Republican Debate Sharpens Divisions in Party, With Libertarians the Big Losers

While watching the debates the one item which caught my attention as worthy of an immediate post was the question to Ron Paul about whether he agrees with his supporters on believing in conspiracy theories. Otherwise the debate came off pretty much as expected. We already knew that the Republicans are a bunch of xenophobic, homophobic warmongers and they didn’t disappoint us. I’ve long felt that Mike Huckabee is the best proponent of social conservativism and the post-debate polls show that more Republicans realize this. He would make an excellent candidate if he wasn’t wrong on so many issues. It will be interesting to see how the the nomination battle plays out as this might turn out into an all out battle between the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives.

While the social conservatives and fiscal conservatives each have strength in the Republican Party, the libertarian component is pretty much dead with Ron Paul destroying any possibility of them being taken seriously. It is particularly a shame as Paul’s brand of libertarianism is hardly recognizable as libertarianism and is far more in the tradition of the Birchers and other far right wing extremists while being quite inconsistent in actually supporting pro-freedom positions. Paul’s belief in a variety of conspiracy theories will keep most from taking him seriously, and unfortunately risks discrediting libertarianism. While I mentioned the exchange last night, the actual transcript is now available:

Q Good evening, candidates. This is Seepser (ph) from Arlington, Texas, and this question’s for Ron Paul.

Now, I’ve met a lot of your supporters online, but I’ve noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council on Foreign Relations and some plan to make a North American Union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico. These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory.

So my question to you is, do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?

MR. COOPER: (Off mike) — Paul, 90 seconds.

REP. PAUL: Well, that all depends on what you mean by “all of this.” The CFR exists. The Trilateral Commission exists. And it’s a, quote, “conspiracy of ideas.” This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.

And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was am move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up — so we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It’s not somebody made these up. It’s not a conspiracy. They don’t talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there’s been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a hold on it. They’re planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.

So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy. It’s a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move in the direction of international government, more U.N.?

You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don’t like big government in Washington, so I don’t like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So I’m against all that, but it’s not so much it’s a sinister conspiracy; it’s just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you’ll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.

Most are well acquainted with the conspiracy theories surrounding the Council on Foreign Relations, the United Nations, and the Trilateral Commission. The NAFTA highway is another plot which exists purely in the minds of conservatives, as Steve Benen has pointed out. After this exchange it will be far harder for Paul apologists to claim that the views of his supporters don’t reflect upon Paul’s personal beliefs.


  1. 1
    Eric Dondero says:

    And yet, the Republican Party is poised to nominate the most libertarian Presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964 – Rudy Giuliani. What an incredible turn-around for the GOP from the 1980s and the early 1990s, and the days of complete Religious Right rule. Today, the libertarian wing is ascendent. Particularly in a State like Florida. Look at how successful Governor Charlie Crist is in the Sunshine State. America’s second most popular Governor, next to Alaska’s libertarian-leaning GOPer Sarah Palin.

    More elected libertarian Republicans around the Nation than ever before. In addition to Palin and Crist, Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho, Gov. Mark Sanford of SC, and US Sentor Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

    You could almost say we are witnessing a virtual libertarian revolution within the GOP.

    And Giuliani’s nomination will be the crowning achievement.

    Eric Dondero, Founder
    Republican Liberty Caucus

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    Giuliani’s an authoritarian, not a libertarian. Libertarianism is near dead in the Republican Party.

  3. 3
    FreedomDemocrat says:

    I almost spit beer all over my keyboard when I read that Coburn is considered to be a libertarian Republican by Dondero.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    I simply see his lists of “libertarians” as evidence that Eric defines libertarian in a rather unique manner.

  5. 5
    Eric Dondero says:

    Actually, it’s you all who define “libertarian” as something that it is clearly not.

    I’ve got 25 years of hardcore activism within the libertarian movement, starting with the Libertarian Party and a two-year stint on the Libertarian National Committee. I’ve done more Libertarian Party petition drives than Carter’s has pills – about 40 or 50 of them. I’ve worked on more Libertarian political campaigns than you could ever imagine.

    Amazing to me that Newbies come into our movement, and all of a sudden start preaching to us oldtimers, “what is, and what is not libertarian.”

    Get a few ballot drives for the LP under your belt before you start mouthing off at what is properly libertarian.

    Or, try standing on a street corner, as I did this very time last year, in Anchorage, Alaska, in 10 degree weather, waving a sign for 4 hours for a Libertarian Party candidate for State House.

    Do that, and then come back to me and tell me what you believe to be “properly libertarian.”

  6. 6
    Eric Dondero says:

    I’m not nearly the only one around who believes Tom Coburn to be a libertarian. Coburn was the Keynote Speaker at the Americans for Limited Government Conference a year ago in Chicago. You don’t get any more hardcore libertarian than that. He’s also a frequent guest at Cato functions. His RLC Liberty Index score is one of the highest in the entire US Senate.

  7. 7
    Ron Chusid says:


    25 years? That makes you the newbie here.

    What you are demonstrating is that you are an activist, but that doesn’t say anything about the philosophy you were an activist for.

    As we discussed before, the word libertarian is now used in quite a few different ways. Based upon how libertarian was used before the LP and Republicans corrupted the word, you wouldn’t be a libertarian and Coburn certainly would not be. The word libertarian means very little anymore if conservative Republicans and supporters of the war are now using the label.

  8. 8
    Eric Dondero says:

    These are the petition drives I’ve worked on in the last two years or so – Judge for yourself:

    Overturn Smoking ban sponsored by the Libertarian Party of Alaska

    Property Rights/Against Eminent Domain – Californian, Montana, Oregon & Missouri

    Legalization of Marijuana – Colorado

    Stop Over-Spending – Montana

    Repeal Bans on Sales of Beer & Wine in small communities throughout Texas

    Libertarian Party of Texas Ballot Access

    I do NOT work on any leftwing or statist petitions like increase Minimum Wage, even though it would bring me more money.

    So Ron, what’s your conclusion? Still want to claim that I’m not “really libertarian”?

    Oh, and did I mention I stood on a Street Corner in Anchorage, Alaska for 4 hours in 10 degree weather waving a sign for Scott Kohlhaas, Libertarian for State House, last year?

  9. 9
    Eric Dondero says:

    I agree, the word “libertarian” has been corrupted. In the 1960s libertarian meant Barry Goldwater supporter – Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant yet Very Strong on Defense/Military. In the late 1960s, with libertarian movement Founder Dana Rohrabacher, it meant the same, Pro-Free Markets, yet very Pro-Defense. With John Hospers Libertarian Presidential Campaign in 1972, same thing – Pro-Free Markets, and Pro-Defense.

    Then in 1974 Murray Rothbard and Justin Raimondo came on the scene. Their Radical Caucus took over the LP platform committee. They changed the whole platform to be stridently leftwing non-interventionist. For the next few years Raimondo and Rothbard proceeded to whitewash libertarian history to make it seem that liberarianism was always leftwing and pacifist.

    Unfortunately for Raimondo and Rothbard, they never counted on Eric Dondero Rittberg coming on the scene.

    I am bringing the libertarian movement back to its original goals of Pro-Defense. And too bad for them, I’ve got just about the very best libertarian movement archives in my garage than any other living American.

    (I was luck to have worked at LP Headquarters for a few months here in Houston, right before their move to DC back in 1986. During the move they had to throw out an enormous amount of materials. At night I went dumpster diving. Alas, I’ve got a Libertarian Party archives that would knock your socks off. And it’s very interesting reading some super old issues of LP News. The movement was much, much, much more Pro-Defense back in the 1970s than it is today.)

    No worries, we WILL win the libertarian movement back to the Pro-Defense position.

    Eric Dondero, National Chairman
    Libertarian Defense Caucus

  10. 10
    Ron Chusid says:


    Freezing your ass off doesn’t make you any more a libertarian. Nor does taking a libertarian position on some issues.

    Of course I’m using a meaning of libertarianism which predates you, and which has been corrupted. Murray Rothbard did not come on the scene in 1974. As I mentioned previously you are confusing his political action with his intellectual work, which was around well before 1974. Rothbard didn’t whitewash libertarian history. As I was around at the time you can’t pass such nonsense off on me. Those you consider libertarians followed Rothbard and used the libertarian label, but true libertarians like Rothbard had been around for many years before that.

  11. 11
    Eric Dondero says:

    Yes Ron, freezing your ass off does INDEED make one a libertarian.

    “He who workest hardest for thy libertarian movement is thee most libertarian of all.”

    Thusly, the Nation’s Top Libertarians include:

    1. Paul Jacob
    2. Phil Blumel (and tied Eric Dondero)
    3. Jake Witmer
    4. Scott Kohlhaas
    5. Aaron Starr
    6. Bill Redpath
    7. Richard Winger

    Least libertarian? Computer geeks who get on-line forums and start spouting off “what is and what is not” properly libertarian.

  12. 12
    Eric Dondero says:

    The single Number One criteria for judging someone’s libertarianism is their proven commitment to the libertarian movement.

    Anyone who stands on a street corner in 10 degreee weather in late November in Anchorage, Alaska waving signs for a Libertarian State House candidate deserves to be forever enshrined in the Libertarian Movement Hall of Fame.

    (*Note – There were 3 other people there, Scott Kohlhaas, the candidate of course, and 2 of his LP friends.)

  13. 13
    Eric Dondero says:

    If Rothbard isn’t a Leftwing Anarchist, perhaps you could enlighten us as to who exactly does fit that label?

    Rothbard was the ultimate Leftwing Anarchist rebel rouser. Yes, he infiltrated the libertarian movement. But his infiltration is no different than what’s happening today with infiltrating the Ron Paul campaign in Nevada and Colorado.

    It’s a typical tactic that Lefties use on us libertarians. They’ve been doing it for decades.

    Perhaps they saw how successful Rothbard and Raimondo were, and are now copy-catting it.

    After all Raimondo has strong ties to the Hard Left in San Francisco. And Cindy Sheehan has been romantically linked with Lew Rockwell.

  14. 14
    Ron Chusid says:


    It looks like a newbie like you really needs a refresher course on what libertarianism means and its history!

    “Yes Ron, freezing your ass off does INDEED make one a libertarian.”

    That’s ridiculous. Freezing your ass off has absolutely no correlation with one’s philosophical beliefs. By your logic a socialist who freezes their ass off would be a libertarian. As long as you are promoting non-libertarian beliefs, it doesn’t matter how much of an activist you do. To be a libertarian you have to promote libertarian beliefs.

    Incidentally, libertarianism has historically been far more of a philosophy of individualists who frowned upon political action, so if anything such claims of political activism diminishes your case for claiming to be a libertarian. (Of course I mean libertarian by its original definition before conservatives like you took over the name.)

    “If Rothbard isn’t a Leftwing Anarchist, perhaps you could enlighten us as to who exactly does fit that label?”

    Rothbard is a free market economist, and left wing doesn’t apply well to him and such use is a recent development as the libertarian label has been taken over by conservatives. Back in his time Rothbard either was not classified in terms of left or right, or if anything was considered right wing based upon economics.

    “Perhaps they saw how successful Rothbard and Raimondo were, and are now copy-catting it.”

    You got things backwards. Rothbard was a leading libertarian before the LP and before the conservatives who took over the name. Your brand of libertarianism, which is essentially a big government philosophy, has little to do with true libertarian roots. Rothbard did’t infiltrate the libertarian movement–he was around as a leading libertarian before what you consider the libertarian movement even existed. Subsequently conservatives like you decided the libertarian label sounded cooler and have tried to take it over and to claim that true libertarians like Rothbard infiltrated the libertarian movement is ridiculous.

  15. 15
    Eric Dondero says:

    No, sorry, it is not at all ridiculous. Freezing your ass off, is a sign of dedication to the cause. In my mind, those who have the most dedication, and prove that by working the hardest for the movement, ARE THE MOST LIBERTARIAN.

    All other qualifiers don’t come close to equaling that mark.

    You’ve got things bass ackwards on libertarian history.

    Rohrabacher founded the movement out of YAF in the late 1960s. At that time Rothbard was hanging out with the likes of Far Left groups in the Anti-War movement. I think he even attended a meeting or two of the Black Panther Party.

    Go back and look at the history. It wasn’t til 1974 that Rothbard joined the Libertarian Party. In fact, he was against the formation of the Libertarian Party in the early 1970s.

  16. 16
    Eric Dondero says:

    Your brand of libertarianism, is essentially “Big Government libertarianism.” You essentially advocate Islamo-Fascists taking over our country. You want to give them the keys to the Kingdom. You don’t wish to fight back, so you essentially say to them… Come on in boys.

    Big government policies are inconsistent with libertarianism. We libertarians believe in limited government. Thus we do not wish for Islamo-Fascists to tell our girlfriends to wear ugly black burqas from head to toe, to lash female school teachers for using the word “Muhammed” in a way that they don’t approve of, to cut off the genitals of our gay friends, jail marijuana smokers for life, and stone prostitutes in the town square.

    Ron, you’re a good guy. You’re too smart. Please don’t support big government. Come home to the limited government side of libertarianism.

  17. 17
    Ron Chusid says:


    You have no idea what libertarianism is beyond the conservatives who took over the name.

    “Go back and look at the history. It wasn’t til 1974 that Rothbard joined the Libertarian Party. In fact, he was against the formation of the Libertarian Party in the early 1970s.”

    You miss the point. I’m talking of the history of the libertarian movement well before the formation of the Libertarian Party. The LP is just one step in the corruption of the libertarian name. Rothbard and libertarians (which are distinct from supporters of the Libertarian Party) were around well before the LP. Rothbard’s influence on libertarianism began well before 1974.

    Rohrabacher is of little significance, other than for conservatives.

    “You essentially advocate Islamo-Fascists taking over our country.”

    No, it is you who advocate a policy which strengths al Qaeda and weakens the United States. Attacking Iraq and moving in a less free direction in the US out of fear of terrorism is exactly what bin Laden wants. Moving to a state of perpetual warfare with suppression of civil liberties is the opposite of libertarianism. Freezing your ass off to campaign against libertarian ideas hardly makes you a libertarian.

  18. 18
    Ron Chusid says:


    You might be interested in this quote from The New York Post:

    “Rudy is nobody’s idea of a libertarian (at least on issues such as government surveillance and executive power), but he’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal – the best a libertarian can hope for from today’s GOP.”

    I think his social liberalism is exaggerated, especially as he is running away from it, but at least they got it right about his non-libertarian tendencies. However I thought you’d be interested in the author’s assessment that he’s the best a libertarian can hope for from today’s GOP. They also have some comments on Ron Paul (article entitled Crackpot Revolution), including criticizing him for having some populist as opposed to libertarian views.

  19. 19
    Eric Dondero says:

    How is it that Dana Rohrabacher can be of “little significance” to the formation of the modern libertarian movement when it was HE who was Chairman of the only libertarian political organization in the Nation in the late 1960s, The “Libertarian Caucus of Young Americans for Freedom?”

    Dana was even Captain of the “Laissez Fairies,” the libertarian flag football team who played the young conservatives in the annual YAF bash in Huntington Beach.

    It was out of that Libertarian Caucus of YAF, that Don Ernsberger, Jim Turney, and a few others formed Society for Individual Liberty (SIL), which later became the Libertarian Party.

    I know one of the original members of that group. He’s quite accessible, and loves to tell the whole story of those times. His name is Kevin Bjornsen. He lives in Seattle, and he’s still quite active with the Washington State Libertarian Party.

    I can put you in touch with Kevin if you wish to confirm any aspects of the stories that I relate to you. Get a beer or two in Kevin, and he’ll talk for hours about how the original libertarian movement was born.

    Other witnesses: Don Ernsberger, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, and close friend of Dana’s, James Turnery, a former LP National Chairman.

    Turney and Ernsberger used to tell me all about the “old days,” from the 1960s Pre-Libertarian Party.

    Again, from what I gathered Rothbard was not even around. It was Karl Hess who was much more of an influence on the early formers of the libertarian movement. And Karl, btw, was Pro-Defense, unlike Murray.

    (A note of reference – I knew Karl and Murray quite well. I like them both. But Karl was a beer drinker and much more fun and interesting than Murray.)

  20. 20
    Eric Dondero says:

    Sure Ron, I saw that quote. As a matter of fact, I emailed it around to my lists. I abosolutely love the quote. Backs up everything I’ve been saying for months, that nominating Giuliani would “nudge the GOP in a more libertarian direction.” I love how he puts that.

    I completely agree.

    Yes, he disses Rudy on the side. But hey, I agree with him. Rudy is Not a full libertarian. I’d say he’s 60/60. Not even in the Liberarian Quadrant of the 60/60. He’s like Arnold. He’s a Moderate Centrist with libertarian instincts, or libertarian leanings.

    And as Ryan says, that’s the very best American Libertarians can ever hope for, given the more liberal, populist leanings of the American electorate.

    You know Pew just did another one of their surveys. They found that Mike Huckabee actually reflects mainline American values better than any other single Presidential candidate: Republican or Democrat. Huckabee is a Fiscal Populist and a Social Conservative.

    Pew found that the vast majority of Americans were: Fiscally Populist (like Lou Dobbs), and moderately Socially Conservative (like George W. Bush.)

    I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions!

    Now given those findings, a “fiscally conservative/socially liberal to moderate” GOPer like Giuliani would be a major plus, and would certainly be the best we could ever hope for.

  21. 21
    Eric Dondero says:

    Here’s the Ryan Sager quote in its entirety, not taken out of context. Notice how he leads off the crucial part with the “irony” being that Huckabee’s success would spell success for Rudy in the end, and “nudge” the GOP towards a more libertarian position. Meaning that Rudy leans libertarian.

    From the NY Post:

    Big-government, big-religion, globophobic, populist conservatism – this
    the message that’s got real traction in the first Republican primary.
    Ron Paul’s gold-standard nostalgia or support for medical marijuana.

    If there’s any redeeming irony here, it’s this: This populist surge could
    end up nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction after all. If
    Huckabee knocks out Romney in Iowa, the Republican nomination seems assured
    for Rudy Giuliani.

    Rudy is nobody’s idea of a libertarian (at least on issues such as
    government surveillance and executive power), but he’s fiscally conservative
    and socially liberal – the best a libertarian can hope for from today’s GOP.

  22. 22
    Ron Chusid says:


    Re Dana Rohrabacher, we are still talking about different groups. I’m talking about the true libertarians while you are talking about the conservatives, such as Dana Rohrabacher, who have applied the libertarian label to conservative ideas.

    “Again, from what I gathered Rothbard was not even around.”

    Your friends are giving you a very distorted history, again one of conservatives and not of libertarians. Rothbard was around well before the LP was formed. Man, Economy, and State was published in 1962. We had a parallel development of the YAF/Goldwater movements in the Republicans and the development of the modern libertarian movement with occasional overlap. Of course there were many other influences, from the individualist anarchists of the past to those influenced by Ayn Rand who broke away from her personality cult.

    Looking at Rudy demonstrates that we need to look beyond just fiscally conservative, socially liberal. (That assumes Rudy is really socially liberal–he’s more liberal than most Republicans on social issues but still pretty conservative). Rudy is anti-libertarian in two other major areas, support for increased Executive Power and the Warfare State. (The point on government surveillance in the Post article fits into both). If Rudy wasn’t worse than other Republicans in these areas then he might be the preferred GOP candidate (especially if we limit it to candidates with a chance of winning, which eliminates Paul).

    “Pew found that the vast majority of Americans were: Fiscally Populist (like Lou Dobbs), and moderately Socially Conservative (like George W. Bush.)”

    The problem with this is that most people aren’t consistently ideological. Different surveys get different results at different times based upon which issues get stressed. Bush is hardly moderately socially conservative–he’s an extreme social conservative and most people are far more liberal than Bush.

    There is also more extreme polarization. There is a significant number who are extremely socially conservative, while the overall trend, especially among the young, is towards more liberal attitudes on social issues. For example most polls show that most Americans won’t go as far as legalization of same sex marriage, but do support civil unions and object to the anti-gay attitudes of the Republicans. A majority want abortion legal but will also go along with more restrictions such as parental notification. I fear that a majority would still be too conservative on drug laws, but unfortunately the arguments as to why the drug war has been a failure aren’t really reaching the mainstream.

    It will be interesting to watch Huckabee. Previously I thought that he would get the support of a large number of social conservatives and be a factor but not be able to win. Now I’m not certain. With the increased dominance of the social conservatives in the Republican Party Huckabee just might be able to pull it off.

    Consider the consequences of a Huckabee-type Republican Party. This could totally end the old sterotype of Republicans being more libertarian on economic issues and Democrats more libertarian on social issues. In some ways Huckabee reminds me of Richard Nixon, minus the ethical problems. Nixon was a supporter of an activist government and was not really very conservative on economic matters. While in his case it was largely a matter of pandering to them as opposed to being one of them like Huckabee, Nixon used the social conservatives to get elected. Both are supporters of a foolish war. Huckabee’s not the direction I’d like to see the Republicans go, but each of his opponents is so highly flawed that its hard to find a good alternative.

  23. 23
    Jake Witmer says:

    I guess by Eric’s definition, I am more libertarian than he is, since I’ve been out all last week in the freezing cold in IL, in the sleet and snow, gathering the last of the delegate signatures for his former boss, Ron Paul. Oh yeah, and Ron Paul is an actual libertarian, not an authoritarian, like Ghouliani.

    Let’s put ’em side by side:
    1) Ron Paul is a hardcore supporter of gun rights -Ghouliani is a hardcore opponent of gun rights.
    2) Ron Paul has a history of supporting free trade, and opposing burdensome SEC regulations, Ghouliani as a prosecutor used “novel new interpretations of the law” to use stormtroooper tactics against stock market traders, dragging them off the stock floor in handcuffs (in direct opposition to the Libertarian Party Platform of 1994, which opposes prosecution for “voluntary trading while in the possession of too much information”)
    3) Ron Paul opposes the drug war, and the various wars on other victimless crimes, including prostitution: Ghouliani supported and ramped them all up into overdrive when he was mayor of NYC
    4) Ron Paul opposes siezue laws that allow the government to steal everything you own without a trial: Ghouliani applied those siezure laws to people’s cars in NYC, and abused them terrible in their existing forms, while Mayor.
    5) ROn Paul is called Dr. No in congress, because he always opposes the status quo, and votes to reduce the size and power of government. Ghouliani dramatically expanded the power of government, using police power to crush free speech of cab drivers who were protesting city licensing policies on PUBLIC property (Ghouliani is such a tyrant that he can’t even support the first amendment right to free speech!)
    6) Ron Paul opposes police brutality, by stating that victimless crimes should not be considered crimes. Ghouliani regularly defended police tactics that resulted in the shooting deaths and beatings of innocent civilians by police –such as the Diallo case, where a cab driver was shot 41 times while reaching for his wallet after being pulled over for no good reason…

    Dondero: You are a traitor to liberty, and to America, not a libertarian. By pushing Ghouliani instead of Paul, you are doing freedom in our country a grave disservice. If one less person votes for Paul because of you, you will go down in history as worse than Benedict Arnold. …And Arnold had a better track record than you did before he turned his coat.

    Moreover, all the libertarians you name (with the possible exception of Phil Blumel and Starr, whom I do not know, and have never met) are in agreement with me that Ghouliani is a fascist authoritarian, and a reprehensible human being, in comparison to Ron Paul. You are totally alone in your support of Ghouliani, and you have been informed of all the reasons why. You have not refuted a single one of them, but have instead responded with straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks, and repetition, which all mark you as an intellectual lightweight, as well as an authoritarian, not a libertarian.

    And that’s the truth, and nothing but the truth.

  24. 24
    Eric Dondero says:

    I gotta hand it to Jake. Anyone who stands out in the freezing cold and collects signatures for libertarian candidates is indeed a “great libertarian.” But you gotta ask yourself:

    Is Ron Paul really a libertarian any more? I mean, he’s been aligning himself with some very questionable groups, even NeoNazis. So, think about that when you gather signatures for him.

    Last time I checked I wasn’t hearing anything about Rudy Giuliani getting any donations from the NeoNazi StormTrooper Front, or being endorsed by David Duke, Don Black and David Macko.

    The NeoNazis must know something that we don’t, don’t ya think?

  25. 25
    Jake Witmer says:

    Eric Dondero: nothin’ but a smack-talking traitor to America! Ha ha ha! Eric selectively quotes hit-pieces put out on Ron Paul to try to muddy him, when the media covers Paul’s replies! Luckily, Paul hasn’t fallen for it. …The oldest tactic in the book!

    It’s amazing how low Eric has sunk!

    There have been similar “hit pieces” against Ghouliani (who has a fascist track record) and Clinton (who has an openly socialist track record), trying to smear them because of who they associate with and pledge allegiance to (But Eric isn’t concerned about whom the statist slime associates with, he wants to bloody the only defender of individual freedom, his old boss, Ron Paul! The mainstream power whores have one more nationalist barking dog in Eric D!) The comments about (less than ten, among hundreds of thousands of,) Paul’s contributors is dirty politics, and smear tactics as usual. No side that engages in such tactics is any more “right” than the inherent morality of their goal. (Ayn Rand was totally wrong about that –the ends do sometimes justify the means, and it all depends on how much you know regarding how close you are to victory. For instance, Ayn Rand lauded the founding fathers, but would have certainly condemned them for tarring and feathering “initiating force against” tax collectors, etc… She was totally philosophically inconsistent in applying her principles to the unprincipled arena of politics.)

    …Eric the halfwit is totally inconsistent in defending individual freedom. He is a traitor to the libertarian who has taken the libertarian cause the farthest: Ron Paul. He is thus a traitor to individual liberty in America (or ideas just don’t matter to him at all).

    …It is totally damning to Eric’s credibility that he chooses to engage in rumor-mongering and smear tactics against Ron Paul, merely because he is Paul’s fired ex-employee (a casebook disgruntled employee). If one less person votes for Ron Paul because of Eric’s illegitimate smear tactics, he will have earned his already existing complete lack of credibility.

    Oh, yeah, and by the way, if it’s the US military, then Eric loves it. He’s even made statements supporting State eugenics, if used for military purposes (now where have I heard about that concept before?). Funny how he tries to tar and feather Paul with “nazi” ‘guilt by association’. (Yet another fallacious argument, since those are the only kind of arguments Eric knows.) Even funnier when you note that Dondero doesn’t have a problem with Ghouliani cracking down on free speech in NYC, on public property (When Eric needs his own right to free speech in order to supplement his own income as a petitioner).

    Eric, you are a little, little man, and you will soon find that opposing Ron Paul is the dumbest thing you could possibly have ever done. Do you ever back down and admit fault? I doubt it. Your skull is simply too thick to let information in. It’s as if you are deaf, dumb and blind to what is going on all around you.

    ‘Mainstream libertarian’ could have been a huge website, and a huge asset to the freedom movement. You could have promoted the hell out of Paul, and still noted your minor disagreements with him, without ever resorting to smear tactics, or fallacy. But you failed on all counts to be a man, and admit that you had a personality conflict with Paul, and that you can’t view him accurately, because he fired you for throwing a temper tantrum (like any number of temper tantrums I’ve personally seen you throw).

    Grow up, Eric. Get you temper under control. Read a book or two, and if you don’t like Paul’s foreign policy, then the least you can do is shut up about it, so that you are not continually regarded as a complete traitor to individual freedom. You are fast becoming a complete laughing stock, even among those of us who initially gave you credit for your minor achievements.

    …Did I just waste time replying to Eric Rittberg-Dondero? I’ll never get those seconds back! I better remind myself that Eric is receiving compensation from the government (and possibly a delusional subset of the Ghouliani campaign), and can afford to sit around in his underwear all day firing off mad-cow motivated missives to political blogs.

    You don’t get to be considered a credible source regarding mainstream libertarian news if you totally oppose the most mainstream libertarian in existence.

    Eric is the bane of the libertarian movement. He spouts continual crap, and wastes the time of libertarians who bother to respond to him.

    I myself have a hard time walking away from his comments, because I know there are a few people out there dumb enough to believe what he writes, if there is no refutation right next to it.

    Dondero is a poisonous snake. Nothing is to be gained by playing with him, unless he can somehow be thrown into the Ghouliani camp, to play with the other mad power-lusters. If he responds to this argument, I will own him in argumentation, and simply reprint his text with links to fallacious arguments inside parentheses following each fallacy he presents.

    So Eric, come play with me if you want to be pwned.


  26. 26
    Nathaniel Witmer says:

    Well, I haven’t stood out in the heat,cold, or rain petitioning nearl as much as Jake or any of the other previously mentioned libertarians, but I have done my fair share. I must say that from all my experience as a libertarian and concerning all of the most basic concepts of limited government and responsible conservative economics Giuliani simply cannot be considered even the slightest bit libertarian or hardly even conservative in any way. And Dondero, I think you know better, and so you should be ashamed. You may be influencing others more impressionable or uninformed with great consequence. I’m not sure if your pro Giuliani anti Paul stance is out of spite for Paul due to your personal differences being a disgruntled former employee or if maybe Giuliani or some other element of the Neocon machine is simply paying you well. And all else aside you sound like a fool to everyone that reads or hears you that is educated on the topics you discuss. I will pray for you and I hope you return to the conservative, objective, and patriotic ideals I think you once fought for.

9 Trackbacks

Leave a comment