The New Right, RIP

Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani.

Comments

[Pig Mannix]

I saw that this morning. It seems that any time Republicans are forced to choose between war-mongering and anything else, the war-mongering wins, every time.

[J sub D]

Does anybody need another reason to despise, or fear, Rudy Guiliani?

[Episiarch]

Was waiting for you to post this. What a set of strange bedfellows.

[Cesar]

The American Conservative had a good story about how Team Red is pretty much abandoning all their principles except starting foreign wars. Of course Dondi would say they are a crazy, left-wing publication, like Daily Kos.

[Franklin Harris]

It seems that any time Republicans are forced to choose between war-mongering and anything else, the war-mongering wins, every time.

Eric Dondero being Exhibit A.

[LibertyPlease]

They deserve each other

[Warren]

How much "crazy by association" is going to rub off on Rudy I wonder? We're all in agreement about Pat being crazy at this point aren't we?

I'm old enough to remember an America where the religious moonbats went about their wackaloonery without anybody taking notice. Here's hoping I live to see it again. Say goodnight Gracie

[Reinmoose]

God will now strike down Pat Robertson for approving of someone who has had multiple divorces and has in the past, if not currently, supported gay rights.

Oh, wait. It only works if Pat Robertson says it?

[crimethink]

Pig, Epsiarch, etc

Republicans opposed the war in Kosovo, if you recall. I think the current GOP support for Iraq and Iran wars has more to do with "rah-rah-rah for our side" than actual love of war.

[Randolph Carter]

Huh, I guess Rudy's never heard that 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy, but he's heard that it was caused by gays, lesbians, and witches.

[crimethink]

If, as Robertson and others of his ilk suggested, 9/11 was God's punishment for US tolerance of abortion and gay marriage, why is he endorsing someone who caused 9/11?!

[Jamie Kelly]

Fetuses are no match for sand niggers with guns. Hence, the endorsement.

[VM]

Quoth Pat Robertson:

DDDDUUUNNNNNDDDDEEEERRRROOOOOOOOOO

but Jamie - fetuses are much yummier, and you get around all of those pesky cannibalism issues.

[J sub D]

We're all in agreement about Pat being crazy at this point aren't we?

No, crazy is the bag lady down the street, rooting through trash cans. Roberson is bat-shit insane.

[Franklin Harris]

Republicans opposed the war in Kosovo, if you recall.

You obviously missed John McCain and the editorial staff of The Weekly Standard calling for even more bombings and troops on the ground during the Kosovo war.

[MayorOmalleySuxs]

I guess Rudy's never heard that 9/11 was a result of our foreign policy...

and there I was thinking it was caused by some religious nutjobs flying a few planes into some buildings. my bad

[Aresen]

Hey. Be grateful that Pat Robertson didn't endorse Ron Paul!

[Eric Dondero]

Funny how Pat Robertson is all of a sudden a pariah among Ron Paulists.

Pat Robertson is a long, long, long time friend of Ron Paul's.

Ron Paul appeared on his 700 Club numerous times in the 1980s.

Ron Paul and Robertson both share a great interest and love for the Gold Standard and Hard Money. (As a matter of fact, I believe that they even co-wrote a paper or two on it together a few years ago.)

Back in the early 1990s, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard and the Paleos were chumming up to the likes of Robertson and his people seeking a Paleo-lib/Paleo-con coalition.

Marc Elam, Ron Paul's, very longtime Campaign Manager, who is still Paul's most trusted advisor today, is a hardcore Pat Robertson-ite.

Paul made a big push for Robertson's endorsement in 1988 when he ran for President as a Libertarian. He even sent a crew to Michigan to lobby all the Robertson-ites. And he met with a top Robertson delegate at the GOP National Convention that year in a secret meeting at the Convention Hall.

And here's a stunner, Ron Paul even bunked with Pat Robertson once for a whole weekend at a conservative conference in the 1980s. Paul brags about it amongst religious conservative audiences here in Texas.

But alas, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani and not his old friend Ron Paul. So, the Ron Paul people today are busy blasting him all over the web.

Talk about a bunch of cry babies.

[Cesar]

Hey Dondero! Rudy's kids won't even endorse him. So spare us the "personal betrayal" crap.

[Jamie Kelly]

Dondero:
You can have Giuliani and Robertson, you flaming stick of shit.

[Reinmoose]

Ron Paul and Robertson both share a great interest and love for the Gold Standard and Hard Money.

Here you have it, on authority folks. Pat Robertson likes it hard.

[The Extispicator]

Dondero is right. Up till yesterday Reason H&R commenters were huge Pat Robertson fans.

[Lamar]

"Talk about a bunch of cry babies."

No, I'm pretty sure it's because Rudy is against the core of the Christian Coalition's belief system. He's pro-choice, been married several times, dressed up like a woman, and advocates gay rights. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you? Not in the least?

[Taktix?]

I'm calling bullshit on DDDOOOONNNNNDDDDEEERRROOOO. Every time he posts, he claims to have second-hand stories of the caliber posted above.

Sorry, but BULLSHIT.

I don't believe hearsay stories when someone tells me them in person. Why would I believe some fucking nincompoop posting them on the internet.

P.S. Respond if you'd like Shopkeeper Boy, I hearby pledge not to respond to you for the rest of the thread...

[J sub D]

If you don't know by now, I despise Pat Robertson. He's a superstitious, hypocritical, demagogue. He lives a life of luxury while conning little old ladies out of their social security checks. He preaches against the weakest, most vulnerable in our society. He supported our third (second?) worst president in history. He's scientifically illiterate and a biblical amnesiac. There are no bounds for the abhorrance I hold for him.

If I offend some Christian reasonoids from time to time, bear in mind that Pat Robertson is a "leader" of the "Christian" right wing, and my bile is primarily directed at him and his ilk. You should find a way to excommunicate him!

[P Brooks]

Of course Dondi would say they are a crazy, left-wing publication, like Daily Kos reason.

[jib]

Who can trust a word out of Dondero's mouth? No one with at least half a brain.

Google "ron paul and pat robertson" and you get...wait for it...this.

(But not a word confirming Dondero's claims. Odd.)

[Eric Dondero]

TaxTick,

Here are a couple names of contacts you can get in touch with to confirm what I've written above about Ron Paul's connections to Pat Robertson:

1. Ron Paul himself

2. Marc Elam

3. Ron Paul's Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo

4. Michael Quinn Sullivan

5. RP LD Norm Singleton

6. Just about anyone in Ron Paul's Texas District who is involved in Republican politics

[J sub D]

I'm proud that I posted the previous without one blasphemous or obscene word. Except for that Pat Robertson thing, of course.

[Eric Dondero]

Most of this was Pre-Google and Pre-Internet. Just ask Ron Paul himself.

Quite simple: "Ron, Eric Dondero claims that you once bunked with Pat Robertson at a conservative conference, and that you've appeared on his 700 Club a few times, and that your longtime Campaign Manager Marc Elam is a big Robertson backer... Are any of these claims by Dondero true?"

I will admit one thing. I am not 100% certain that Ron co-wroted a paper with Robertson on the Gold Standard. I just have a memory of something to that effect. May have been that both of them contributed papers for a book on the Gold Standard or something to that effect.

[Eric Dondero]

Every single one of you here is missing the entire point on the importance of the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani.

Every one of you is focusing on Robertson. He's a side issue.

The main point is that people like Thomas Knapp and other Radical libertarians have been saying for months now that the Republican Party would never, ever nominate Rudy Giuliani for President, cause he was a Social Moderate, and that the Religious Right would neve allow that to happen.

Now Knapp and others like him have major egg on their faces.

Apparently the Religious Right IS accepting a Republican from the socially tolerant/pro-choice wing of the Party.

That's the news here. Not Robertson so much.

We libertarian Republicans fought the Religious Right for years in the early 1990s. They had a lock-grip on the GOP at all levels. They hated libertarians back then.

Now, they're endorsing one of our allies, a solidly Pro-Choice Republican.

Amazing how times have changed!!

I would have never believed this to be possible back in the early days of the RLC.

[Eric Dondero]

Addendum:

So why would Knapp and some of the folks here be so threatened by a Giuliani candidacy?

Because like it or not, Giuliani is "libertarian lite." He's "fiscally conservative/socially tolerant."

At first glance one might think that the main enemy of the Radical Libertarian is a Religious Conservative, or some Squishy Economic Moderate GOPer.

Uh, uh, uh. Not at all.

The Number One enemy of the Radical Libertarian (like Knapp) is the Moderate libertarian or libertarian-leaning Republican.

Soft libertarians steal the Radical Libertarian's thunder. Radical Libertarians much prefer the slash and burn and tear it down strategy of total anarchy to actually winning elections with 60 to 70% libertarians.

Thus, as we witness here, the foaming at the mouth, virtriol for the libertarian lite of Rudy Giuliani.

And the panic over the Robertson endorsement, which moves Giuliani closer and closer to securing the GOP nomination.

[joe]

The common thread is Patriarchy.

Christian conservative, strong executive, empire, law and order - the details don't matter.

Big Daddy fighting the bad guys, and it doesn't really matter who Big Daddy is. Rudy Guiliani does the best impersonation Generalissimo Franco, and that's all that matters.

[mitch]

I don't know about anybody else, but I have passed the point where posts by people who hate Dondero are more irritating than posts by Dondero.

[de stijl]

3. Ron Paul's Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo

Or you could try the head of constituent services John BigBootie or the guy who used to be in charge of the autopen named John SmallBerries.

[Pi Guy]

Will somebody PLEASE explain to me why it is that any self-respecting conservative would endorse Rudy let alone a conservative Christian.

The first comment here by Pig Mannix says it all:

It seems that any time Republicans are forced to choose between war-mongering and anything else, the war-mongering wins, every time.

Conservatives: They're not all moral. They're not all faithful. They're certainly not concerned about the way in which the US is viewed by the rest of the world or in us doing the right thing. But one thing that they can all certainly come together on is the belief the US Military is God's Army.

[joe]

I'm sure the Catholic Bishops are going to insist that priests instruct their flocks not vote for an abortionist if Rudy wins the primary, just like they did for John Kerry in...

bwah hah ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!! Wait a minute, wait a minute. Ahhhhhhhhh, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!!!

Almost got all the way through it.

[sixstring]

Frankly, I have never once, in my 23 year voting career, looked at who a candidate was endorsed by to even aid in my decision. Not once. I shop the same way. I look for value before I make my purchase.

[Reinmoose]

I think joe had it right, that the common thread is Patriarchy. However, I wouldn't think that Robertson would endorse Rudy just because they share a common fetish.

[joe]

Republicans opposed the war in Kosovo, if you recall.

No, Republicans (and Democrats) were split on the war in Kosovo at the time.

Heck, I was split on the war in Kosovo at the time!

[Alice Bowie]

Adolph Guiliani is a-typical of a Christian...

- A Hypocrat
- A facist
- A supporter of WAR
- A supporter of MASS KILLING of non-believers
- And probably a closet Case Faggot

So, I'm not too suprised

[J sub D]

This question is for anyone but Dondi. Is it possible for someone to support Guiliani and still have ANY clain to libertarianism?

[Brandybuck]

The American Conservative had a good story about how Team Red is pretty much abandoning all their principles except starting foreign wars.

Except that "Team Red" doesn't have a principle of starting foreign wars. WWI == Democrat. WWII == Democrat. Korea == Democrat. Vietnam == Democrat. Team Red certainly doesn't have clean hands in this department, but they're a far cry from the warmongering Democrats.

Nixon's wage and price controls woke up a lot of slumbering conservatives. But then they all went back to sleep after Reagan. Bush's aggressive interventionism is waking them up again. Bush is no more "conservative" than was Nixon.

[Jamie Kelly]

Giuliani is ... socially tolerant.

Except to people who operate porno shops and theaters, or are rude to customers when they enter a cab, or who smoke in bars, in which case he'll stomp on their heads using the power of his office.

[Randolph Carter]

I think it has a lot to do with which of the candidates is the strongest supporter of Israel. Please god don't call me anti-semitic for saying that.

[Tacos mmm...]

Smells like a horse, nine feet wide, thirteen tons of American pride...

DDDDUUUNNNNNDDDDEEEERRRROOOOOOOOOO!

[Jamie Kelly]

Wow, Alice Bowie, you uh ... lost me on that stuff.
Hit the "reset" button.

[Tacos mmm...]

Thus, as we witness here, the foaming at the mouth, virtriol for the libertarian lite of Rudy Giuliani.

Light, as in beer, always sucks.

[Jamie Kelly]

Quite the libertarian you got there, Dondero ... QUITE. THE. LIBERTARIAN.

[Alice Bowie]

RandolphThe Supporters of Israel...Just the the Islamo Terrorists...will sacrifice their own lives...as well the lives of everyone else in this world...to HOLD on to the Promise Land.

Call me what u want

[Alice Bowie]

What I meant 2 say is the Supporters of Israel are JUST as crazy as the Islamos

[Cesar]

Since Vietnam, Republicans have been the party of war Brandy buck. Republicans have come a long way from Senator Taft when it comes to foreign policy.

Hillary Clinton could get elected and prove me wrong, though.

[John-David]

People like George Bush and Pat Robertson were what moved me from conservatism (as it has mutated since the early days of the New Right) toward conservatarianism, and finally libertarianism. I remember quite well in my school days reading Richard Viguerie's book The New Right: We're Ready To Lead and coming away very impressed with the new ideas of the Goldwater-Reaganites. I think the New Right actually died during the Clinton/Gingrich government shutdown days, when the Republican Revolution decided that bringing down Clinton was more important than upholding the very principles that brought them into power in the first place.

[John-David]

Shit, forgot to close a goddamned tag.

[VM]

AWIK DUNDEROO IN A PANTS SUIT.

[Fluffy]

Nope, Eric, the number one enemy of the libertarian Republican is a warmongering, pro-torture, ex-Prosecutor "law and order" Nixonian thug, who tricks dumbasses like you into thinking he's "moderate libertarian" because he's pro-choice and likes to put on a dress once in a while.

Every outrage visited upon the Constitution by Bush would be repeated by Giuliani, only worsened by an order of magnitude.

Everything about the man screams that he lusts for the opportunity to apply electric shocks. He's the Taser candidate.

He's a psychopathic thug, and has been since he was a US prosecutor.

When Romney talks about doubling Guantanamo, he's pretending. It's actually kind of sad to watch him try to pretend to be as crazy as Rudy and the Podhoretz cannibal family. But Rudy ACTUALLY WOULD double the size of Guantanamo. Or make it 100 times larger. Assuming he doesn't put one on every block to save on transportation costs.

[Cesar]

Who would be scarier on executive power: Hilldog or Benito?

[Lamar]

"Except that "Team Red" doesn't have a principle of starting foreign wars. WWI == Democrat. WWII == Democrat. Korea == Democrat. Vietnam == Democrat."

I've developed a BS theory that says whichever party gets its support from the bible belt is the party of war.

The supposed "southern strategy" was a product of the late 60s early 70s, and is now bearing fruit, at least in the sense that Republicans are now starting wars of choice.

[Hayekian Dreamer]

I wonder

[Hayekian Dreamer]

I wonder
>what else Pat and Rudy have in common?

[a]

[VM]

sorry - that was me - guessing which tags HD left open and trying to close them...

[Eric Dondero]

I just remembered something.

In the 1988 Libertarian Presidential campaign we had a flurry of major media coverage for a few days about "Robertson delegates threaten to vote for 3rd party candidate Ron Paul."

The whole deal was centered in Michigan, Robertson's stronghold. There were some hardcore Robertson delegates who were refusing to back George Bush, Sr. at the GOP National Convention. They had threatened to walk outof the convention, and a couple of them even made comments that they might end up "voting for Libertarian Ron Paul."

(This sparked the secret meeting at the convention hall with Ron and a couple of those Michigan delegates.)

I'm absolutely certain there was coverage of this in the Detroit papers. And I'm almost certain that it even made the NY Times.

This story could be verified quite easily by any longtime Michigan Libertarian Party member, like Emily Salvette, Tim O'Brien, Jim Rodney, Sheldon Richman, or Virginia Cropsey who were active in the Paul Campaign at that time in Michigan.

But if there's some way to drum up old Detroit Free Press or Detroit News or even old NY Times articles from 1988, it could be verified that way, as well.

My guess, is that they'd be from late July, or August of 1988.

Another person who would remember all this, and could easily verify this, would be Kevin Southwick, who was a top staffer for the Ron Paul, Libertarian Campaign in 1988.

Kent Snyder who still works for Ron was also with the Campaign in '88. But only in the last couple months. Though, he might remember this, too. Kent, as many of you all here know is now Ron's Top Personal Aide in his current Presidential effort. So, he too can be easily contacted.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

DAMMIT. doesn't seem to work.

[Cesar]

Dondero, could you chill out on the second hand stories and name dropping? It doesn't make you look any more authoritative on anything.

[Reinmoose]

Wait, Eric.
I'm missing your point. Was there a point?

[Eric Dondero]

So, back to the original point.

Why is this all so important?

Because the Reason-oids here and folks like Tom Knapp and Alan Turin (at Yahoo Libertarian Republican Group) and other Radical Libertarians, are blasting Pat Robertson today, as a result of his endorsement of Giuliani.

Turin even called Robertson a "kook".

That may be? I could care less.

But what I DO CARE ABOUT is hypocrisy.

How is it that Pat Robertson has all of a sudden become some sort of pariah, or kook or flaming idiot, when back in 1988, we Libertarians were bending over backwards to get his endorsement of our candidate for President Ron Paul?

Robertson hasn't changed much in the last 20 years, if at all.

Why is he considered such an idiot today or such a kook, when in 1988, when we desperately needed his backing, he was a "fellow travelers" and even "somewhat libertarian"?

Can someone please fess up without being a smartass, and explain this one to me?

[VM]

[/Eric Dondi]

[/DUNDEROOOO]

um... how. to. close. tags.

[/too much dooty]

um....

LOOK! IT'S EDWARD!
(might that work?)

sobs.

cannot. reconcile. Ghouliani. with. libertarianism. argh!

cannot. reconcile. U2. with. "alternative".

cannot. reconcile. Dave. Matthews. period.

[Brian Courts]

Now, they're endorsing one of our allies

Huh?! You can't seriously mean Rudy "Freedom is About Authority" Giuliani, can you?

[Timothy]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Do you think Pat Robertson endorses legal whores and gay marriage? If so does it insult retards too much to call you one?

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[duster]

Robertson is first and foremost a political figure, so this makes sense. I think Rudy's (Freedom = Total Submission to the State) equation gives him a hard-on. That's what he's really about.

[Pig Mannix]

Is it possible for someone to support Guiliani and still have ANY clain to libertarianism?

Well, I'll ride the Ron Paul bandwagon as far as it goes, but when the ultimate choice comes down to Rudy or Hillary, I might very well hold my nose and vote for Hill.

If my only choice is between a Democrat, and a Democrat with rabies, I'll pick the one that isn't contagious, thankyouverymuch.

[Eric Dondero]

Not trying to "look authoritative" Cesar. Just trying to get a straight answer to my question.

Why the hypocrisy? Why has Pat Robertson all of a sudden become a "kook" and "flaming idiot" to Libertarians, when back in 1988, we wanted desperately his support?

Or, why was it that in the early 1990s, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and the Paleos were chumming up to him and his kind, yet today, a Top Paleo like Alan Turin is dissing him as a "kook"?

[Brian Courts]

How is it that Pat Robertson has all of a sudden become some sort of pariah, or kook or flaming idiot, when back in 1988, we Libertarians were bending over backwards to get his endorsement of our candidate for President Ron Paul?

Nobody here who thinks (and by thinks I mean knows) that Robertson is a kook has come to that conclusion "all of a sudden" because of his endorsement of Giuliani.

[Eric Dondero]

So Duster, how do you reconcile Ron Paul's "total submission to the state" when it comes to women's reproductive rights?

Rudy's view on that one is "let the women decide for themselves."

Ron Paul on the other hand, wants to force women to sneak across the border into Mexico or Canada to get an abortion.

One wonders just what sort of penalties Ron Paul would support for those who are caught?

[Reinmoose]

Why the hypocrisy? Why has Pat Robertson all of a sudden become a "kook" and "flaming idiot" to Libertarians, when back in 1988, we wanted desperately his support?

I will say that I have always thought of Pat Robertson as a "kook," but really using much more profane language.

[de stijl]

Jesu Christo! Make the ganglia TWITCH!

[Eric Dondero]

Sorry Brian, but I beg to differ. They most certainly have come to that conclusion all of a sudden.

Why is it that we heard nothing about "kooky Pat Robertson til today on this and other Libertarian Discuss Forums.

It's political opportunism, plain and simple. Robertson didn't endorse his old friend Ron Paul, so the Palists are up in arms today, screaming bloody murder, cussing him and calling him every name under the sun.

[TrickyVic]

"""Now Knapp and others like him have major egg on their faces."""

I think the egg is on Pat's face. He pretty much has always been anti-gay and anti-abortion. That's the kind of followers he attracts. Pat is now supporting a candidate that supports the things he's preached against. I don't think it will sit well with his following. Pat stands to lose more reputation than Knapp.

[Eric Dondero]

Reimmoose, does that include back in 1988?

Did you think Robertson was a kook back then too?

Now, to be fair, there were a few Libertarian Party members back then who went apeshit over Ron Paul's "reach out to Pat Robertson" strategy.

If you were one of them, my sincerest apologies.

But if you were one of those Libertarians back in 1988 who said, "Sure, let's get Robertson and other top Republicans to back Ron Paul..." then I'll call you a mother fucking hypocrite, to your face!

[Timothy]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Could it be that a lot of us libertarians have always thought Roberson was a cook because 1988 was 20 fucking years ago and you're the one suckling off of past, imagined glory like some kind of washed up high school quarterback? Honestly, dude, I'm 25, I'm a voter, and I don't give a flying fuck what ship you lie about being on in 1983. You might've been up to irritatingly stupid douchefuckery for a lot longer than I have, but that offers little reason to take what you say seriously. Also, you have, perhaps, the creepiest mustache in the history of man. Seriously. FUGLY.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[John-David]

Eric,

Congratulations on pretty much consistently using the big "L" when referring to Libertarians. Pat Robertson is what I would call at best an ally of convenience (back in my New Right days I was a pretty good Catholic and welcomed him into the conservative coalition, now, not so much). I really don't think that small-l non-big-L libertarians have ever had much use for the not-so-good reverend.

[TrickyVic]

On the abortion debate, Paul is not Libretarian at all.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

[Reinmoose]

Eric -
In 1988 I was not old enough to vote, and likely didn't know who Pat Robertson was. I have disliked him from the moment I learned of him. However, you should realize that a very large percentage of people who comment on this blog are atheists. Of those who are not atheists, most of them still don't like the authoritarian-branch of Christianity.

[Eric Dondero]

Timothy, I give you a pass. You're 25, so there's no way in hell you could be a hypocrite here.

I'm aiming for the 40 to 50 something crowd here who was around back in the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Campaign for Ron Paul.

You all know who you were. I know many of you all are here.

Stop hiding in the closet. Stop being so silent. I know you're reading my posts on this subject. I know that you damn well remember reading LP News and American Libertarian and Liberty back then, about the "Pat Robertson delegates planning to defect to Ron Paul."

And now today, Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani and NOT Ron Paul. And some of you have the gumption to actually call Robertson a "kook" today, when back in 1988, he was one of our best friends and only allies in American politics.

[Timothy]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

HEY! You're trying to get us all to fall for that switch where thinking abortion isn't a federal issue means abortion should be outlawed by the federal government! Almost clever, you flaccid-yet-cocksure philistine.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Timothy]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

HOLY SHIT! CALL THE POPE! AWIK DONDERO HAS GIVEN ME A PASS! Is it as futile as all the passes he makes at women? Is it as pointless as Rex Grossman throwing down field?

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[rufus]

Notes from that meeting...

Pat Robertson: As you know, I believe that lesbians and feminists caused 9/11.

Benito Guiliani: 9/11? 9/11! 9/11, 9/11, 9/11!

Pat Robertson: And also the liberals.

Rudy: Liberals! Rudy smash liberals! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11!

And now you know... the rest of the story.

[VM]

"Is it as pointless as Rex Grossman throwing down field? "

how about as pointless as notre dame fans thinking their team has been relevant since sometime in 1970?

DUNDEROOOOOOO!

[Eric Dondero]

Still waiting...

All we've got so far, as some wisecrackers, makijng silly-ass statements. But not a single person yet has responded seriously to the question.

Again, why is it that Pat Robertson is all of a sudden a "kook" or "flaming idiot" or "nutball" now that he's endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President, yet back in 1988 he was a near hero to Libertarians for at least a short period, for making noises about not backing George Bush for President and winking to his followers and delegates that it was okay to back 3rd party challenger Ron Paul?

[Eric Dondero]

Now counting. Let's see now 4 messages in a row of silly ass remarks.

Yet still, not a single serious answer to the question at hand.

I'll check back in a few minutes to see what the count is of silly-ass evasive deflective comments.

Hopefully, by then at least one person may have penned a serious response to the question.

Though, maybe not. Perhaps nobody here can answer the question?

[Cesar]

Dondero, nobody, nobody on this board likes Pat Robertson. No one ever did. It doesn't matter what the LP thinks or what you did in the late 80s.

No one on this board likes Pat Robertson or ever did.

[Timothy]

Notre what?

[Timothy]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Do you think Pat Robertson supports your right to pay to fuck him?

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Cesar]

Answer my question Dondi. What does it say about Giuliani when his own children hate him so much that they fail not only to endorse him, but endorse a member of the opposite party?

[VM]

DUNDEROOOOO:
1) you're not going to convince anybody
2) but it is really fun when you're around
3) **secret***
4) what was it like being the drive thru attendant at the Navy's McDonalds?
5) didja realize when you were "serving" that you were actually hurting the cause?

Timothy - would that "notre what" were the answer hier, what with the nuthugging Chicago sports media and all. (that feature is the only downside to this town).

And hell I'd pay to have those two fuck. As long as I could film it. Maybe an extra 2 or 3 bucks to get some watersports?

[J sub D]

Well, I'll ride the Ron Paul bandwagon as far as it goes, but when the ultimate choice comes down to Rudy or Hillary, I might very well hold my nose and vote for Hill.

If you change might to will, I've sadly reached that exact same conclusion. The only upper tier republican candidate who could get me to vote for them over the ice bitch is McCain. I'd still have to hold my nose.

[TrickyVic]

Pat's been off his rocker since his predictions for Armageddon and the rapture failed to materialize. He predicted it would happen in the 1980s

[Timothy]

VM: I'd chip in for that. As long as it went on YouTube.

[Pig Mannix]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Merry Christmas, Eric!

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Cesar]

I could actually vote for Romney over Hillary. I would feel really, really, really dirty coming out of the voting booth and need a post-vote chemical shower, but I'd probably do it.

[John-David]

Why is it that we heard nothing about "kooky Pat Robertson til today on this and other Libertarian Discuss Forums.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/111647.html

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/112579.html

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/112205.html

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/100228.html

And my personal favorite (so far)

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/110668.html

[TrickyVic]

"""Again, why is it that Pat Robertson is all of a sudden a "kook" or "flaming idiot" or "nutball" now that he's endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President, yet back in 1988 he was a near hero to Libertarians for at least a short period, for making noises about not backing George Bush for President and winking to his followers and delegates that it was okay to back 3rd party challenger Ron Paul?"""

You're a little narrow in your view. Pat's been called all of the above before he endorsed Rudy. The name calling just followed. He would called more of the same regardless of whom he supports. If he would have supported Paul, the line would be about how well the two kooks go together, albeit not on this site.

Your question is not valid becuase they are not calling him kooky because of his endorsement. They've been calling him that all along.

[John-David]

BTW, Eric:

Pat Robertson Foams At The Mouth About Gay People

[TrickyVic]

I think Cesear has a idea. We need to put decontamination showers at the polls.

[joe]

Except that "Team Red" doesn't have a principle of starting foreign wars. WWI == Democrat. WWII == Democrat. Korea == Democrat. Vietnam == Democrat. Team Red certainly doesn't have clean hands in this department, but they're a far cry from the warmongering Democrats.

You know, Brandybuck, when you have to go back 40 years to find evidence to support your point, and you have to studiously ignore everything that happened in the past 4 decades, maybe it's a sign that you don't have the strongest understanding of the subject.

[J sub D]

Dondi, speaking for myself only, I've always considered Pat Roberson a dangerous, nutjob, asshole. If you weer to recall my posts, I can hardly go a week without callin him something derogatory. If he had supported Ron Paul, he'd still be a fuckhead kook. If he had supported George Washington, he'd still be a delusional prick. I may have referred to this dog diddler as a human being once or twice. If so, I recant.

That Rudy would seek, and Robertson would give, said endorsement, says volumes about both punks character. That you could claim to be libertarian, and support Guiliani and trumpet ass-wipe Robertsons endorsement, shows you have no character.

[Cesar]

That Rudy would seek, and Robertson would give, said endorsement, says volumes about both punks character.

Its the right wing version of the Hitler-Stalin Pact.

[J sub D]

John-David, thanks for the research pointing out all of the H&R luv for Reverend Robertson.
You may have to get your 'puter fumigated.

[Nigel Watt]

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Suck on it. You ever going to respond to that?

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Jim Bob]

Eric Dondero,

Well, I wasn't old enough in 1988 to know who Pat Robertson or Ron Paul is. But I know that now, today, Pat Robertson is a loon.

I think you have posed a fair but irrelevant question. Are you trying to get an answer something like "Robertson is a loon today because he didn't endorse Ron Paul?" Well, yeah. But I wouldn't be doing a happy dance if Robertson had decided to endorse Ron Paul, because Pat Robertson is a chode.

It's no surprise that Robertson decided to vouch for a warhawk authoritarian who is also 180 degrees out-of-phase with some of Robertson's core beliefs.

Apparently, waging an Eternal War on Terror and keeping someone with an (R) next to his name in the White House is more important to Robertson than his warped principles.

[The 700 Club]

Apparently, waging an Eternal War on Terror and keeping someone with an (R) next to his name in the White House is more important to Robertson than his warped principles.

Principles? We don't need no steenking principles! We're really political whores!

[joe]

Eric D.,

It's called "fusionism." You'd think a libertarian would have heard of it.

From the New Deal through the presidency of Bush the Lesser, the Republican coalition consisted of big business, anti-communists, and libertarians. This stemmed from the electoral and ideological dominance of the left, and forged a grab-bag of different righties together into an opposition coalition.

By the late 60s, this rightist coalition was able to snag the southern racist vote and moved into parity with the Democrats. Over the next decade, the rise of a politically-active Christian right boosted the coalition into majority status.

After several decades of fellow-travelling, the different factions in the coalition had come to develop a sense of solidarity with each other, and the coalition held on for quite a few more years, with anit-leftism as the central organizing principle.

Why was Pat Robertson buddying around with Pat Robertson? Because back then, libertarians and theocrats both defined themselves primarily as "conservative Republicans" - that is, as the opposition to liberalism.

Now, that coalition has fallen apart, and fossils like Robertson are trying to ingratiate themselves to the new bosses of the Republican Party - the imperialists - in order to maintain their standing in the party.

[joe]

I'm sorry, that should read "From the New Deal through the Vietnam War..."

[Elemenope]

Apparently, closing the [/DONDEROOO] tag is just one of those tasks that requires a strong central government. It doesn't look like the market is gonna take care of this fucker.

[Elemenope]

Seriously, Joe. That was remarkably succinct and insightful.

[lunchstealer]

Dondero,

For the record, I wasn't in the LP in '88. I was still waiting for the right to vote and also still not entirely disillusioned with the GOP. But certainly, I was not on the Pat Robertson bandwagon then, and by '92 had pretty much determined that he was almost wholly antithetical to my brand of libertarianism, and almost everything I hold dear.

I disagree with Paul on some of the same things I disagreed with the GOP on in the '80s, and I'm not really a Paul booster. But I think he's head-and-shoulders preferable to Giuliani.

I'm pretty sure that Wiegel wasn't LP back then either, if you're keeping score.

So I take it that you still feel that Robertson's a good guy?

[Andrew Taylor]

Rittberg, writing responses to your juvenile and insipid posts reminds me of that pithy Robert Heinlein quote: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

I don't know if there's an ounce of truth to anything you have written about Ron Paul's previous (apparently friendly) relationship with Pat Robertson. But there's one very important fact that you're overlooking.

After 9/11 -- far from the 1988 Libertarian presidential campaign -- the late and unlamented Jerry Falwell appeared on Robertson's "700 Club" and said the following: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

"Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club program, seemed to agree with Falwell's earlier statements in a prayer during the program.

"'We have sinned against Almighty God, at the highest level of our government, we've stuck our finger in your eye,' said Robertson. 'The Supreme Court has insulted you over and over again, Lord. They've taken your Bible away from the schools. They've forbidden little children to pray. They've taken the knowledge of God as best they can, and organizations have come into court to take the knowledge of God out of the public square of America.'"

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

This is the man who endorsed your chosen candidate, Rudolf Ghouliani, for Emperor today. A man who has grown enormously rich by taking from the gullible and ignorant. A man who was a close confidant of the Liberian thug Charles Taylor, who was also buddies with Osama bin Laden. A man who closes his eyes and claims to heal persons in his television audience of all kinds of ailments, while seeking only the best medical attention for himself when necessary.

The Robertson endorsement will deeply wound Ghouliani's candidacy; therefore, I celebrate it. You should hang your head in shame for supporting a totalitarian like Ghouliani.

[lunchstealer]

Umm, joe's analysis is pretty much spot-on.

[Stevo Darkly]

I'm sure the Catholic Bishops are going to insist that priests instruct their flocks not vote for an abortionist if Rudy wins the primary, just like they did for John Kerry in...

bwah hah ha ha ha ha haaaaaa!! Wait a minute, wait a minute. Ahhhhhhhhh, ha ha ha haaaaaaaa!!!

Almost got all the way through it.

joe, you're a little late -- Giuliani has already begun attracting stern criticism from the Catholic bishops. In the Archdioces of St. Louis, Bishop Raymond Burke said he'd deny Giuliani communion, just as he said of Kerry.

Stories here.

Stories about other Catholic bishops criticizing Giuliani can be found here.

One of the first best articles is "Giuliani's Views on Abortion Upset Catholic Leader's" in the June 25 NY Times, here.

No, I don't think anyone is advising anyone not to vote for him yet (that was a very controversial step, or overstep, that they took against Kerry), but the bishop's criticisms of him are quite harsh.

And as the NY Times article says:

Several of the bishops who declared in 2004 that they would deny communion to Mr. Kerry declined requests for interviews about Mr. Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani's own archbishop, Cardinal Edward M. Egan of New York, who was silent about Mr. Kerry in 2004, declined an interview. A spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, Joseph Zwilling, said the cardinal "avoided all involvement in partisan politics."

Most bishops are quiet primarily because the presidential election is still more than 16 months away, said church officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be quoted on political matters. They added that the bishops felt no need to weigh in because they did not expect Mr. Giuliani to prevail, largely because of his abortion-rights stance.

The Rev. Frank Pavone, leader of Priests for Life, a Catholic anti-abortion group, said he believed that some bishops were reticent because - after the last campaign season - many were warned by their legal advisers not to violate Internal Revenue Service rules that prohibit churches from endorsing or denouncing political candidates.

Believe it or not, the RCC leadership actually appears to be more committed to opposing abortion than to supporting Team Red. The Roman Catholic Church isn't particularly biased toward the Republics per se, aside from the abortion thing -- in fact, I find its bishops are often rather leftish when it comes to economic policy, business regulation, and many civil rights issues (not gay marriage, though). And on the big Blue issue of the environment, it's pretty neutral.

[joe]

Elemenope,

As evidence of my theory that the coalition was held together mainly by social bonds by the late 80s, I offer the increasingly-outlandish efforts they made to find mutually-loathed boogeymen to provide the ideological glue that was formerly provided by the Soviets and the Democratic majority.

Look, sociology professors! We all hate them, right?

Ohnoez, Bill Clinton! He's just a free-tradin', welfare-reformin' version of the CPUSA! I mean, he opposed Vietnam and stuff! (It was at this point that the libertarians began to get a little uncomfortable).

[Stevo Darkly]

"Republics" = "Republicans."

I did try to preview, I really did, but the squirrels locked up the preview function. Fortunately I had the wit to paste a copy of my text into another program before I lost it all.

[joe]

Stevo,

We'll see if he wins the nomination.

[joe]

I mean, we'll see what they do if he wins the nomination.

[Cesar]

Could anyone else see themselves voting for Romney over Hillary? I know hes a douchebag, but hes a poll-watching douchebag. And theres an outside chance he'd balance the budget. I just really, really fear Hilldog with executive power.

[Stevo Darkly]

joe, if Giuliani wins the nomination, then -- unless the Democratic nominee somehow decides to run on a pro-life platform -- I would expect the RCC leadership to either:

1) Fume silently and not noticeably endorse either the Democratic or Republican candidate.

or

2) Very possibly swing mild support behind the Democratic contender, provided:

a) The Dem and Rep candidates are a wash with regard to abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which I suspect would be the case. (I don't know Giuliani's position on ESCR, but I can't imagine he'd have a problem with it.)

b)The Democrat will successfully position himself/herself as the more compassionate candidate toward the less fortunate and ordinary workers -- practically a foregone conclusion. This will resonate strongly within the RCC.

c) The Democrat successfully comes off as less hawkish and more "pro-peace"; ditto.

d) The Democrat does not make gay marriage an extremely high-profile issue in his/her campaign.

BTW, I thought your analysis of the Republican coalition made many good points.

[Stevo Darkly]

But like you said, I guess we'll see.

[Brian Courts]

Could anyone else see themselves voting for Romney over Hillary?

Absolutely not.

And theres an outside chance he'd balance the budget.

And how would he do that? Is he going to cut spending? I'd say the chances of that are more like slim and none (and rather closer to none) than "outside."

[John-David]

J sub D,

Thanks. I'm glad someone looked at the links, even though I was too lazy to do the proper HTML thing and made people cut-and-paste.

[Cesar]

And how would he do that? Is he going to cut spending? I'd say the chances of that are more like slim and none (and rather closer to none) than "outside."

Well, with divided govern....ah hell I'll stop being overly optimistic.

[joe]

Mitt Romney is a competent chief executive who is opposed to corruption, can operate in a bipartisan manner, will keep an eye on the bottom line, and won't go off half-cocked and do anything too stupid. He's also not going to lead some hard-core ideological charge.

In most election years, that would qualify as "damning with faint praise," but after seven years of the Shrub-Vader administration, that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

[Cesar]

Mitt Romney is a competent chief executive who is opposed to corruption, can operate in a bipartisan manner, will keep an eye on the bottom line, and won't go off half-cocked and do anything too stupid. He's also not going to lead some hard-core ideological charge.

He sounds like a GOP Bill Clinton without the sex. I just hope he stops Giuliani. Giuliani is a cross between Richard Nixon and Otto von Bismarck.

[joe]

Don't worry.

Guiliani is going to have a You Tube moment that will make George Allen wince. He just isn't going to be able to help it - he's an angry, hateful, power-mad person.

I suspect it will be screaming at an intern until she cries, but really, the possibilities are endless.

[sixstring]

joe,

I think you may be on to something. When the dust settles, Romney will seem like the least objectionable. What a stupid way to pick a leader.

I'll still support Ron Paul until he loses the nomination. And... if... nah.

[duster]

Dondero,

I would be a little concerned about his stance on abortion, but I don't see it having much of an impact on Women's reproductive rights. Even if those rights were no longer protected at the federal level, most if not all states would probably allow them.

Could be wrong, though. You got me.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Eric Dondero]

Why is it that every one of you here somehow thinks that I'm a Pat Robertson fan. I am absolutely not. Never liked the guy.

My point is this endorsement puts to rest all the criticisms by both liberal political pundits AND by many Libertarians for months now that "Rudy can never get the nomination cause the Religious Conservatives will never support him."

Fess up you all. You know damn well that many of you all here have said precisely that!

And now look what happened today.

I'm listening to Chris Matthews Hardball on MSNBC in the background. Matthews and Joe Scarborough have just said that this may very well lock up the GOP nomination for Giuliani.

So what is is that all you Giuliani doubters have to say now?

You still want to try to say that Giuliani "ain't got no shot at the nomination"?

[The Libertarian Guy]

So, now we have a "choice" between... a Republican... or... Hillary.

Wow. Frying pan, or pot of boiling water. Which doom _do_ I choose...

[Mad Max]

A report commissioned by Giuliani's campaign in 1993, exploring his negatives and how to respond to them:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Mitt Romney is a competent chief executive who is opposed to corruption, can operate in a bipartisan manner, will keep an eye on the bottom line, and won't go off half-cocked and do anything too stupid. He's also not going to lead some hard-core ideological charge."

joe WTF? Did you mean this as sarcasm? Romney is easily running as the most hard core ideological candidate. Give him a hard core ideological charge and he will mount it and ride it to the Gates of Mormon Hell and Back. As far as saying and doing something stupid, he is second only to Hillary in being willing to say or do anything to get elected. At least Guliania has kept up his moderately pro-choice stance in the face of withering criticism.

[Les]

You still want to try to say that Giuliani "ain't got no shot at the nomination"?

I think the problem here is that you feel like most people here didn't think Giuliani could get nominated or elected, when in fact most people here just think that Giuliani is a lying sack of shit statist, and an authoritarian little pussy who makes George W. look downright harmless.

He's still all of that, but now he just has the endorsement of a bigoted lunatic.

You must be so proud.

[John-David]

My point is this endorsement puts to rest all the criticisms by both liberal political pundits AND by many Libertarians for months now that "Rudy can never get the nomination cause the Religious Conservatives will never support him."

Dude. I suspect most of us were hoping Rudy wouldn't get the religious wingnuts supporting him, because he's the worst candidate of the Republican front-runners when it comes to small-l libertarian issues. Therefore, Pat Robertson's endorsement is something to be feared, not praised.

[Fluffy]

Fuck you, Eric.

Robertson has always been a kook. I have never had anything but outright contempt for him for as long as I have known anything about him. That goes for Falwell, Bauer, and Dobson too. I hate them all.

As for why Paul might have chummed up to Robertson in 1988, perhaps it was a calculated move designed to try to gain the support of the religious right, while fucking them over in the end on policy issues. You know, like Reagan had just finished doing for 8 years.

One of the best things about Reagan, IMO, was the way he was able to get a preening piece of shit like Falwell to back him, even though he never delivered anything to the bastard in the way of policy. Maybe Paul thought he could do the same thing. I don't know, because as you are fond of pointing out, I wasn't there.

[Fluffy]

"Fess up you all. You know damn well that many of you all here have said precisely that!"

Link.

I'll wait.

[John-David]

I love this comment from MSNBC's NV straw poll results article:

So Reaganites prefer Ron Paul is the concolusion? Sounds good to me considering how Reagan defined the Republican Party for a decade and everyone tries to say they are most like him, while in reality only Ron Paul is even close. 33% while not even showing up is pretty good, and as usual Rudy stinks up the joint because he's not a conservative. How he leads in National Polls tells me he only does so because of name recognition, but when people get down to deciding who they will actually vote for, they'll check out people's records and they won't vote for Rudy...unless their name is Eric Dondero.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410525.aspx?p=4

[Jesse Walker]

Dondero is correct about the Ron Paul campaign's attempt to get some Robertson delegates' support in 1988. I remember hearing about it on the radio at the time, and having a What the hell? moment. I'm not sure why the LP tried it; maybe they thought Paul and the Robertsonites could come together on their shared distaste for the Trilateral Commission or something like that. At any rate, the appeal went nowhere -- though Paul's current campaign chair in Iowa is a veteran of the Robertson campaign, so maybe there were some long-term dividends...

Dondero is wrong to suggest the paleolibertarians were subsequently enchanted with Robertson. Robertson is a social conservative but he was never part of the paleocon group that worked with Rothbard et al. Indeed, at one point in that general period, the paleolibertarian Jeffrey Tucker wrote a rather scathing review of a Pat Robertson "economics" book.

Anyway, the real news here is that the old New Right -- the Christian political insurgency of the '70s and '80s -- is now so tamed and deflated that one of its leading lights is endorsing a man like Giuliani for president. I don't think anyone disagrees with Dondero that this makes it more likely that Giuliani will be the nominee. We're just not convinced that that's such a good thing.

[Jesse Walker]

We're just not convinced that that's such a good thing.

..with "that" meaning the rise of Giuliani, not the decline of the Falwell crowd -- that part is a good thing.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"I suspect most of us were hoping Rudy wouldn't get the religious wingnuts supporting him, because he's the worst candidate of the Republican front-runners when it comes to small-l libertarian issues."
I've said it before, and I will say it again, I can't see that. I asked on a previous thread what people had against Guliani, and the only response I remember was that he prosecuted Mike Milken. The way the poster explained the prosecution it did sound troubling, but if that is what makes for the hate by libtertarians then that is disturbing...

Guliani was the mayor of NYC, which, if you have not been there lately, is a pretty diverse and hip place, a place bustling with capitalism like few others in this nation. He did not become and stay a popular mayor of such a town being a Nazi. The guy is pretty laid back it seems to me. Can you imagine Mitt Romney dressing as a woman to have some fun on SNL? The man does not even drink TEA (well, if he is the strict Mormon he claims to be).
Rudy is not my ideal candidate. His weasel Let's Fight Islamofascim turn in pitiful (but one that is shared by EVERY GOP frontrunner). But he is so much better than Romney or Hillary in my eyes that I'm always dumbfounded by the hate for him on H&R....

[Mr. Nice Guy]

"Anyway, the real news here is that the old New Right -- the Christian political insurgency of the '70s and '80s -- is now so tamed and deflated that one of its leading lights is endorsing a man like Giuliani for president."
JW-I see your point, and noone is happier than me to see Robertson become more and more irrelevant, but perhaps this is just revealing that Robertson has much less influence among the religious right than someone like Dobson these days. And if I remember correctly Dobson has sworn not to support Rudy or McCain.

[Andrew Taylor]

"I don't think anyone disagrees with Dondero that this makes it more likely that Giuliani will be the nominee."

Mr. Walker,

There are plenty of bloggers and pundits who disagree very strongly. You are likely unaware of the fact that even much of the "religious right" has been running away from Robertson for the past several years, in light of his increasingly obvious insanity. The faith-healing, money-grubbing, wide-faced TV evangelist was not picked to sit on the board of the National Religious Broadcasters because he had become an embarrassment to them. Ghouliani will pick up a few votes from this, but he will lose far more -- in both the primaries and the general.

Drew

[Eric Dondero]

Jesse, I admit, I could be wrong on the Robertson-Paleolib connection in the early 1990s. But I specifically remember a few conferences there that Murray and Lew organized, with very Religious Right leaders, that led many of us libertarian activists at the time to seriously scratch our heads.

Wasn't Murray backing even Jesse Helms at the time?

Jesse, think hard. Murray took a goofy hard-right turn there for a couple years, after he left the LP, 1991/92.

Yes, nothing may have materialized from it in the long run. But it did happen there for a short while.

And I seem to recall some kind words from Murray in that period for Robertson and his efforts. But I'll go back and check some old issues of RRR to make sure.

[Jesse Walker]

You are likely unaware of the fact that even much of the "religious right" has been running away from Robertson for the past several years, in light of his increasingly obvious insanity.

I am aware of a general splintering on the "religious right," whatever that means these days. (And for what it's worth, I've already received one post-endorsement press release denouncing Robertson as a sellout.) But the point isn't that Robertson is a super-influential power broker; it's that he's a bellwether. When people like him are lining up behind Giuliani, it says something about the state of the party's social conservative wing. It isn't united, it isn't setting the pace, and it's therefore less likely to deny Giuliani the nomination.

I don't think a Rudy win is certain, mind you. But I'm finding it more likely today than I did this time last week.

[Jesse Walker]

I seem to recall some kind words from Murray in that period for Robertson and his efforts. But I'll go back and check some old issues of RRR to make sure.

He did write one piece for RRR saying the revival of the Christian right was a healthy thing -- part of the general surge in right-wing populism that he hoped could be turned in an anti-statist direction. But he didn't attach himself to them the way he attached himself to Buchanan and the Chronicles crowd.

[highnumber]

If y'all are interested, we just interviewed Eric Dondero.

[Andrew Taylor]

"It isn't united, it isn't setting the pace, and it's therefore less likely to deny Giuliani the nomination."

Thank you. I now understand your point better, and I don't disagree as strongly. Forgive me for my obtuseness.

"If y'all are interested, we just interviewed Eric Dondero."

It's amazing that Rittberg can actually sound sensible when he's not spewing his hatred for Ron Paul. He needs to realize that he would have a better shot at winning hearts and minds if he wouldn't be so bitter and vindictive.

Rittberg seriously errs, however, when he suggests that Paden is going to defeat the good doctor in his congressional district. That will not happen -- not next year, at least.

[John-David]

highnumber,

Fascinating. Nothing new, at least to me, but props on getting the Urkobold scoop.

[BakedPenguin]

Mr Nice Guy - Maybe it's Giuliani Time for you! That phrase comes from a NYPD cop, who happened to be sodomizing Abner Louima when he said it. At least Louima lived, unlike Amadou Diallo.

While it may not be fair to associate Giuliani with the actions of others, I might as well get my shots in before he stops everyone from talking about him negatively, or just stops everyone from saying anything else he doesn't like.

I was going to go on in this vein, but the Reason server told me I was at the end of my links. Plus, I'm lazy.

[BakedPenguin]

MNG - I was trying to use "Giuliani Time" in a double sense there - (e.g., that you might want to vote for him) - not that I think you deserve a similar fate to Louima.

[Les]

But he is so much better than Romney or Hillary in my eyes that I'm always dumbfounded by the hate for him on H&R....

There are some excellent reasons to hate Giuliani besides the fact that he said (and apparently believes) this:

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

He has refused to take responsibility for, indeed he has outright lied about, the mistakes he made in regards to disaster preparations prior to 9/11. He has also lately been spouting macho-twerp nonsense about water-boarding.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

High, I swear to God.....Players + Scorecard.

I can't keep track of you minions.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

High, somebody said you and Stephen Crane are married? Care to comment?

[Syloson of Samos]

Dondero,

It is likely the case that most of the people here commenting are in their mid-30s or younger.

As for Guiliani, whoever endorses him isn't much of an issue to me, and in the case of Robertson since I'm an atheist ... well you get my point.

[kwais]

To me,
People who are far more helpful to Osama Bin Laden than they are to us include:

- Those responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal
- Pat Robertson
- Those who shoot innocent civilians
- Anybody over in Iraq who is overheard by Iraqis parroting Pat Robertson's religious hate.

For Starters.

(people yelling and moaning that the war is unwinnable, are some help to OBL also, but they are an integral part of who we are, and are part of the reason that the war is not unwinnable)

[kwais]

the liberty caucus is a dondero thing?

I had no idea.

[Eric Dondero]

Andrew, you SOB, (said in a good naturedly way). Ukobold is YOU!!

Seriously, I enjoyed the interview. Thanks for the opportunity.

But I would say you ought to think about getting your own Blog Talk Radio show. Better format for such things. (Be glad to help you with that.)

[Eric Dondero]

Oops, I meant that last post to be directed to Highnumber. Sorry Andrew.

[Eric Dondero]

Aha Jesse, so then contrarty to your original post which said that I was right on half (Ron Paul seeking Robertson's support in 1988) and wrong on the other half (Paleos had some ties to Religious Right for a while), it's more like I was right on half and at least half right on the other half.

Thank you for coming clean on this public forum in front of all these witnesses.

[joe]

MNG,

Romney is faking. He's posing as a Mr. Tough Guy and hitting the dogwhistle lines especially hard precisely because he's not actually a wing nut.

Also, Guiliani is a very unpopular figure in New York, precisely because of his fascist tendencies. Ever seen any New York polling on him? Yikes!

[Eric Dondero]

Yes Kwai, I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus in my living room in Tallahassee, Florida in the Spring of 1990, after I had resigned as Florida Chairman for Justin Raimondo's goofy non-interventionist Libertarian Repubican Organizing Committee (LROC).

Interesting to note, that two of the guys who were there with me at the original founding of the RLC are two of the closest friends to none other than Reason Asst. Editor Brian Doherty - Phil Blumel (presently RLC National Vice-Chair, and President of US Term Limites), and Libertarian Punk Rocker Tom Walls of South Florida. Both recruited Brian into the Univ. of Florida campus Libertarian Club way back in 1986. (I had helped Phil to launch that group while I was in the LP in Jax).

And the rest is history. Brian has since made us all very proud!! Nationally acclaimed Bestselling Author and all. Gorgeous wife. Editor for the Nation's Number One Libertarian Magazine.

So, in a roundabout way you could almost say, that if it wasn't for me, Reason's Brian Doherty might not be where he is today?

[Eric Dondero]

Jesse Walker:

When people like him are lining up behind Giuliani, it says something about the state of the party's social conservative wing. It isn't united, it isn't setting the pace, and it's therefore less likely to deny Giuliani the nomination.

Eric:

Jesse, that was an absolutely brillant point. You are 100% correct. The main significance of the Robertson endorsement is that it shows that Rudy is much, much more closer to securing the nomination, and that the religious right will not be the stumbling block to him winning that all the pundits had originally suggested.

This is a huge victory for the GOP's Economic Conservative wing, which we libertarians are very much a part of.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

Eric, what do you think of the recent poll which shows Hillary taking the South by a large margin if Guiliani is the nominee? If Hillary carries the South, which normally goes Republican, that's it, she wins.

[joe]

Dondero's got a point - a lot of people thought Rudy's pro-choice, pro-gay record would kill him in the Bible Belt. This Robertson nomination could be a strong indicator that the CW was wrong.

Rattlesnake Jake, have you got a link? If a Democrat wins a single southern state, it's game-set-and-match.

[Jesse Walker]

Eric: You said that Rothbard and Rockwell were "chumming up to the likes of Robertson and his people seeking a Paleo-lib/Paleo-con coalition." I was pointing out that Robertson wasn't really part of the group they were chumming up to. To be fair, I might have misinterpreted what you meant by "the likes of."

[Shem]

Answer my question Dondi. What does it say about Giuliani when his own children hate him so much that they fail not only to endorse him, but endorse a member of the opposite party?

I'm not Eric, but I want to say; "it says they're still bitter about the fact that their father moved his mistress into the Mayor's mansion while he was still married to his second wife and while she and they were still living there, shaming both their mom and themselves."

I just like pointing that out every time Giuliani is mentioned.

[kwais]

Dondero,

I like that liberty caucus thing. I even posted it on my myspace.

I wish you didn't support that scum sucking socialist Guliani, who is basically just Hillary in a dress.

[Eric Dondero]

Geez, "scum sucking Socialist" 'eh?

Guess Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Inst. has it all wrong. Serving as Giuliani's Top Campaign Advisor. Somebody ought to get to her and tell her she's working for a "scum sucking Socialist."

And we should also change the definition of "Tax cutter."

From here on out, any politician who cuts taxes 23 times, should be referred to as a "scum sucking Socialist."

Similarly, none of this bullshit free market reforms of Health Care talk. From here on out, if a politician calls for free enterprise-backed program for health care, we should call them a "scum sucking Socialist."

And, anyone, and I do mean anyone, who gains the support of Steve Forbes should hereby be known as a "scum sucking Socialist."

And that includes Ray Toomey of the Club for Growth. If the Club for Growth gives a politician their backing they should immediately be known as a "scum sucking Socialist."

And let's include Mike Tanner of the Cato Institute in there too. If Mike Tanner says anything good about any politician, like praising their health care proposal as he did for Giuliani last week, we should call that politician a "scum sucking Socialist."

And anytime that the Washington Times, London Times Herald, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, National Review or any other major media outlet calls any politician a "libertarian" as they've done for Giuliani, we should call that politician a "scum sucking Socialist."

Got it now. Thanks for clearing that one up for me Kwai.

[Eric Dondero]

Joe, I do think the Democrats have a good shot of winning one southern state - Arkansas.

But conversely, the Republicans are going to pick off New Jersey (definitely), Connecticut, and maybe even Pennsylvania from the D column with Giuliani. Outside shot of winning Rhode Island and Michigan too, cause of all the ethnic Italians in those two states.

But I do think we lose Arkansas, no matter what we do.

[Eric Dondero]

Rattlesnake Jake, I've got a saying. If RealClearPolitics.com doesn't report on it, it pretty much doesn't exist.

I an a true believer in RCP. I live, eat and breathe RCP.

I've seen no such poll suggesting that Giuliani loses the south. On the contrary, I've seen very recent polls suggesting that he's way ahead of Hillary here in Texas, (released just yesterday), but something like 15 points, and another from the other day saying that he's pulled back in front of Hillary in Florida by 3.

I don't doubt Hillary is doing well in Arkansa. But I can't imagine any other state in the South giving her anything close to Rudy's numbers.

I'd predict Rudy romps her in a clean sweep in the South, save AR.

And, we may even see Rudy picking up New Mexico.

So, you could very well see a see of Red, from the California border stretching all the way to Florida, up to Northern Virginia. (There's even a slight chance Rudy could win Maryland and Delaware too. He's polling exceptionally well in both those states. In MD I saw a poll where he only trails Hillary by 5.)

[joe]

But conversely, the Republicans are going to pick off New Jersey (definitely), Connecticut, and maybe even Pennsylvania from the D column with Giuliani.

There is not even a remoote ghost of a chance of any of those states going Republican.

[kwais]

Eric,

All those people that you say support Guliani. Don't make me think well of Guliani, instead, I lose respect for them.

Those people endorsing him does not change the fact that he is Hillary/Chaves/Benito in a dress.

Gun rights(mainly), individual liberty, property rights, his stance on the drug war (how about the bare minimum; medical MJ, can a dying old lady just get some pain relief?).

He is in favor of abortion you say? Is that because a woman owns her body? Well no, because she can't legally be a prostitute. So basically benito is OK with killing babies but is not really ok with a woman owning her own body.

[kwais]

also Eric,

Sincere question; why did he cut taxes 22 times? Why not just once?

Was he trying to increase revenues? Or does he believe that the taxes were immoral, and was limited by the power of the office by how much he could cut them?

What kind of taxes were they?

[joe]

I do have to admit, Rudy's push to expand the public health insurance system to cover more poor kids in New York City does soften his image a bit.

He talks about free-market health care a lot now, but that's not what he was saying at the end of his mayoral term.

[Eric Dondero]

Kwai, I don't work for the Giuliani campaign. I'm just a supporter. Why don't you ask them?

And I believe the exact number of tax cuts was 23, not 22.

[Eric Dondero]

Kwai, one of those people you "have no respect for" happens to be a close friend and associate of the Reason Foundation, the very website you are currently on - Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute.

And another one of them - Steve Forbes - came down to Ron Paul's District in 1996, at Ron Paul's request, and at his own expense, to campaign for his election to Congress for an entire day. Sorry to hear you have no respect for people who have lent a hand to Ron Paul's elections to Congress.

[Eric Dondero]

Joe, latest poll out of NJ had Rudy up over Hillary by 3. Latest out of PA had him down from Hillary by 2.

I'd say that's more than a "slight chance" for him to win those states.

[Eric Dondero]

Perhaps we're starting to see the "New Spin" from libertarians on Giuliani. Joe is giving us a bit of a hint here.

For months, and months now, the message from Radical libertarians on Giuliani is that "he can't win the nomination... The GOP will never nominate a Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay Rights politician for President. The Religious Right will never let that happen."

Robertson's endorsment completely destroyed all that.

Now the spin may very well be... "Yeah, yeah, yeah, alright Giuliani may win the nomination, but there's no way in hell he can win against Hillary. A New Yorker like Giuliani, after all can never win in the South."

Thanks Joe for giving me insight into what the next step will be of the Giuliani doubters.

[Chris Baker]

I recently did a Google search which found several articles debunking Giuliani's lie about the "23 tax cuts." It's no surprise at all, as Giuliani lies about almost everything.

I personally will never vote for Giuliani or Hillary. But either one will simply hasten the final collapse of the country. In the mean time, I will continue to support Ron Paul as there are some things that may be salvaged.

[Pro Libertate]

Factcheck.org, which I've found to be fairly reliable, has a few things to say about Giuliani's tax cuts and budget balancing claims. Some truth, some spin, some lies. Not what I would expect from a libertarian candidate, but at least there's some truth to what he says.

Ron Paul is worse how?

[kwais]

Dondero,

Stormfront also supports Ron Paul, I have no respect for them dudes either.

As a matter of fact if stormfront had a clue they would realize that Guliani is their kin.

[Eric Dondero]

As to Rudy's 23 tax cuts, check out the Club for Growth. They did an extensive review of Rudy's record on economic issues. And he passed with flying colors.

Club Pres. Ray Toomey recently said that Rudy was absolutely the best pick for economic conservatives for '08.

And check out NRO this morning, Larry Kudlow's piece on Rudy. It's amazing.

Rudy told Kudlow he would slash and burn everywhere if elected, coporate tax cuts, earmarks, ect...

[Eric Dondero]

Now Kwai, just how is it that Stormfront is more aligned with Rudy Giuliani than Ron Paul.

You do know that American Nazis are non-interventionists do you not?

Ron Paul is the non-interventionist, not Rudy.

And you do know that mostly all Neo-Nazis are strong Social Conservatives who hate guys and want to outlaw abortions, right?

Ron Paul is the one who personally dislikes gays, and wants to force women to sneak across the border into Mexico and Canada to get an abortion. While Rudy is for Gay Rights and is Pro-Choice.

And it's Neo-Nazis who talk all the time about the "evil Jewish bankers" as Ron Paul does. And the "Global Conspiracy of the Bilderburgers" as Ron Paul does, and of "fiat currency" as Ron Paul does, and of "Blacks being inferior to Whites," similar to Ron Paul saying "Blacks are fleet-footed..."

And this morning I read that a major American Jewish group is about to endorse Rudy Giuliani for President.

Can you imagine Ron Paul receiving an endorsement from any Jewish group for his campaign?