Paul Supporters Take on Rudy Giuliani


Despite his flaws, Ron Paul continues to serve a useful position in the campaign by being the one Republican voice criticizing the war and the Patriot Act. The Paul supporters are increasingly taking on Rudy Giuliani:

Attempts to cut back on government surveillance and “aggressive questioning” of suspected terrorists are irresponsible and undercut the country’s war on terrorism, Republican Rudy Giuliani said this weekend.

“Talking about cutting back on the Patriot Act, talking about cutting back on electronic surveillance, talking about cutting back on aggressive questioning — not torture, but aggressive questioning — wanting to remove our soldiers from Iraq in a way that would require them to give the enemy a time table of their retreat,” Giuliani said. “I don’t know that I’ve ever seen anything more irresponsible than that.”

The remarks came late in a Saturday of campaigning in the state of New Hampshire, the first of a two-day tour through the early primary state. Shortly after that address, Giuliani headed out for the Holiday Stroll in downtown Nashua, where supporters of GOP candidate Ron Paul accompanied him for most of his visit.

As Giuliani walked down Main Street shaking hands and wandering in and out of shops, the Paul supporters encircled his entourage and waved their candidate’s signs as they walked.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, opposes the Patriot Act, which he once called “a moratorium on constitutional rights.”

Ron Paul has been taking on Rudy Giuliani since he conflicted with Giuliani in the early Republican debates. (Video of interview with Paul following the debate above). Some of Paul’s supporters have also been highlighting their differences with Giuliani such as at sites like Rudy’s Reading List.

Taking on Giuliani makes sense not only because Giuliani is the front runner but because, despite their significant differences of opinion, they are both seeking the votes of those looking for a more libertarian alternative to the mainstream Republican Party. Many who have only superficially looked at Giuliani’s record falsely believe he is a social liberal and do not realize how hostile to freedom Giuliani is. A closer look at Giuliani’s record shows that he was never the moderate which many believe he was and that he would exacerbate the problems of concentrating power in the Executive Branch created by Bush and Cheney.

I hope to see a serious debate over the issues between the Paul and Giuliani camps rather than a repeat of the incidents seen following the Republican conference on Mackinac Island in September. I do have a couple of words of advice for the Paul supporters. First of all, watch your behavior. Keep this an intellectual debate. If you are seen as simply trying to shout down your opponents your message will no longer be heard.

Secondly, stick to the issues of Iraq and the Patriot Act and keep conspiracy theories out of this. If you bring up Giuliani’s membership in the Council on Foreign Relations, claim his views on guns are part of a United Nation conspiracy to disarm everybody, or that 9/11 was an inside job your arguments will not be taken seriously.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    RonPaul33 says:

    Paul Supporters Take on Rudy Giuliani. Despite his flaws, Ron Paul continues to serve.

  2. 2
    ronpaul33 says:

    Paul Supporters Take on Rudy Giuliani. Despite his flaws, Ron Paul continues to serve.

  3. 3
    Eric Dondero says:

    Well, at least you’re admitting that Paul and Giuliani appeal to the same “fiscally conservative/socially liberal” voters. That’s more than most Ron Paulians would admit. They blast anyone for even suggesting that libertarian = “fiscally conservative/socially liberal.”

    Giuliani is not perfect. But he’s certainly the only candidate who really is reaching out to that GOP constituency. I don’t see Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, McCain or Huckabee reaching out to fiscally conservative social moderates. At least you got to give Giuliani some credit for that.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I wouldn’t say that libertarian equals fiscally conservative/socially liberal but there is an overlap. In some ways it might be a continuum where libertarianism is the more extreme form of being fiscally conservative/socially liberal.

    I wasn’t aware that this description was objectionable to many Paul supporters. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised considering how in many ways Paul is rather socially conservative.

  5. 5
    barry b. says:

    I think Paul will get more questions at the CNN debate this week – so far he gets about 4 questions each debate. Usually 1 or 2 of them is about why he’s a republican – ahhhhhhhh

  6. 6
    Timur Rozenfeld says:

    Libertarianism implies freedom in both the economic and social areas. The view is the elimination of the initiation of force.

    As for Ron Paul, he has his own philosophy which jives very much with libertarianism, but he doesn’t claim to be a libertarian. There are some areas he disagrees with most libertarians like immigration and abortion.

    I disagree with him on abortion. Anyway, his main focus has been our bankrupt foreign policy and that is the biggest problem facing us these days and this where he and many people on the left have common cause. The difference between him and the democrats on the war is that he is even more adamant and more insistent on getting the troops home. This is possibly why he is receiving the most number of military donations. They don’t want to die for nothing.

  7. 7
    JIVEWIRE says:


    JIVEWIRE Interviews Rudy Giuliani

    JIVEWIRE- Giuliani, is that you? Why are ya wearin’ a dress?!

    Giuliani- (in full drag and make up) To piss of the ISLAMOFASCISTSATANBOOGEYMEN !!! I’m MR. 911 and they HATE US BECAUSE WE LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!

    JIVEWIRE- Alrighty! Let’s start with the comment you just made- don’t you get tired of scaring people so they vote for you with your constant “they hate us for our freedoms” bullshit?

    Giuliani- Bullshit? Fuhgeddaboudit!!!! The reality is, 911 changed everythi…..

    JIVEWIRE- Shut ya trap Giuliani, the American public and JIVEWIRE are fed up with how you milk 911 for votes and money!!!

    Giuliani- When I was mayor of New York City, I cleaned it up! Now, with 911…..

    JIVEWIRE- Giuliani, isn’t it true your first wife was your cousin, you divorced her, then cheated on your second wife WHILE SHE WAS BATTLING CANCER, dumped her, then said that you technically didn’t cheat ’cause you were IMPOTENT from your prostate cancer???

    Giuliani- The reality is, because of 911, I am no longer politically impotent!

    JIVEWIRE- But are you still impotent otherwise???

    Giuliani- Yeah, why do ya think I wear a dress??? 911! 911! 911!!!!!!!!!!

    JIVEWIRE- Heaven help us!!!

  8. 8
    Eric Dondero says:

    Ron, you’re sort of correct. Yes, libertarianism is a continuum. But it begins at 66/66 on the WSPQ. Problem today is that most libertarians, especially Paulbots and Libertarian Party members want to put the demarcation line at 98/98. That’s what we Mainstream libertarians are fiercely fighting back against.

    Yes, Radical libertarianism is at 98/98. But libertarian begins at 66/66. And anyone!!! who scores above 66/66 has just as much right to call themselves a “libertarian” as the guy at 99/99.

  9. 9
    Ron Chusid says:


    These are almost two different (even if related) meanings of the word libertarian. Including the 66/66 scores obviously means quite a few people are libertarian than many people would consider libertarians. Of course I can’t argue that those scoring 66/66 have any less right to using the label. It is just necessary when discussing libertarians to keep in mind that quite different meanings might be used.

    I also would question if the Paul supporters truly are at the 98/98 level. First there’s Paul’s positions on abortion and church/state issues. Then we get to his position on federal vs. state. I would consider libertarianism as saying a given function should not be done by the government at all (if looking at the purest forms) not simply moving functions from the federal to the state government.

  10. 10
    Eric Dondero says:

    I go with the Pew Research Center. They take surveys annually, and have broken the vies of Americans into Four Categories: Populist, Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian: “Fiscally Conservative/Socially Liberal”.

    I think the last one they released showed Libertarian at 22% of the American public.

    Sure, there are quite a few different “flavors” of libertarians:

    Paleo-libertarians (Rockwell & Raimondo)
    Pro-Defense libertarians or Goldwaterites (Me!, PJ O’Rourke, Neal Boortz, Tammy Bruce,
    Anarcho-libertarians (Harry Browne, Badnarik,
    Moderate Libertarians (Ripon Society, Moderate & Pro-Choice Republicans.)
    Ron Paul Libertarians (Conspiracy theory types)
    Liberal Libertarians (Ron Chusid, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Howard Stern)

  11. 11
    Ron Chusid says:

    How long has the Pew Center been doing this? I first heard of their surveys long after I knew libertarians (by the more extreme definitions) and never really used Pew’s method as a true definition. Of course there is no right answer here and it just shows the problems with labels.

    This definition does throw in a lot of people who’s views are quite different. If we include anyone who is fiscally conservative/socially liberal, in recent years this has been applied to Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, and John Kerry, none of whom are people I’d consider libertarians. Of course that also gets to the fact that there is a wide range in terms of fiscally conservative. Fiscally conservative Democrats are a tremendous improvement over current John Edwards type Democrats, but they are far from a believer in Austrian or Chicago school economics.

    Last December Reason said that Pew’s numbers show 9% libertarian. Of course this means little in terms of backing a candidate as there is such tremendous variation. Reason gave the example of the Pew study showing libertarians support a higher minimum wage as an area where they vary from the typical reader of Reason.

    So you classify Ron Paul primarily as a conspiracy theory type. Earlier in the campaign if I had to pick one label I’d have stressed his social conservativism on abortion and church/state issues. While it might not be as true as Paul, if the comments here are an indication, conspiracy theory types might be a better definition if we had to stick to one. I get a fair number of comments from people who defend Paul’s social conservativism, as well as others who say they support him based on other issues but disagree with him on abortion. However I’m really getting a ton of comments from conspiracy theorists, some of whom argue how we both have a fascist government and a Communist government based upon the ten planks of Communism. They really show how to make labels meaningless.

  12. 12
    chris says:

    Check out the book “The Creature from Jekyell Island” it is very comprehensive, it is based on facts from authentic sources not conspiracy’s. It can be found at bookstores such as Borders. Whether you believe in the conspiracy’s or not a least look for yourself don’t believe the mainstream media, politicians if you truly look for yourself you will see the truth.

  13. 13
    Eric Dondero says:

    On conspiracies and Ron Paul-bots, ask yourself this question. Why is it that they’re so convinced that 9/11 was “an inside job” by Bush and Cheney, yet they absolutely will never ever talk about the overwhelming evidence that Islamo-Fascists, including Iraqi Intelligence were behind McVeigh and Nichols and the bombing of the Federal Builing in Oklahoma City.

    Somehow that incident doesn’t fit into their neatly framed template.

    Read the Jayna Davis Book on OKC: “The Third Terrorist” endorsed by former CIA Director James Woolsey.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:

    Overwhelming evidence? I haven’t looked at any evidence for this theory so it might not be fair to give a judgment on it, but I’m just as skeptical of this as I am of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

  15. 15
    Timur Rozenfeld says:

    What is with this Orwellian Newspeak talk? What the hell is an Islamofascist? Fascism has nothing to do with these guys. Facism was a system invented in Italy that was derived from Socialism. Fascism is a combination of socialism and nationalism. You can call these guys terrorists because they are trying to use terror to force political change, but you can’t call them fascists.

  16. 16
    Ron Chusid says:


    I already tried to explain this to Eric in the comments to another post. It appears hopeless.

  17. 17
    Eric Dondero says:

    The Islamo-Fascists are rampaging all over France today. Thousands of Muslim Youth are rioting, overturning cars, firebombing shops, and even shooting at Police.

    Notice all the deafening silence from the Ron Paul non-interventionists about the Paris riots? Not a peep anywheres.

    The continue to hide their heads in the sand, pretending that Islamo-Fascism doesn’t exist.

    Can’t happen here they say. Really?

    And what about John Muhammed the Beltway Sniper (11 dead at his hands), the Salt Lake City mall shooter who killed 5 execution style last year shouting “Allah Ahu-Ahkbar,” and the crazed Musli who ran over 8 college kids at UNC two years ago, the LAX Terrorist, the Seattle Shooter who gunned down 6 women at the Jewish Community Center, and the Fort Dix Six.

    As Paris burns, the Ron Paul fanatics just continue to fiddle.

  18. 18
    Eric Dondero says:

    Ironically, the French riots will help Rudy. Giuliani is the Sarkozy of America. He’s tough on terrorism. Christian Right GOP voters who’ve been skeptical of Rudy, will now latch onto his campaign as a result of what’s going on in Europe.

  19. 19
    Ron Chusid says:

    The Paul fanatics at least have it right here, realizing that Giuliani’s policies would only inflame the situation and further undermine our national security.

  20. 20
    Tim says:

    Ok, it is official that Giuliani can’t lead this country. I watched the debate tonight and hoped that Giuliani would break away from the pack. However, instead of him performing at his best, I saw him act like a bully. He may lovable to some, but he is not logical at all. He may have the majority vote in some polls, but the majority is not always right. In history we can see this. Hitler had the majority vote at one point, while Martin Luther King was fighting for the minorities. The majority vote does not make anyone man right regardless of there political party. I’m sorry Rudy Giuliani, but I can not give you my vote. I’m must vote for one who not only compassionate and consistent but also for one who is correct.

    This is why I am voting for Mike Huckabee:

    It is not because he is religious
    It is not because he is republican
    It is simple because he is RIGHT!

    Faith, Family, Freedom…FOVEVER!!!

  21. 21
    Ron Chusid says:

    Huckabee just might be able to pull it off. My suspicion is that he will wind up like McCain in 2000 and many other candidates who mount a serious challenge but fall short. However with the strength of the religious right in the Republican Party, and with no clear front runner, it is possible he can win.

    I disagree with Huckabee on far too many things to consider voting for him. However my opposition based upon disagreeing with him provides no negatives for those who do, as compared to Giuliani who has significant negatives beyond his political views. I don’t agree that Hucakbee is correct, but compared to Guilinai and Romney he is more consistent in his beliefs. I also believe he is sincere in his beliefs, while Giuliani and Romney are simply saying what they think will play best politically considering their histories.

2 Trackbacks

Leave a comment