fetus.

Lost_In_Translation | July 5, 2007, 5:47pm | #

I thought the libertarian idea on abortions was that "we don't care, but we're not paying for it" which is essentially pro-life if you take the stand that the current pro-choice view is "its a fundemental right to privacy to have free abortions at taxpayer expense".

I'm pro-football

Pro Libertate | July 5, 2007, 5:49pm | #

Or, joe, a Republican that caught got with a hooker.

BTS | July 5, 2007, 5:55pm | #

I think there is a libertarian argument for the pro-life position (the freedom of the fetus), but most libertarians are againt having the government enforce it.

Well, if we want to extend that to its logical end, does that mean most libertarians are for the decriminalization of murder? If you think it's a living human being, and you're a libertarian, doesn't harming that human being constitute a violation of the right to life portion of the holy trinity of "Life, liberty and property"?

BTS | July 5, 2007, 5:57pm | #

I can understand L_i_T's brand of opposition, since that's based on the use of tax dollars in a manner that's unconstitutional, but I don't know of a libertarian who is ok with legalized murder, as some would see abortion.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 6:00pm | #

Randolph,

It's good of you to visit the ontheissues.org site. That's fair-minded of you.

But you utlimately don't answer the question.

How is it that such an organization/site could come to the conclusion that Giualiani is a "Moderate Libertarian" at 60/60 after such an extensive examination of his record and past statements?

You can't just say, "I remain unconvinced," without giving us a reason why.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 6:04pm | #

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 6:06pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Yes, RedState, bastion of TRUTH!

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

BTS | July 5, 2007, 6:10pm | #

I will, briefly give everyone here a compendium of reasons to vote for Ron Paul provided so nicely by Mr. Dondero:

FYI, they gave Ron Paul a 70/70.
[As opposed to Rudy's 60/60]

[Giuliani] a Presidential candidate who finishes 2nd!!!

And on Taxes NONE OF THE 21 OTHER MAJOR CANDIDATES SAVE RON PAUL IS BETTER THAN RUDY GIULIANI!!!

So waiiiit...Guiliani is 2nd to Ron Paul in everything libertarian? Well then, I guess I'll just have to vote for Ron Paul, then!
Jackass.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 6:12pm | #

National Review: Far right
Wash Times: MOONIES
Steve Forbes: Insane

Also, DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!, please explain how the following quote is libertarian:

Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

It's from right here, dude, uncross your eyes and take a gander.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 6:16pm | #

Can both the conservatives AND the liberals both be wrong

If you have to ask, you might not be a libertarian.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 6:20pm | #

respected periodicals like the WSJ, London Times-Herald, Washington Post, Chicago Trib., LA Times, ect... all view him as very libertarian?

Bill Simon
Steve Forbes
National Review
American Spectator
London Times-Herald
Washington Times
Human Events

Cites? Links? Or is this like the last time you name-dropped a bunch of random libertarians to try to bolster the idea that your "movement" was more than just your buddies and you in a treehouse with a big "No girlz except hookurs allowd" sign?

Kaligula | July 5, 2007, 6:20pm | #

So Rudy is more Charles II than Cromwell...

2-D Nolan Charts are not reliable. I score 90/90 on those things which makes me look like an anarchist. But i'm not; a 3rd axis, measuring political freedom, makes me more of a classical liberal, not an anarch-capitalist. You put a 3rd axis on Rudy and he comes Charles II in a Hobbesian philosophy of government and authoritarian rule.

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 6:22pm | #

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 6:25pm | #

Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

Everyone concedes some amount of law is necessary. I think Rudy was talking about public urination here, not Orwellian oppression.

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 6:29pm | #

Well, if we want to extend that to its logical end, does that mean most libertarians are for the decriminalization of murder?

That's not the logical end, any more than anarchy is the logical end of libertarianism. The dispute is over when a fetus achieves personhood, not whether you can kill people.

I doubt most libertarians are "begins at conception" people.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 6:30pm | #

Everyone concedes some amount of law is necessary. I think Rudy was talking about public urination here, not Orwellian oppression.

That still has nothing to do with "freedom". The doublespeak there is the Orwellian aspect.

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 6:34pm | #

That still has nothing to do with "freedom".

Yes it does, unless you believe anarchy is a freer state than liberal democracy under the rule of law.

The doublespeak there is the Orwellian aspect.

I don't see it. Hell, it's practically a truism.

That quote gets a lot of play, but it's pretty weak sauce.

Nick M. | July 5, 2007, 6:34pm | #

That whole excerpt of Giuliani's speech is very creepy. Beyond:

Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

There's:

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.

and

We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens.

TallDave | July 5, 2007, 6:39pm | #

"We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. 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 Guiliani

I'm assuming he made this speech in the context of cleaning up the anarchy in NY, not as what he'd do as President.

Eric the .5b | July 5, 2007, 6:43pm | #

Even a charitable read of that passage should make one wary of the man. If it doesn't, I don't know what to say.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 6:49pm | #

OK, here's the raw material for the quiz Dondero's referring to, from ontheissues.org:

Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(7 points on Social scale

Opposes topic 2:
Require companies to hire more women & minorities
(7 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws
(10 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teach family values in public schools
(7 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(7 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(10 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 8:
Death Penalty
(0 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(10 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(10 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(10 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 15:
More spending on armed forces
(0 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(2 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 17:
Replace US troops with UN in Iraq
(7 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(7 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(0 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 20:
Allow churches to provide welfare services
(2 points on Social scale)

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 6:51pm | #

I think TallDave is really DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!'s mustache.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 6:51pm | #

Two things immediately jump out at me: the war in Iraq doesn't factor into the quiz at all. That's one reason the opinion of your avg libertarian is going to be different from this site's.

Also, they've got something screwed up: his support of the Patriot Act added 10 points to his Social Freedom score! That makes no sense.

Rick H. | July 5, 2007, 6:54pm | #

Sometimes, after I've eaten a large bean burrito that sat on the counter for too long, my asshole says things like "Rudy Giuliani is a moderate libertarian."

You people ultimately need to ask yourselves the question: What caused my ass to reach such a conclusion? Was it that my colon extensively checked Rudy's record on the ISSUES THAT MATTER, or just that I sometimes have difficulty digesting rancid cheese?

Do you consider your fringe sources more reputable than my lower intestine? Urp. Excuse me a moment.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 7:00pm | #

Opposes topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(7 points on Economic scale)

Not true. He has an expanded health care plan.

Strongly Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(10 points on Economic scale)

According to the site, he supports the guest worker prog. Looks like they can't update as fast as Rudy updates his positions!

Opposes topic 17:
Replace US troops with UN in Iraq
(7 points on Economic scale)

Here's the justification for that from the site:
Withdrawal from Iraq encourages future terror attacks: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Iraq: More inspections; counter OPEC’s oil production cuts: Favors topic 17

More inspections in Iraq! Reliable, well-respected my ass. Thing hasn't been updated since at least 2003!

Needless to say there are a lot of "issues" with ontheissues.org, but I think it's safe to say that the consensus view here about Rudy's libertarian status was correct.

TrickyVic | July 5, 2007, 7:06pm | #

""""Everyone concedes some amount of law is necessary. I think Rudy was talking about public urination here, not Orwellian oppression.""""

Would placing cameras on every street corner to stop public urination be Orwellian oppression?

""""I'm assuming he made this speech in the context of cleaning up the anarchy in NY, not as what he'd do as President.""""

I don't think context is as relevent when you define something. If that what he believe freedom is, then it is probably so. His mention of "lawful authority" is very wide in scope. I'm sure he meant whatever authority is in control, you must obey. He is an obey authority kind of guy. I don't think it would matter if it's state or federal.

Freedom is about obeying authority? What tyrant that ever came to power would disagree?

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 7:33pm | #

It takes a bold, brave thinker to fight for the vanishing right to do as you're told. Kudos to Eric Dondero.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 7:35pm | #

Crimethink, you're exactly correct. The War in Iraq should be included in the quiz.

Those who oppose the War and thusly support Islamo-Fascism should not be considered to be "libertarians" by any stretch of the imagination, but rather Fascist sympathizers.

Rudy is opposed to Islamo-Fascism and supports fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Thus he's a libertarian on that issue.

Yes, by all means, include the War in Iraq in such quizes. We'll be able to separate the real libertarians from the non-libertarian Fascist sympathizers in a heartbeat.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 7:37pm | #

Eric the 5b, please excuse the shameless plug, but over at my blog www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com I chronicled all the publications that had referred to Giuliani as a "libertarian" or "libertarian conservative" in an article on him about 3 weeks ago, I believe.

Chris S. | July 5, 2007, 7:37pm | #

Some others that have called Rudy a "libertarian" or "libertarian conservative" recently include:

Bill Simon
Steve Forbes
National Review
American Spectator
London Times-Herald
Washington Times
Human Events

Numerous political websites like RedState.com, Captain's Quarters, ect...

It's not just liberal "rags" that have referred to him as such.

Can both the conservatives AND the liberals both be wrong, and only the Radical Anarchists posing as libertarians like Rockwell/Raimondo/Anthony Gregory and some here, be correct?

Eric, your constant appeals to authority on matters of opinion is exactly what we should expect of you. Your hero wants a world where people unquestioningly accept authority and don't bother engaging with underlying substantive issues.

You have a question? The masters that be have an answer. Why would you disagree with them?

When Guiliani is president, we won't need to ask questions; we won't have to question the authorities that be. In fact, if we do question those authorities, Guiliani will do to us what he dreamed of doing to the New Yorker.

As for TallDave, we have enough Rudy Guiliani apologists here (one). The man is ferverntly anti-speech. We hardly need to dwell on his pro-authoritarianism speeches; his record of suppressing speech is enough. And if you must get somone else's opinion on this, try Cato: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8264.

Far be it for me to suggest that Cato has a better understanding of the word "libertarian" than libertarian luminaries like ontheissue.org...

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 7:39pm | #

And here's a reason not to vote for Ron Paul:

He's polling at 0 to 2% in virtually all national polls.

In other words, he will not only lose, but lose bigtime.

Giuliani is way ahead in all national polling, except 1 (Rassmussen).

Is it like genetically ingrained in libertarians to always back the loser? Is winning not part of the libertarian vocabulary?

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 7:41pm | #

Timothy calls Steve Forbes "insane."

Wonder if ole' Timmy boy would have said the same thing of Forbes back in 1996 when he came down to our District here in Texas to campaign at no less than 3 rallies for Ron Paul for Congress?

Ron Paul didn't seem to think Forbes was so insane back then? He heartily welcomed his support.

joe | July 5, 2007, 7:49pm | #

You cannot be a libertarian and write "Those who oppose the War and thusly support Islamo-Fascism..."

Those who oppose AFDC and thusly support poverty...

Those who oppose subsidized flood insurance and thusly support homelessness...

Those who oppose the Drug War and thusly support children smoking crack...

This mental incapacity doesn't just make you wrong, Eric. It makes you wrong in a particularly anti-libertarian, statist manner. I've never used the term "statist" other than sarcasticly before, Eric, but it's simply unavoidable in your case. You openly stated that your fervently-held position on the most pressing issue facing our country is that one must support a giant, failed big government program, or one is actively working in favor of the problem that program was meant to solve.

You cannot be a libertarian and believe that people only matter in terms of their support for ventures carried out by the state.

Duh.

Chris S. | July 5, 2007, 7:56pm | #

Good points, joe. And it's worth noting that, as compared to joe, Dondero is a raging statist. We should all ponder that for a second.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 8:00pm | #

Okay smarty pants, tell us how it is you oppose Islamo-Fascism? What have you done to stop those who bomb discotechues in London, and drive flaming cars into Airports in Scottland?

Where were you when Theo van Gogh was murdered? Did you protest the threat to kill Salman Rushdie from Islamic extremists? Did you denounce the Muslim killer who shot the 6 women at the Jewish Community Ctr. in Seattle last year? How about the crazed Muslim gunman at the SLC shopping mall?

What are you doing currently to stop the rise of Islamo-Fascism?

You say you are not a supporter of Islamo-Fascism yet still oppose the War in Iraq.

Fine. Prove it.

Sparky | July 5, 2007, 8:10pm | #

Was that last post really Eric Dondero, or someone parodying him? He's more of a parody than the parodies.

joe | July 5, 2007, 8:10pm | #

Who the fuck are you to question me? Go take a flying fuck at a donut, Big Brother. I don't have to prove shit to you, no matter how inflated your self-perception.

Tell you what: I live my life like a civilized person, and don't run around denouncing my neighbors as terrorists like a fucking brownshit. How's that?

BTS | July 5, 2007, 8:13pm | #

And here's a reason not to vote for Ron Paul:

He's polling at 0 to 2% in virtually all national polls.

And if we keep compromising for a candidate, then we'll never get a libertarian or Libertarian elected. It's people like you who destroyed the American electorate by enforcing a two-party system and it's people like you who have killed the LP's chances to do anything meaningful. You should be ashamed to call yourself a "citizen" much less a "libertarian"

Jake Boone | July 5, 2007, 8:18pm | #

And here's a reason not to vote for Ron Paul:

He's polling at 0 to 2% in virtually all national polls.

In other words, he will not only lose, but lose bigtime.

So we should all only vote for the person who's going to win anyway? What a triumph of democracy that would be!

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 8:23pm | #

Rudy is opposed to Islamo-Fascism and supports fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Thus he's a libertarian on that issue.

Ah, well if you believe that, that explains how you can call Rudy a libertarian. But now you have a larger problem: you have to convince us that supporting foreign interventionism is a libertarian position. You've got about 200+ years of history going against you, but I'm sure a man who is brave enough to fight al-Qaeda at his keyboard should have no problem taking on a buncha yella-bellied traitors like us.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 8:27pm | #

What I'm wondering about is why good Mr. Dondero is bothering with us. Most of us aren't even Republicans. Wouldn't his time be better spent stumping at a pro-Romney, pro-Thompson, or pro-McCain blog? You know, the people who are actually close to Rudy in the polls?

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 8:30pm | #

Yes, by all means, include the War in Iraq in such quizes. We'll be able to separate the real libertarians from the non-libertarian Fascist sympathizers in a heartbeat.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 8:48pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Steve Forbes has always been a little insane, doesn't mean he's not right sometimes. You know, stopped clock.

Seriously, though, can you even read you fuckwit? How does believing that schools are for "training citizens" and that "freedom means ceding control to lawful authority" jive with libertarianism? Are you retarded or just obtuse? Should I help you locate your misplaced helmet? Do you need me to pin your mittens to your coat so you won't lose them?

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Joe: Man, I don't think I've ever seen you open up a new orifice on a guy like that before

Timothy | July 5, 2007, 8:54pm | #

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I say we pass a law that you have to wear a burka, does that mean I support terrorism or just that I think you're one ugly son of a bitch? I report, you decide.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 9:20pm | #

Hey crimethink, I'm all for leaving other nations alone. That's how I stood all through the 1990s. Just mind are own business.

Then 9/11 struck. Everything changed.

Bottom line: Walk softly carry a big stick.

Or to paraphrase fellow Italian-American Tony Soprano:

You fucka with my country, I fucka with your country, your family, and your entire village 10 times over.

Dennis | July 5, 2007, 9:25pm | #

And Dennis, what's wrong with the abortion issue defining someone's political ideology?

Eric - You're kidding, right? So, I could be a green, feminist, socialist transsexual with ties to radical animal rights terrorist groups, but if I'm pro-life, I'm a "conservative"?

Hmmm...this goes a long towards explaining why you are so insistent that Rudy is a libertarian....

kwais | July 5, 2007, 9:29pm | #

Eric Dondero,

I am a pro-war hawk.
I'll be voting for Ron Paul based on his stances on:
Taxes
The drug war
Gun control
property rights

But if it came down to Guliani and Hillary, I think I would rather vote for Hillary. She is probably slightly more statist than he. But I think people will oppose her more strongly.

If not, at least I can say that I would rather the demise of freedom in our country come from a democrat. I feel more at home hat

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 10:10pm | #

kwais, I hate to say this, but your argument is very seductive. I too have considered this scenario.

Problem is such a strategy always puts us libertarians on the defensive. There's never any chance for any gain for freedom.

I truly believe that with a Centrist like Giuliani who leans libertarian, plus a Republican control of the House and Senate, that there just might be a chance for us to gain some ground on a few fronts. Health care, affirmative action, property rights, and certainly tax cuts immediately come to mind.

Eric Dondero | July 5, 2007, 10:12pm | #

Dennis, no I'm not kidding at all.

I really think Pro-Life is the defining issue of conservatism. Guess it depends on the degree. If one is a reasonable Pro-Lifer (in favor of legal RU486 for example), I think one can still be a libertarian. But I fail to see how a fanatic Pro-Lifer could be a true libertarian.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 10:15pm | #

Eric D.,

Non-interventionism is more important than ever in view of 9/11. At least, that's if you believe the CIA's and 9/11 commission's assessment of the causes of 9/11 (as opposed to Rudy's "they hate us for our freedom, mm-kay" dogma).

Kick the asses of those who attacked us on 9/11? Absolutely, I'm down for it. But aside from that, we've got to let the tyranny-corroding effects of trade and association with the free world work their magic in the Muslim world.

Father Sidius | July 5, 2007, 10:17pm | #

But I fail to see how a fanatic Pro-Lifer could be a true libertarian.

You will find that you are mistaken, young Dondero...about a great...many...things.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 10:19pm | #

In any case, I think that statement says far more about you than it does about myself or Dr Paul.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 10:21pm | #

a fanatic pro-lifer could be a libertarian by resisting the temptation to allow the state to decree that abortion is illegal and instead use civil society/charitable means to convince women to carry children to term and have them adopted rather than abort them.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 10:27pm | #

Randolph,

Well, that has to be done no matter what if one considers oneself to be pro-life. Far too many of us protest/complain about abortion on demand not being stopped by coercive measures, and then do nothing to try to stop it by non-coercive ones.

However, I would maintain that protecting the life of the unborn is one of the few legitimate exercises of coercion by the state. And, the number of 300+ post threads on that topic on this site should bear witness to the fact that this issue is hardly a settled one, even among libertarians.

D.A. Ridgely | July 5, 2007, 10:33pm | #

But I fail to see how a fanatic Pro-Lifer could be a true libertarian.

The operative words being "fail to see."

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 10:34pm | #

true dat Crimethink

But until it can be "proved" to most people that a fetus is a human at a certain point (and I know, some people will never admit that a fetus is life until it's been delivered) it doesn't seem as if there will be a state-decreed solution that will please anyone.

Randolph Carter | July 5, 2007, 10:41pm | #

*not looking to start abortion debate, trying to avert it*

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 10:44pm | #

Ad hominems and profanity, like powerful recreational drugs, should be reserved for special occasions. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Dondero has brought us 4/20 in July, and it's time to break out the strong stuff.

Okay smarty pants, tell us how it is you oppose Islamo-Fascism? What have you done to stop those who bomb discotechues in London, and drive flaming cars into Airports in Scottland?

Eric, what the FUCK are you doing to stop Islamo-fascism? You seem to think that sucking Giuliani's metaphorical dick by trolling blog comment sections counts as some valorous act of fighting Islamofascism. What, are you hoping to earn a Purple Wrist medal for carpal tunnel?

And joe, I salute you for thoroughly pwning him. Nicely done!

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 10:48pm | #

One more thing: Since you're running against Ron Paul in the House race, why the FUCK should anybody vote for you? What are you polling?

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 11:15pm | #

You fucka with my country, I fucka with your country, your family, and your entire village 10 times over.

No, it's "You fucka with my country, I fucka with the country next to yours, and that country's family and entire village 10 times over."

Jennifer | July 5, 2007, 11:17pm | #

Incidentally: I'm pro-choice and I'm voting for Ron Paul. Even if he makes president he won't be able to get abortion outlawed, any more than Bush has, and the sum total of all else Paul stands for outweighs even the heavy single issue of abortion rights for me anyway.

thoreau | July 5, 2007, 11:22pm | #

No, it's "You fucka with my country, I fucka with the country next to yours, and that country's family and entire village 10 times over."

My fear is that the next time Saudi terrorists attack a US city we'll wind up invading Burma.

Eric will explain why this would be a good idea.

It's Myanmar, you dick | July 5, 2007, 11:34pm | #

thoreau, you Burma apologist bastard. You'll be the first up against the wall.

Frito Pendejo | July 5, 2007, 11:43pm | #

You ass, fuck that shit. Shut the fuck up. Ass.

crimethink | July 5, 2007, 11:56pm | #

*not looking to start abortion debate, trying to avert it*

Heh, no need to worry. I had to hook up an old keyboard to work with my new KVM switch, and the space bar must've gotten jammed during its long stay in the attic. Putting spaces between words is VeryFrustrating...hey, is this PoeticJustice or what?

Timothy | July 6, 2007, 12:33am | #

Thoreau:

Dondero's creepy mustache, terrorists check in but they don't check out!

Randolph Carter | July 6, 2007, 12:39am | #

Did Kerrey Howley just burn thoreau?

Rich Paul | July 6, 2007, 7:26am | #

I am going to prove my unquestioning, unreasoning, and unthinking devotion to saving America from the incompetent bombers who set their pants on fire in England in the only way I can think of.

Others have tried to top me in my quest for safety at the expense of liberty, but I now know what to do. Nobody else will do it, it must be me.

If you elect me as president, I will invade Canada.

Everybody, all together now:

BLAME CANADA!
BLAME CANADA!
BLAME CANADA!
BLAME CANADA!

Jennifer | July 6, 2007, 8:02am | #

P.S. to BakedPenguin: see, I told you my satire wasn't over the top.

stephen the goldberger | July 6, 2007, 9:39am | #

I just want to say I admire Dondero's spirit. Even though I disagree and think he's arguing mostly out of fear of Hilary rather than any real sort of admiration for Guiliani, he's doing his damndest to get people on his side while facing repeated personal attacks.

Cesar | July 6, 2007, 10:01am | #

Stephen--

If the Republicans hadn't been whoring for increased executive (almost monarchial) power for the last eight years, they wouldn't have nearly as much to fear from Hillary. They dug their own grave with that one. Wait until Hillary says she wants a national gun registry for the "war on terror".

Eric Dondero | July 6, 2007, 10:05am | #

Geez Stephen, I'm touched. No, really. That was a very nice statement for you to make.

Send me a private email and I'll give you a free subscription to Libertarian Political Report.

Of course, the cynics here will claim that that's what you were aiming for to begin with.

Eric Dondero | July 6, 2007, 10:12am | #

Crimethink, if this is all about "our foreign policy" and not about sex or our culture, than explain to me why was Theo van Gogh so brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam? When was the last time the Dutch invaded the Middle East and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia?

Why are Muslim Youth burning upwards of 300 cars a night on the streets of Paris? What did the French do to the Muslims to deserve that?

Why are operas depicting Muhammed in a negative light, being banned in Germany?

Why are Muslims looking to assasinate Salmun Rushdie?

You silly argument that it's "about our foreign policy" falls flat on its face when one takes a gander across the Great Atlantic at what is happening to our European Allies.

Face it, they hate us for Madonna, Britney, Paris Hilton, MTV, fast cars, Baywatch, HBO, Hip Hop music, openess of Gays and Lesbians and EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR CULTURE!! It has VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

thoreau | July 6, 2007, 10:21am | #

they hate us for Madonna, Britney, Paris Hilton, MTV, fast cars, Baywatch, HBO, Hip Hop music, openess of Gays and Lesbians and EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR CULTURE!!

Are you sure you want to go down that road, Eric?

I can think of some other people who hate those things...

Cesar | July 6, 2007, 10:25am | #

Crimethink, if this is all about "our foreign policy" and not about sex or our culture, than explain to me why was Theo van Gogh so brutally murdered in the streets of Amsterdam? When was the last time the Dutch invaded the Middle East and stationed troops in Saudi Arabia?

Holland is not a state or federal territory. Not our problem.

Why are Muslim Youth burning upwards of 300 cars a night on the streets of Paris? What did the French do to the Muslims to deserve that?

France (praise God) is not a state or federal territory. Again, not our problem.

Why are operas depicting Muhammed in a negative light, being banned in Germany?

Germany is not a state or federal territory. are you beginning to see a pattern here, Eric?

You silly argument that it's "about our foreign policy" falls flat on its face when one takes a gander across the Great Atlantic at what is happening to our European Allies.

Our "European Allies" are big boys, Eric. They can handle their domestic problems without us, thanks! Same goes for Israel.

Cesar | July 6, 2007, 10:27am | #

BTW, Eric, France basically raped Algeria when it was their colony and massacred several million Algerians in a silly attempt to maintain a colony (in the late 50s!).

dhex | July 6, 2007, 10:50am | #

"Okay smarty pants, tell us how it is you oppose Islamo-Fascism? What have you done to stop those who bomb discotechues in London, and drive flaming cars into Airports in Scottland?"

are you serious?

you aren't some kind of anti-guliani operative?

i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're on ron paul's payroll.

dhex | July 6, 2007, 10:53am | #

also, discotheques.

crimethink | July 6, 2007, 11:11am | #

Eric D,

I don't doubt that there are some Muslims who do indeed hate us for our freedom. There are also some Christians, Jews, etc. who do so.

There aren't enough of these, however, to pose a threat to our national security. But, if we antagonize enough people with our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs, those who hate us for our freedom will find plenty of allies in the Muslim world who wish to attack America as a matter of revenge.

I'm not saying we should never do anything that might offend Muslims. I am saying we should consider the likely consequences of our actions before we take them, a concept that Bush's "we never saw it coming!" administration never seemed to comprehend. Given Rudy's rank ignorance on the subject, I doubt he'd do much better.

crimethink | July 6, 2007, 11:17am | #

Also, Eric, none of the incidents you mention are threats to the national security of any of those nations. Individual murders are the province of law enforcement, not military action.

The French riots were pretty serious, but the issues behind them were a lot more complicated than "they hate us for our freedom". Did the LA Riots of the 90s occur because blacks hated us for our freedom?

stephen the goldberger | July 6, 2007, 11:22am | #

Thanks but no thanks, like most people here I've given up on thinking the republican party serves my interests or philosophy on government. My view of them is in line with Cesars.

Timothy | July 6, 2007, 11:26am | #

Maybe France's policy of making it pretty rough to assimilate into the larger culture has something to do with a large, underemployed, unhappy segment of the population existing and turning violent. Just, you know, using my brain for a second.

dhex | July 6, 2007, 11:51am | #

"Did the LA Riots of the 90s occur because blacks hated us for our freedom?"

no, that was because of rap music.

crimethink | July 6, 2007, 11:59am | #

dhex,

I thought it was Satanism, but you make a good argument... ;-)

dhex | July 6, 2007, 1:35pm | #

rap music *is* satanic.

i mean, obviously. NWA is an anagram for NAW, Nasty Anarchists for Wotan. The whole black power thing is just a front.

BTS | July 6, 2007, 2:37pm | #

Wait, I think I have the analogy that may make the "the terrorists hate us for our freedoms" see the light!

Which of the following makes you more angry?
Seeing someone be violated
OR
Being violated yourself

Muslims don't care if we have a big ol' freedom circle-jerk. They do care when we jizz on their biscuts, though.

joe | July 6, 2007, 9:49pm | #

Aw, damn, thoreau! That dude slapped you all the way to Peping!

...What?

joe | July 6, 2007, 9:51pm | #

Afghanistan was speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

Iraq was waving your big stick around, screaming, "Hey everybody, look at me!," attacking some dude just so everybody could watch you do it, then having him take the stick away from you and beat you unconscious with it.

Shaun the Loser | July 9, 2007, 12:53am | #

Just wanted to say that you are all hilarious. You actually believe that it makes one iota of difference who gets in the White House. It doesn't. Unless you have millions at stake, it doesn't. If you are the little guy, you (we) will continue to be shit on for the rest of time. Stop deluding yourselves.
And please don't bother with the "if you don't vote, you shoudln't complain" BS. I have voted, contacted my representatives on numerous issues, and been active in my community. Only the community work has ever paid any dividends. The system is stacked, and it always will be. So stop wasting your time and just join me in bowing to the new master that gets voted in. And don't be surprised when you get stuck from behind. It's the way of the world.
No politician is any different. This is their job, their livlihood, to rule over others. Get used to it.

Site Search

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Hit & Run Archives

RSS Feed

Giuliani=Libertarian Reagan?

Comments to "Giuliani=Libertarian Reagan?":