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.

-Jake

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?

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.

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.

From the NY Post:

Big-government, big-religion, globophobic, populist conservatism – this
is
the message that’s got real traction in the first Republican primary.
Not
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.

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.