Topic: Political Parties
American Daily Distorts Truth About Ron Paul Conservative website American Daily's columnist JB Williams complains that Ron Paul is a threat to the integrity of the Republican Party and that he is not actually supported by mainstream libertarians and Republicans. The truth is somewhat different, however.by Walt Thiessen
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
An alarmist column by American Daily conservative columnist J.B. Williams entited, "Why the Ron Paul Campaign is Dangerous" is a fascinating look at the paranoia of modern conservatism. But before I get into that, let me take a moment to debunk some of the distortions it presents as truths.
First, it quotes former Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero as saying:
"Please refrain in the future from using the label 'Libertarian Republican' in describing Ron Paul. Call him what he is: Some sort of populist leftwinger.... Since 9/11 Paul has become a complete nutcase conspiratorialist quasi-Anti-Semitic leftwing American-hating nutball."
Williams goes on to say:
"Upon investigation, it appears that Mr. Dondero is exactly right. Much of Ron Paul’s money is not coming from mainstream Libertarians or Republicans. Although he is running as a Republican, he actually has very little support from rank and file Republicans, as every national Republican poll confirms.... According to official campaign fund raising filings posted at www.opensecrets.org, Ron Paul’s top contributor is well known internet giant Google. Google, with Al Gore on the board of directors, has a long history of progressive political activism, both in the way they censor search results to bury conservative slanted stories, and in their campaign contribution habits, which is solidly Democrat, with the exception of Ron Paul."
Yup, this is Williams' evidence. The obvious retort is that Ron Paul's position in the polls among self-described Republicans in New Hampshire, Nevada, and the other early primary states is steadily rising by most media accounts, and it's these polls that Williams is referencing when he claims that Paul has very little support in the Republican Party. If his claim is true, how could Paul's standing in the polls be improving? I'm not talking about straw polls here or fundraising numbers. I'm talking about the mainstream polls conducted by respected pollsters.
If Williams' analysis of Paul's support among Republicans were true, Paul's numbers in the polls should be falling as we approach the primaries, not rising. After all, that's what is happening with the minor candidates in that party's race such as Tancredo and Brownback. Even Fred Thompson is faltering in the polls at this point, and he's a mainstream Republican.
The other obvious retort to Williams' claim is that the tens of thousands of donors to the Paul campaign who account for the overwhelming majority of his dollars raised are individual donors (sometimes called Paulites) with virtually no connection to Google and who don't take their cues from Google leadership. They are often people whom the Republicans and Democrats alike have long abandoned, people who actually believe in that cute, naive and slightly archaic concept known as liberty. They are representative of the majority of citizens in this country who don't feel their views are adequately represented by either major political party and either don't vote at all or often identify themselves as independent if they do vote. Some of them call themselves conservatives. Others call themselves liberals. Still others call themselves libertarians. Most don't identify themselves by any political label at all.
Williams fails to mention (or doesn't bother to mention) that his main source, Eric Dondero, is challenging for Paul's seat in the upcoming Congressional Republican primary in Paul's Texas district in 2008 and therefore has a politically motivated reason for going negative on Paul. Can you say, "hidden agenda"?
Taking a closer look at Dondero's website, Mainstream Libertarians, we find a curious little article called "Libertarians For Giuliani," in which Dondero writes, "I've said here a dozen times Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. The party had better swallow its rabid anti-abortion neo-con attitudes and put him on the ballot, or else a new era of Democrat ascendancy is likely to ensue" The article appears right below another article lauding the Libertarian Party's claimed wins in 2007 local elections. Indeed, his entire website appears to be aimed at libertarians, not Republicans. This raises an interesting question. Who is Dondero talking to: neo-cons or libertarians? If the latter, I'm wondering what brand of fruit drink Dondero is drinking when he implies that Rudy Giuliani is or should be the choice of mainstream libertarians? The idea of mainstream libertarians supporting Giuliani is ludicrous for any libertarian who has actually looked at what Giuliani stands for on the top issues. See my article last month on the subject for some details.
(By the way, Eric, I have been a libertarian since 1980 and a dues-paying member of the Libertarian Party since 1992. I definitely consider myself to be a mainstream libertarian.)
I also love this quote from Dondero's website in his Giuliani article, "Any GOP standard bearer will be mouthing a certain amount of neo-con rhetoric to keep in touch with the flock, such as Rudy's vow to nominate 'conservative' judges." Well, not quite. Actually, the neo-con views that Giuliani is most famous for are his powerfully hawkish views on foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and Iran. In fact, Giuliani has been an avid supporter and cheerleader of President Bush's many foreign policy blunders. That's the neo-con side most people think of, not "conservative judges." This little misstep on Dondero's part is intentional in my opinion, because his website also emphasizes that the mainstream libertarian believes in defending our borders, "...using the Military to fight terrorists overseas, when necessary, rather than here at home." In other words, Dondero is a libertarian hawk.
Now, I respect Dondero's right to believe in libertarian philosophy and believe in an interventionist policy at the same time. I don't agree with him, but I respect his right to believe what he believes. But I defy him to show us evidence that his interventionist view of libertarian philosophy is representative of mainstream libertarianism. The fact is that mainstream libertarians are precisely against interventionism, not in favor of it. Yet, it is this interventionism which is at the core of Dondero's dislike and distrust of his former boss.
And what is the basis of Dondero's claim that Paul is a 9/11 conspiracy nut? The Williams article doesn't say, but the truth is pretty clear. Just think back to the South Carolina Republican debate, where Paul famously said that American interventionism in Iraq and the Middle East was a main cause of the 9/11 attacks, and where Giuliani shot back that he had never heard of such a ridiculous accusation and demanded that Paul take it back. Dondero doesn't care that the 9/11 Commission Report backs up Paul's claims. It is eminently clear why Dondero despises Paul and embraces Giuliani: Paul is much more of a mainstream libertarian than Dondero is. I don't claim that Paul is 100% libertarian. He's not. I have issues with Paul in a few instances myself. But overall, he's much more palatable to mainstream libertarians than Rudy Giuliani (or Eric Dondero) is.
Getting back to the Williams article: the gist of Williams' complaint against Paul is that Paul doesn't have support among mainstream (i.e. neo-con) Republicans, but he does have support among Democrats who are working to undermine the Republican party. Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. Of course, another way to look at the same facts is to conclude that Paul plays better with both the right and the left than Giuliani does, whereas Giuliani is the darling of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party (although he has plenty of playmates in the form of McCain, Thompson, Huckabee, Tancredo, et al). The real question is how much support in the Republican Party the neo-cons have, and that's the question that has yet to be answered at the polls.
I have often emphasized that libertarians and conservatives are not the same animals. As the Nolan Chart (see the graphic on any article on this website) shows, the libertarian camp is quite different from the conservative camp and the liberal camp (not to mention the centrist and statist camps). This only becomes clear when you expand the political map beyond the limited left-right spectrum traditionally used by most analysts. It is also why libertarian philosophy is equally appealing to both liberals and conservatives, rather than being a minor branch of conservative philosophy. This is the root cause of the conservative paranoia, because in the past libertarians have often voted for Republican candidates rather than Democratic candidates, even though the difference between the two for most libertarians is usually little better than a coin flip. In fact, a large percentage of libertarians who vote Republican do so because they are pro-life (rather than pro-choice like Dondero), and many libertarians have often held their noses to vote for Republicans they otherwise despise because of their stances on issues like abortion or gun rights. I should also point out that there is a great divide among libertarians on the abortion issue. Approximately half consider themselves pro-life, and the other half consider themselves pro-choice.
I said at the beginning of this article that Williams' commentary is actually an indication of conservative paranoia, which is true. He is afraid for the same reason that the rest of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party is afraid. They are not only paranoid in their foreign policy. They are also afraid that libertarians who previously voted Republican may end up abandoning the Republicans if a Giuliani is nominated. They are afraid that many might just stay home on election day next November if Ron Paul isn't on their ballots (and if they aren't crazy about the Libertarian Party candidate, whomever that turns out to be). In essence, they are afraid that the people who have voted for them in the past may stop voting for them in 2008, and this is a valid fear. Mainstream libertarians are mostly non-interventionists, and they are sick and tired of the Bush Doctrine of bankrupting America and killing America's young in their insane quest to use military interventionism to defeat Al Qaedda. If mainstream libertarians get it into their heads to stop voting for Republicans, the Republican governing coalition would fall apart. If you're a Republican neo-con activist, that's a real concern that could ultimately cost you the 2008 elections.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 81 thumbs so far
2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Last modified: Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
If Rep. Paul gets real traction in the primaries it's already clear that Dondero is being warmed up in the bullpen for his swift-boat attack on Paul. How anyone who claims Libertarian values can possibly support Giuliani is beyond me, but as you point out Dondero has been appointed to run against Paul in the '08 congressional race, and you can bet that he'll be getting plenty of money and help fron the Republican party, especially if Giuliani wins the nomination. Some people just have their price. Well, it's a free country, a guy can sell his soul to whomever he likes for whatever price he thinks is fair, I guess.
Mr. Thiessen, your article is riddled with errors. Firstly, I am not a candidate for Congress against Ron Paul in Texas CD 14. I made it very clear, as was quoted in the NY Times, Christian Science Monitor and numerous other major media outlets, last summer that I would only Ron if another GOP contender did not step forward. Someone did: Chris Peden, Friendswood City Councilman. Chris is a good libertarian conservative, and I fully expect him to beat Ron Paul. The fact of me not running for Congress is old news. Secondly, you misquoted from my website. I do not do commentary on my site. Rather I post from others who comment in the major media about libertarians. That quote you attributed to me was from a Columnist with the Columbia Times newspaper, who is a self-described "libertarian." Those were his words, not mine. And his endorsement of Giuliani for President. It's quite clearly noted on my website. I cannot see how somebody could miss that. Further, anyone who believes that the United States is responsible for the attacks of 9/11, as Ron Paul most specifically and forcefully asserted in that debate with Giuliani last Spring, is by definition an "extremist" and "way out of the mainstream of American politics." You could almost make the argument that his comments bordered on treasonous. Plus, he has been asked repeatedly to distance himself from other radicals like the 9/11 deniers and the Nazi StormTrooper Front. In response, Ron Paul has done nothing but deflect and demure. In fact, the latest controversy seems to center on the leader of the Nazi StormTrooper Front, who made a $500 contribution to the Paul Campaign. Asked by reporters if he planned to give back the contribution, Paul responded, "we're looking into the matter." A campaign supported by the Nazi StormTrooper Front is beyond "extremist." The Republican Party had a David Duke problem in the early 1990s. They quickly denounced him, and ran him out of the Party. Ron Paul is failing to denounce his Nazi supporters. Why is this so? BTW, you failed to mention anywheres in your piece that I worked for Ron Paul as his close Personal Assistant and Chief Aide for 12 years, both in his 1988 Libertarian Presidential race, and in his Congressional office for 6 years, from 1997-2003. I dare say, you don't know the real Ron Paul as I do. I had to listen to literally hundreds of his speeches and presentations. Many times he made me cringe with his far-out theories and quasi-Anti-Semitic remarks. I know, cause I'm Jewish. Paul would even trump me out at times as proof against allegations that he was an Anti-Semite. I was on his payroll, so there was little that I could do. I am now ashamed that I let myself be used in that way. For I know the real Ron Paul. And although, he is not an explicit Anti-Semite like Duke or the Nazi StormTroopers, he comes about as close as one could possible get. Eric Dondero, CEO MainstreamLibertarian.com Fmr. Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) 1997-2003 Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator, 1995/96 Ron Paul for President Campaign Exloratory Comm. Coordinator, 1992 Ron Paul, Libertarian for President, Travel Aide, 1987/88 Also, Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus & Fmr. Libertarian National Committee member
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-14 08:33:40
Mr. Dondero: If you are not a candidate for Congress in Paul's district, then I retract that statement. I had not heard what you describe as "old news." However, the fact that you were willing to be a candidate pretty much amounts to the same thing. Clearly, you do have an agenda against Ron Paul. Your entire comment reinforces that fact.
Just out of curiosity, how did the Columbia Times article end up on your website? Perhaps you didn't write it (I disagree, by the way...the writer of the article is not clear), but you clearly endorse it if it's on your front page. Or are you going to claim that it's there by accident?
And by the way, what ARE your views about Giuliani? If your website doesn't represent your views accurately, what does?
I can't say I knew much about your relationship with Dr. Paul. I certainly believe you have the right to your opinions about him. Yet an obvious question comes to my mind. If you hated what he stands for so much, why did you stay with him for so many years? Only a masochist would do that.
The bottom line is that your comments formed the basis for Williams' article, and while I respect your right to believe what you believe, I don't think your beliefs are representative of mainstream libertarian beliefs. Therefore, Williams' representation to the contrary was misleading, and I stand by that claim.
Firstly, I am rather impressed that you are allowing me to respond to your allegations on your website. That speaks highly of you and your fairness. I extend the same courtesy to you for my Blog at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com.
That said a couple housekeeping items: Firstly, of course I meant to say "run" instead of "Ron" in regards to my past prospective candidacy. Also, how does one do paragraph breaks on your site? For some reason my posts come out in full block. Sort of annoying format to read.
Okay, to the meat.
I was fine with Ron Paul for the last 3 years. We had settled on an uneasy but stable former employee status. In fact, Ron called me a while back to extend an olive branch to me. I sort of listened, and didn't respond much. Honestly, I was a bit suspicious. Each time in the past he has placed such calls to me, it was for the purpose of getting "back on board."
Point is, everything was cool somewhat, until that fateful day in South Carolina when he made that utterly idiotic statement blaming America for the attacks on 9/11. I was floored. I was extremely upset. I could not believe those words actually came out of his mouth.
Worse!! Wendell Goller of Fox gave him an opportunity to retract and clarify his statement. Wendell said something to the effect, "Mr. Paul you don't really mean to say that the United States is responsible for 9/11 do you?"
Instead of saying one simple sentance, "No Wendell, I didn't mean to imply that in any way..." Ron Paul went right into some nutso rant about "blowback" and our intervenionist policies in the Middle East.
I had an uneasy peace with my former longtime employer up until that point. When he made those statements is the very day I turned on him.
BTW, just to back my claim up, I refer you to my Blog circa January of this year, where I posted an article mildly positive towards Ron Paul's prospective Presidential cadidacy.
Secondly, how did the Columbia Times article end up on my site? Simple. I as Editor put it there. I often put up articles from other self-described "libertarians" supporting Giuliani for President. That's the whole purpose of the LIBERTARIANS FOR GIULIANI section on the site. What's the mystery there?
Do I support Rudy Giuliani for President? Absolutely!! He is simply put, the very best Presidential candidate of any Party (save Ed Clark), to come around in my entire lifetime.
For years in the early days of the Republican Liberty Caucus we fought the Religious Right. We libertarians were a pariah in the GOP. They didn't want to welcome us. The Pro-Lifers were particularly vicious.
Now, we have a Pro-Choice candidate WHO IS THE FRONTRUNNER for the nomination of the Republican Party. How amazing is that? And not only that, PAT ROBERTSON IS ENDORSING HIM!!!
It's a 180 degree turnaround for the Republican Party from the 1990s. The GOP used to lean Authoritarian Conservative. Now they've completely shifted to the Libertarian Conservative side, and Giuliani is the living proof of that. It's a glorious victory for us libertarian Republicans. I never thought I'd live to see this day.
Why did I work for Ron Paul for so long?
That's a very complex question, and one that I fear I cannot easily answer in a short Blog post. But allow me to try.
Number One: The Ron Paul you see today is nothing like the Ron Paul of 1995/96. I was Executive Director of the group I founded - the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1995. Ron was flirting with coming back into the GOP from the LP, and even thinking of running for Congress. He called me up, and invited me out to Texas (from Tallahassee, FL).
I came, and accepted his offer of employment for his Exploratory Committee. But back then, Ron went out of his way to prove his Republican credentials. He was much, much more Conservative, and very much a "South Texas Republican." He even had his friend Tom DeLay come down to the District to campaign for him. He was a loyal GOPer. Plus, he was Pro-Military, and didn't talk much, if at all about a non-interventionist foreign policy. Back then Ron Paul was "the Taxpayer's Best Friend." I'd say 80% of what he talked about on the campaign trail was taxes and spending issues, and opposing Clinton.
That was the way he was for the first 4 years in Congress. Yes, a bit of an oddball in the GOP, but still a loyal team player.
Hell, he even signed a letter of support for Brian Bilbray in his race for Congress in 2000, urging the Libertarian Party members in the District to "Vote Republican" instead of the spoiler LPer in the race. This caused a fury in the LP. (Funny this isn't talked about today?)
Then 9/11 hit. Overnight Ron Paul changed. He became a complete leftwinger on foreign policy. I was stunned.
He even threatened not to vote for the resolution authorizing Bush to go into Afghanistan. Me and other staffers threated to resign over this. He finally voted "yes" at the very last minute. Still, I was shaken up by the whole affair. I questions myself, "how is it that I could work for such a man, who doesn't want to even attack Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."
6 months later I did resign. I told Ron and Carol that it was because I had job offers as an Interpreter. (Which was true.) But the real reason was over the shock of him not wanting to support the War against the Taliban/Al Qaeda.
A year later I was in Mexico teaching English. I got an email from Tom Lizardo, Ron's Chief, asking me if I'd be interested in coming back to work for him. They dangled a lot of money in front of me. (There had been an inter-office scandal - young, underage Christian girl got pregnent out of wedlock, and they needed someone to step in to replace her quickly.) I reluctantly agreed, with the proviso that it would only be a short time.
Well, due to many bonuses that short time turned into 2 more years. But during that time the War in Iraq began. Ditto for Afghanistan War. Only this time Ron did not vote in favor of it.
This led to him and I having serious arguments over foreign policy. We didn't speak to each other for 6 whole months! Imagine that. A Congressman not speaking to his Top District Staffer, for 6 long months.
Finally, Tom said Ron was "restless." I agreed to talk with him about our disagreements. We drove down to Victoria, and he shouted at me for two hours straight. He jumped out of the car in the parking lot of the Federal building, stuck his finger in my chest, and said these words:
"I will not have anyone on my staff who does not agree with my position on the War in Iraq." He was clearly telling me that I needed to shut up on my support for the Military and our Mission.
I told Tom, no way was I going to give up my principles. I tendered my resignation a few weeks later.
So, you ask me how is it that I could work for someone I so vehmently disagree with on foreign policy?
Simple answer: In the end I didn't work for him. When he changed his views on foreign policy, going from your standard Republican to strident leftwing conspiratorialist "let's blame the Jews for all our problems" non-interventionist, that's when I resigned.
Response on RP contributors. What's most troubling to me about JB Williams article is the fact that he researched the zip codes of the most ardent Ron Paul donors, and they were all places like San Francisco, Seattle, Long Beach, CA, all hard leftwing areas. Nothing about Dallas or Omaha or Canton, OH.
I'd like a Ron Paul supporter to please explain why this isn't troublesome? Do you all honestly believe that Ron Paul is picking up mainline Republican support? Or, like Williams wrote, could all his supporters be coming from the DailyKos/Huffington Report Left?
The Leftist Bloggers have said repeatedly that they would use such tactics to destroy the Republican Party.
And, if Ron Paul is attracting mainline Republican support, why so few endorsements from Republicans for his Presidential campaign? Why aren't we seeing Congressmen and Senators and Governors coming out for Ron Paul?
There's been a grand total of one: retiring Cong. Walter Jones of NC. And a handful of New Hampshire state legislators. That's it folks!
Meanwhile, Giuliani picked up the endorsements of US Senator Norm Coleman of Minn. and Sen. Kit Bond of MO last week.
If Ron Paul is so "mainline Republican" than where are all his endorsements?
And why all the donations coming from San Francisco to his campaign?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-14 10:16:10
Mr. Dondero: First, to housekeeping. The reason you are having trouble breaking paragraphs is due to the editor you are using before you cut-and-paste into the comment window. Mostly likely it's Microsoft Word, because that's the most commonly used culprit, although it could be something else. The online editor will break a paragraph wherever you place your cursor and hit the Enter key. It won't necessarily recognize the way other editors break paragraphs, since there are too many ways to do that that aren't HTML compatible.
Regarding the rest of your long commentary, I have the following replies:
(1) If you didn't become upset with Ron Paul until recently, why did you make such a big deal about having to listen to him when you were his aide for so many years? You wrote: "I dare say, you don't know the real Ron Paul as I do. I had to listen to literally hundreds of his speeches and presentations. Many times he made me cringe with his far-out theories and quasi-Anti-Semitic remarks." That certainly doesn't sound to me like the problem (as you perceive it) was a recent one, regardless of your claims to the contrary.
(2) I want to clarify that I made an exception in your case. Normally, our policy at the Nolan Chart is not to permit comments (or articles) that are specifically personal attacks or which contain personal attacks. Ad hominems have no place in honest debate. Your comments did include some very specific ad hominems against Dr. Paul, but I permitted them anyway. I may end up regretting that decision, but I stick by it. Just to let you know, I've already deleted one very angry reader reply from someone who called you some very bad names. It never made it onto the website. As I pointed out to him, he would be right to be angry with me because I didn't apply the same standard to your comment. So I would appreciate it if you would avoid calling Dr. Paul names out of your personal feelings toward him in future comments.
(3) Regarding Mr. Giuliani and the posts on your website: given that you have now made it clear that you support Mr. Giuliani (I'll let others debate with you about your choice in that regard), I don't see any reason why you made such an issue out of the fact that I pointed this out about you, that you and your website support Giuliani. Is it really relevant that someone else wrote that article? Your claim that I was in "error" seems disingenuous at best, deliberately manipulative at worst in this regard.
(4) And now to the real crux of this whole discussion, the reason why you are so angry at Dr. Paul, the reason why I wrote my article, and the reason why this whole conversation is taking place. That reason is non-interventionism. You wrote, "he was Pro-Military, and didn't talk much, if at all about a non-interventionist foreign policy." I won't dispute you about this, although I tend to believe that he likely has always held his current views but didn't take much time to spell them out. Dr. Paul is a smart politician. He knows when to say something and when not to.
Having said that, I must completely take issue with your claim that non-interventionism, the "blowback" theory, etc. are left-wing nut job beliefs. They are not. They are at the core of libertarian philosophy, which is very well represented by the phrase, "Live and let live," or "Don't tread on me," which amounts to the same thing. I am about as 100% libertarian as anyone you will ever meet, and I state for the record and for all time that intervening in the affairs of other countries, even in the name of fighting terrorism, is a violation of core libertarian beliefs.
Regarding Afghanistan, I don't know for sure but I'm guessing that Dr. Paul had the same feelings about that as I did. It wasn't the country that was the problem, it was the fact that bin Laden was there, and we wanted him to hold him accountable for his crimes against our country. The Taliban (who had gained control of their government) were hiding, shielding, and protecting him. That's what led to the war. To the extent that we were trying to get bin Laden and his lieutenants, I favored the invasion. But as soon as it became clear (and it didn't take long to find out) that Bush's intention was not to go after bin Laden but rather to go in for nation building in the name of fighting terrorism, that's where my opinion changed. I wasn't the only one. An awful lot of libertarians felt the same way as I did, as I'm sure you are well aware when you are calm and being honest with yourself.
As for Iraq, there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that that invasion has cost us dearly in the struggle against Al Qaedda terrorism. It is abundantly clear that Al Qaedda is now far stronger in Iraq than it ever was before 2003.
The main reason people like yourself believe so strongly as you do is that you believe that terrorism must be confronted directly and militarily to prevent it from importing to our country. You just can't handle the idea that your method leads to the exact results that it purports to oppose.
I notice that you avoid all mention of the 9/11 Commission Report. They made it clear that America's interventionist presence in the Middle East was a key factor in the attacks. Bin laden himself has made that clear. His ill-named "fatwahs" in the late 1990s made that clear. Yet, those of you who favor direct military action against countries associated with terrorists refuse to acknowledge this core fact.
First, a quick response: You ask why I stayed with Ron Paul so long? Two reasons; 1. I thought I could change him and convert him back to sanity, and I did do that for a short while in a number of issues. The second reason is less noble - money. He was paying me rather well, and each time I talked of leaving staff, a substantial bonus would all of a sudden pop up out of thin air. I didn't complain.
Okay, now to the "crux."
I strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly, strongly, and most strongly disagree with you, in the most vehement and strongest terms possible on your assertion that non-intervenionism is somehow the "consistent libertarian position."
Nothing, absolutely NOTHNG!!! could be further from the truth.
You are obviously completely ignorant of libertarian movement history if you believe this to be the case.
The modern libertarian movement was born in the early 1960s from 3 or 4 individuals: Ayn Rand, Barry Goldwater, Frederich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. Rand, Friedman and most certainly Goldwater were passionate anti-Communists who hated the Soviet Union. They were all tough on defense. Hayek was largely silent on defense matters.
Then Dana Rohrabacher came along. If there was one single individual who is more responsible for the birth of the libertarian movement it's Dana. He was Chairman of the "Libertarian Caucus" of Young Americans for Freedom from 1966-69. It was out of this Caucus that the Libertarian Party was born.
And lo and behold, the LP's First Presidential candidate was none other than Pro-Defense and strident Anti-Communist Libertarian John D. Hospers. You may recall, Hospers endorsed Bush in 2004, and is a vehement supporter of the War on Islamo-Fascism.
It was only in the middle 1970s when leftist Anarchist Murray Rothbard and homosexual activist Justin Raimondo infiltrated the Libertarian Party platform committee and had their "Radical Caucus" take over the party, that the Party's image switched to non-interventionism.
Even so, a Libertarian Defense Caucus fought back the pacifist for years afterward.
Newbie Libertarians think that the libertarian movement has always been non-interventionist.
This says volumes about the effectiveness of Raimondo and Rothbard's (and Lew Rockwell's) propoganda machine.
But it is simply not true.
The correct libertarian position in modern terms is to oppose Islamo-Fascism in all its forms, and to support a strong defense.
After all, Islamo-Fascists wish to outlaw abortion, jail all homosexuals, crack down on free speech like cartoons depicting Muhammed, force women to wear burqas from head to toe, ban nude sunbathing all across Europe, and wage a huge War on Mariajuana smokers and other Drug Legalizers.
How is any of that compatible with libertarianism?
What you're saying is that you and Ron had a major policy disagreement over the Iraq war and now you want to discredit him and portray him as "anti-Jewish"? I scarcely see Ron as an "anti-Jew," but many of my people have lost their commandments to cronyism and often put their dollars before their God so maybe I'm an anti-Jew-Jew.
I would guess that for most of Ron's support, the non-interventionism stance is a pretty good litmus test. You won't probably won't find a Ron Paul supporter who wants the US to continue with it's imperial foreign policy. He get's my Yitzchak Rabin vote while the Bibi-ites scream anti-Semite all over the web.
I get the sense that you see Loyalty to the GOP as a virtue for a candidate. Ron Paul's disloyalty to bad ideas is the reason why we like him so much: he has the balls to disagree on principle even if it makes him appear like he's "on the fringe." I think it's about time we had a candidate who favors constitution over cronyism.
Brad, isn't it funny you are so concerned about "the government" taking away our rights in some fantasy world of FBI agents knocking down our doors to check our computer discs, yet you seem to have no problem whatsoever with Islamic Radicals killing US Citizens: Salt Lake City shooter, Beltway Sniper John Muhammed, UNC Campus SUV Muslim driver, the Seattle shooter who gunned down 6 women at the Jewish Community Center, LAX terrorist, Fort Dix Six, and most recently the pair of raged Muslim bombers at the SC Army Depot.
I guess you think it's better that Muslim Radicals kill Americans than to have the FBI checking computer files for ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES WHO HAVE OVERSTAYED THEIR VISAS, at public libraries?
I don't.
To Walt: You claim that "blowback theory" and non-intervenionism are not "leftwing nutjob beliefs." How do you explain then the fact that both Rothbard and Raimondo come from the hard left? Why does Raimondo have so many close ties to leftwing blogs? Why is Lew Rockwell romantically linked with Cindy Sheehan of all people? Why is it that Ron Paul's donor lists has a big chunk of donors from hard left areas of the country like San Francisco, LA-area, and Seattle?
Like National Socialism is a leftwing philosophy, non-interventionism and pacifism are planted firmly on the Left. Pro-Americanism, Patriotism, and Defending one's Country and Self from those who would invade us, is Right-wing and absolutely LIBERTARIAN!!!
I'm glad we didn't have to resort to pointing out the fact that Giuliani gets well-publicized endorsements from the likes of true anti-Semites like Pat "America deserved 9/11" Robertson, or that his advisory staff is chock full of sane and upstanding pragmatists the likes of Norm "Our Negro Problem... Let's nuke women and toddlers" Podhoretz et al. God forbid that we should start castigating candidates based on their supporters, staffers, or even former staffers.
I'm glad to see that the discussion didn't get lowered to (Link Edited For Length) level (for someone's sake, at least).
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-14 11:33:16
Eric: You enjoy throwing slow, easy softball pitches, don't you! The answer is extraordinarily simple. Libertarian philosophy derives from the ideas of freedom and liberty. Therefore, both the left and the right (who have both embraced liberty to one extent or another in their own respective ways) have contributed to the theory.
Liberty's foundations date back to the time of Locke and even further back than that. Those early philosophical views were originally called Liberalism. Today, they are sometimes referred to as Classical Liberalism, to differentiate from the moden, statist form that liberalism has taken.
Both left and right have contributed ideas to libertarian theory over time. Your claim that libertarianism is exclusively a right-wing philosophy simply doesn't hold up. Rothbard was a libertarian. Some even called him Mr. Libertarian. He was a brilliant man who contributed a great deal to libertarian philosophy. He wasn't always correct, but who is? Certainly not you or me! Does it really matter that previous to becoming a libertarian he was on the left?
I myself came from the left...after I came from the right. I was raised in a Republican household, but I grew up during the Nixon era. That was enough to turn me away from the right. In fact, that whole era turned my stomach. So I turned left, but I found that while I loved their defense of personal liberty (to the extent that they were willing to defend it), I couldn't stomach their squashing of economic liberty.
By the way, there is a very clear factual error in your statement. National Socialism (otherwise known as Nazism or fascism) is an explicitly right-wing European philosophy from the early 20th Century that arose in opposition to Socialism (which was the left-wing version of statism), although both are pretty much two sides of the same coin (statism). One is the right side. The other is the left side. No matter which side of the coin you look at, you're still looking at a bad penny.
Nor does the right have a corner on being pro-American or patriotic. The left are just as pro-American, just as patriotic. Both left and right defend their patriotism and their pro-Americanism based on their belief systems. Both make mistakes, usually serious ones. Both have made contributions, too. From my point of view as a libertarian, neither is better or worse than the other.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-14 11:48:44
Just saw your previous post. I won't bother to address all of it. I've heard it all before. I'll just limit myself to a couple of points. First, Ayn Rand rejected libertarianism. She was quite vehement about it, as you know well. Libertarians (including myself) often came to libertarian theory through Rand, but Rand herself did not. Neither did Goldwater. They are examples of how the right contributed to libertarian theory, but they are not the sole representatives of libertarian theory. They also all made very serious mistakes of various kinds.
I've often thought it was amusing that the libertarian-right keep hearkening back to Rand given that she was an adulterer. Personally, her adultery is nothing to me, but given the right (especially the Christian right) and their attitudes regarding the sanctity of marriage, it's quite comical.
Yet, she also has some terrific contributions to make, and for those I applaud her memory. By the way, it was Rand who originally formulated the non-aggression theory, although she later tried to disengage from it. She didn't call it that, but she said it nonetheless. I believe is was in her book The Romantic Manifesto.
I can see that you love to harken back to the old debates within the LP. That's your privilege. Quite honestly, I'm glad that Rothbard and Raimando (among others) became involved. Without them, libertarian theory would not have evolved the way it needed to. Without them, I would have had a much harder time adopting libertarian philosophy.
And giuliani certainly doesn't have a conflict-of-interest problem: that is to say, he has no problem being linked with state sponsors of Islamo-Fascists [sic], like Saudi Arabia
But then again, when you're such a non-authoritarian [sic] libertarian [sic] like Rudy, there's no need to apologize. After all, he has clients like News Corp. who do that for him rather well.
Am I the only one who is appalled by the tone and demeanor of Eric Dondero's posts above? The word "unhinged" immediately comes to mind. I see nothing, nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that this man is a libertarian, or even has an inkling of what it means to be a libertarian. If he can wholeheartedly endorse Giuliani over Ron Paul, he is a neocon, pure and simple. Q.E.D.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-14 15:24:05
No Alan, you are not the only one. But I also believe that many people who support statists are actually libertarians at heart who make certain mistakes in their own judgment regarding political matters.
I believe that Eric Dondero is libertarian in many ways. I suspect we all might be surprised at how libertarian he is if we were to learn more about his beliefs on a variety of issues. But he is also conservative, and like many libertarians who share his beliefs (and yes, they do exist), he blurs the distinction between them.
If he were to take the Nolan Chart survey on this website, I suspect he would end up somewhere along the border between the libertarian and conservative camps on the chart. One of the reasons I established this site in the first place is to establish dialog among all members of all camps, not just libertarians. It is no surprise that most visitors to the site so far have been libertarian or libertarian leaning. That is to be expected, especially here in the early going. But it is my fondest wish in the long term that we get not only more people like Eric, but also other people who are even further toward the statist camp on the chart...and there are a lot of them!
Why do I want this? Simple. Until we Americans are willing to debate and discuss political values, beliefs, and actions among ALL of us, regardless of our individual stances on the issues, we can never have a real debate in this country that will truly include libertarian ideas and ideals.
This is ultimately the greatest message of the Paul campaign. His is a campaign of inclusion that reaches out to the right as well as to the left. He reaches out to the libertarian in all of us, however small that bit might be.
Well Eric, Im in Omaha and I donated and will donate even more money to Ron Paul. The terrorist activity is nothing of concern. Come to Omaha and walk the streets of the north side of town. Now that's bad (if you make it out alive).
But if we could secure this country and choose who gets in in the first place, we wouldnt have had any of these problems. Ron Paul represents to me more individual control and power to their own destiny. Read Pat Buchannon's book The Death of The West. Ron Paul is the key to reversing the projections discussed in this book. There's your Omaha, Dallas and Rapid City, SD people for you.
Is Eric Dondero a libertarian? Dunno. You be the judge.
Pro-Choice, Pro-Drug Legalization, Pro-Gambling, Pro-Prostitution, Pro-Gay Rights, Pro-Swingers Rights!!!, Pro-Adult Pornography, Anti-Seat Belt Laws, Anti-Smoking Bans, Abolish the Income Tax, Deep Spending Cuts across the board, Privatization of Social Security, Pro-Welfare cuts, Free Market Health Care, School Vouchers & Tuition Tax Credits, Phase out of Foreign Aid, No Military Draft, and finally, Gun Rights, Fight like Hell Against Islamo-Fascism on all fronts.
Libertarian resume: Secretary, Libertarian Party of Florida - 1985/86, Libertarian candidate for State Legislatures - 1986, Libertarian National Committee member - 1986/88, Travel Aide, Ron Paul, Libertarian for President - 1987/88, Florida Chairman, Libertarian Republican Organizing Comm. 1989/90, Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus, 1990, First Chairman & Executive Dir. RLC, 1991-95, Personal Political Aide to Roger MacBride, 1976 Libertarian Presidential Candidate 1991-95, Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator - 1995/96, Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul, 1997-2003, Numerous Libertarian Party petition drives, and libertarian ballot initiatives such as property rights nationwide 2003-Present.
Rudy Giuliani scores 60/60 on the ontheissues.org website. They rate him as a "Moderate Libertarian." Ron Paul is the only one who scores better at 70/70. I fail to see how someone who is 60/60 can be categorized as a "Statist."
Giuliani has been called a "libertarian," or a "libertarian conservtive" by countless media in the last few months, such as The Economist, NY Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, and London Times-Herald. In fact, the NY Times famously said of Giuliani: "He's not even a real Republican... He's more of a libertarian free marketeer welfare slashing Ayn Randian." Giuliani has numerous libertarians backing his campaign including Steve Forbes, Calif. Cong. David Dreier, Dennis Miller, and Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Inst.
No, Giuliani is not an Anarchist who wants to eliminate all government. No, he's not even a Radical Libertarian. He's a libertarian-leaning Moderate Republican just like Jack Kemp, David Dreier, Forbes, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and PJ O'Rourke. That's the best we can ever hope for in American politics. American voters will NEVER vote for a Radical Libertarian for President. I'll take the 60/60 guy any day of the week.
I am a hispanic female in Miami Beach, Florida and I love Dr. Paul's principled and honest stance on the issues. I don't agree with all of them, but I understand his points. I am pro-choice, but with Dr. Paul being an obstetrician, I can understand his stance. Every nut has a right to pick a candidate and support him/her, even if we don't agree with it, isn't that what liberty protects? I believe lobbying from corporations should be illegal and no campaign should receive any support from them. Dr. Paul's coffers are filled by people like me. Every candidate has nuts that support them, so does Dr. Paul.
Wonderful retort to the attack on Ron Paul. I am also a self-avowed Libertarian, even going so far as to run for office last year, and I am very surprised that more Libertarians have not moved to back Paul. I understand loyalty and all that, but Paul has a much better chance than any candidate representing the Libertarian Party. Furthermore, I was pleased to see that you acknowledge pro-life Libertarians, because I am sick and tired of hearing fellow Libertarians bash me for being pro-life. For a party as small as we are, we should be more inclusive. Go Ron Paul, 2008!
Brandon, you mistakenly conclude that those Libertarians who are not supporting Ron Paul are doing so cause they're supporting the Libertarian Party.
Actually, many of us are supporting Rudy Giuliani for President. And a smaller number of Libertarians are in the Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson camps.
give me a break, eric you say your adoptive parents are jewish..this does not make you jewish!!!!! jewish people see it as a race, since you were not born a jew, you are NOT a jew. What you are is a little weirdo who was fired from ron pauls office and have been having sour grapes over it ever since..get over yourself, wasnt it you who found the donation from don black?? and you were running for office, anyone with google can find that info..also they can find the plaves where you said extremely racist things against mexicans and musmlims....grow up and get a life would you??
For the record, biological Mom is also Jewish. I speak Hebrew, and was Bar Mitzvahed at age 13.
So, ethnically I'm Jewish (biological Dad is Italian). Though, philosophically I consider myself to be a Deist.
can you prove you are jewish? do you deny that you have said racist things against muslims and mexicans? are you denying that you made an attempt to take over rons congressional seat? i have read many blogs that have been authored by you, and many from people you have harrassed with your vulgar language and totally racist view of the world at large. i think anyone who has political ties or personal ties to you would be smart to severe them immediately, you rant like a lunatic and have some grandiose idea that people should take you as an authority on political views, ron paul made you, and without him you are nothing but a FORMER employee.....thats you big claim to fame, whoop whoop for you and your dog.
So now vulgar language is considered "harrassment".
Witness how far down the path of political correctness we've gone in the United States. Look how much we've become "Girlie Man Nation." First they fire Imus, for saying a stupid word. And now some people want to even outlaw vulgar language.
Wow! We are vastly losing our liberties in this country to the PC forces. They must be defeated!
and you still didnt answer the questions...typical, can you give us the name of one verifiable witness who saw you dressed up like a jew at the request of Ron Paul? who was your rabbi when you was a child? did you write your own wikipedeia entry? Do you often resort to vulgar language when people start to get the better of you? are the most quoted source of ron paul being a racist? you are from what I have read.
oh by the way, what synagogue did you attend and where was it? what branch of the military where you in and where did you serve? what is your ties to lonestar times? how many times have you been married? did you admit to being a bigot on someones blog? and how many languages do you speak fluently? is it 10 or 15?
from this blog (Link Edited For Length) its quoted that you said you were not jewish, that you were not raised jewish and that your mother was half jewish..so that would make you a 1/4??? but now you are claiming to have had a bar mitzvahed?? which is it???
I know this article/comment thread is long dead but I wish to correct some, ahem, inconsitencies in Mr. Dondero's ahhh, timeline.
From Mr. Dondero's second comment post:
Point is, everything was cool somewhat, until that fateful day in South Carolina when he made that utterly idiotic statement blaming America for the attacks on 9/11.
Mr. Dondero claims that he was on relatively good terms with Dr. Paul until the May 15, 2007 GOP debates in South Carolina. The following article from Townhall.com pre-dates that debate by a full month:
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.