Reason Interviews Ron Paul

Reason has a great interview with Congressman Ron Paul about his plans to run for President, his stance on immigration and prescription drug reform, and some other key issues.

Here are a few sample points that might be important to Libertarians…

Reason: Does launching an official exploratory committee necessarily mean you will end up launching an official campaign?

Ron Paul: Last week it leaked that we were getting ready to organize an exploratory committee—I haven’t even officially announced that yet. If I find with the exploratory committee that there is some support out there, that we can raise the money you need, then [I’d] declare that [I’m] running.

Reason: Now that it has leaked, what have you thought of the response so far?

Paul: I think it’s been impressive. I’ve been pleased and surprised.

Sounds like he’s going to do it.

Reason: And another rumor is that the GOP run could be a lead-in to some sort of third party run…

Paul: A third party run? No.

Although he pretty much has to say that to avoid a backlash in the GOP primaries. No one would vote for him if he stated his intention outright was to bolt from the party and run as the nominee of a completely different party.

Still, I’ve heard some people say he plans to seek re-election to Congress if he loses the GOP nod. So I’m guessing a third party bid would probably be beyond the scope of his current plans.

Reason: When can we expect an official announcement about your presidential plans?

Paul: It’s going to be several weeks. We want to get our ducks lined up, be better prepared to line up committees and all the things we didn’t get together before the information about [the exploratory committee] was leaked. I was impressed with how quick it leaked, and the reaction, O man!

Reason: Any reaction from your congressional colleagues or Republican Party types?

Paul: Not a whole lot. I didn’t expect them to say too much. I mean, they mention it—it’s not like they refuse to talk about it—but it’s not the hottest subject around. It’s much hotter on the Internet.

It will have to be a grassroots campaign and rely on the internet. If we don’t learn how to use that to its maximum benefit, we won’t have a very viable campaign. We’ll be able to raise significant amounts, but obviously we’re not getting money from corporate giants and we’re not apt to raise $100 million. Money is pretty important, but it’s not the final issue. There are other ways of running, more so today than ever before, new ways of reaching people in an economical manner. Obvious you have to get a certain [minimum amount] of money, but right now I have no idea of the number.

Read the entire Reason interview. Visit Congressman Paul’s Exploratory Committee.

74 Responses to “Reason Interviews Ron Paul”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Nice find Austin.

    Paul seems like he’s gunna make a decent run at this thing. But, sadly, in the end I think he’ll be forced to drop. Hopefully the writer of Reason is correct,and he is considering a Third Party Bid.

  2. Joe Says:

    In the interview Ron Paul stated categorically that he is not going to run as a third party candidate. To me this interview demonstrates how silly internet rumors can be. Like the rumor that he would choose Tom Tancredo as his running mate, this one seems to have been invented out of whole cloth – or wishful thinking.

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    Joe,as the Reason interviewer noted, Ron Paul pretty much HAS to say he is ruling out a third party at this point. If he were to admit he were considering it, funds would slow down and support from the Republican establishment would die.
    I agree that Ron Paul probably wont run. Nor do I think he’ll choose Tancredo (a relative moderate on everything but immigration) as a running mate.
    In other discussions, dont you think Tancredo should have ran for the open senate seat? Talk about a lock.

  4. Austin Cassidy Says:

    The point that he pretty much has to say he’s not going to run third party was my comment, not Reason’s. The grey sections are quotes from the Reason interview and the rest is my random 2 cents.

    Just wanted to clear it up so no one blamed Reason for saying something they didn’t say. :)

  5. Roscoe Says:

    I’ll wager $25 (payable to LP if I lose bet) that Paul’s exploratory efforts will conclude he should not file as a candidate and enter any GOP primaries.

  6. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ron Paul has other considerations in regards to running as a 3rd Party candidate; namely his neighbors in Lake Jackson/Freeport, Texas.

    It amazes me how all these inter-loopers who don’t even live in Texas, let alone Ron’s hometown/county of LJ/Brazoria County, think they know the man, and his intentions.

    Ron’s closest friends here in Brazoria County, DO NOT want him to run for anything other than Republican ever again. When he first ran for Congress, he was absolutely sworn to allegiance to the GOP for life. His closest friends and advisors in LJ, Victoria and Houston, told him in the strongest terms possible “sure Ron, we’ll support ya, and give you some major funds for your race, but you’ve got to promise us never again, any of this wild third party candidacies.”

    Even his wife Carol has categorically ruled out any 3rd party run by Ron. She has said repeatedly that if Ron EVER runs for public office he needs to run as a winner, not on some educational effort.

    Y’all non-Texans need to stop speculating about stuff you know little about.

    And besides, it’s highly inpractical for Ron to run as a Libertarian for President. In such a scenario one has to assume that the quixotic Libertarian Party will completely leave the door open for a Ron run, and keep other contenders from running for the Nomination. Highly, highly unlikely.

    By the time Ron were to conceivably tire of a GOP run, some LP contender, a Wayne Root, Doug Stanhope or Michael Moriarty, would have the LP nomination sown up.

    Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul
    Angleton, Brazoria County, Texas
    (12 miles from Lake Jackson)

  7. Eric Dondero Says:

    Roscoe could very well be right. This could be just a fundraising effort.

    People have completely forgotten that Ron Pau has done this very same thing, once before. In 1992, Burt Blumert and Lew Rockwell organized an Exploratory Committee for Ron Paul for President. They raised significant dollars for the race. I know, I was serving as the effort’s Campaign Coordinator at the time.

    I literally had ticket in hand to Boston-Logan, and a schedule lined up for Ron and I to campaign throughout New Hampshire and Vermont, the night Buchanan declared for President.

    At that instant, the Ron Paul, 1992 Republican for President Campaign was over. We cancelled the plane tickets and the schedule of campaign events.

    A few days later, Buchanan called Ron and asked for his endorsement. Ron gave it to him.

    The Exploratory Committee just faded away.

    The very same scenario could be playing out right here before our very eyes.

    You might see a Tancredo or someone else, maybe even a Romney get a Ron Paul endorsement after a few weeks or months.

  8. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Tom Tancredo?

    Wow. There’s a libertarian for you.

    Ron Paul = racist, anticapitalist, homophobic, Ovarian-Marxist theocrat.

    If he’s a libertarian, then so was Hitler.

  9. Sean Scallon Says:

    I don’t think Rep. Paul has any intention of running for the LP nomination or any other non-major party nomination. He needs to say this clearly and forthrightly to Republican voters because they are the ones who are going to decide who the next GOP nominee is (most of the primaries and caucuses are closed only to them) and they’re not going to vote for someone who is going to bolt the party for another one nor give him any money.

    Besides, what guarantee does Rep. Paul have of winning the LP nomination anyway even if he did run and what good is that nomination now compared to when he did have it back in 1988? Even if you make it to the fall election the media and the voters will still treat you as an also-ran so long as you have that non-party label.

    I also don’t think Paul is going to drop this bid or endorse a one-trick pony like Tancredo. This a wide open and weak GOP field and Paul is the only one of them who has consistently opposed an unpopular war. That gives him a shot, maybe not a great shot, but a shot nonetheless and in his 70s and now in thge minority in Congress, I say why not take it? The potential for a new small-government movement of liebrals, conservatives and libertarians that will take down the empire and bring America back to its senses and scale is well worth it.

  10. Andy Says:

    “Wow. There’s a libertarian for you.

    Ron Paul = racist, anticapitalist, homophobic, Ovarian-Marxist theocrat.

    If he’s a libertarian, then so was Hitler.”

    Ron Paul is certainly more of a libertarian than Federal Reserve supporting, eminent domain supporting, Affirmative Action supporting, tax supporting, “undercover_anarchist.”

  11. Joey Dauben Says:

    Not only that, but in every major media outlet that runs the Republican/Democratic candidates for president, Ron Paul is always mentioned, so it behooves the campaign to stick with the GOP.

    After all, the Republican Liberty Caucus was formed for people like Ron to stay in the GOP.

  12. Joey Dauben Says:

    I read the entire interview. Who edits Reason anyway? They need me to edit I guess…

    Walter Jones is a Republican from North Carolina, not a Democrat.

    Joe Biden is a Senator, not a Congressman (Rep.).

    There are words missing like “the” and stuff, which I’m not sure was a direct quote from Dr. Paul or not, but still, for a publication like reason—and a big interview such as this—I’d assume their editing would be damn near perfect.

  13. undercover_anarchist Says:

    I support “eminent domain” within the pre-Kelo interpretation of the Constitution. Just like every constitutionalist in the world, outside of the internet.

    Andy is just another racist neo-Ahimish ludite posing as a libertarian. The party is full of backwoods fudgepacking sister-fuckers and I’m glad I’m no longer a member.

  14. Eric Dondero Says:

    “A weak GOP field”???

    Are you kidding me???

    Rudy Giuliani is America’s Mayor. He is universally loved by Mainstream America. He is the hero of 9/11. He is the guy who told that Saudi Prince to shove his $10 million up his ass.

    Rudy is leading in every single major poll over McCain, Hillary, and Obama. I wouldn’t call that “weak.”

    And though I’m no great fan of Mitt Romney’s, I gotta admit, he’s a pretty damned attractive candidate. And I do like that Olympics Salt Lake City deal about him.

    Yeah, McCain is weak, as is Hagel. Both are basicaly RINOs.

    But Romney and Giuliani are very, very strong, and both have lots of libertarian appeal.

    If the Libertarian Party screws the pooch again, and nominates some nobody, libertarian Republicans will have someone to vote for in Giuliani or Romney.

  15. Joe Says:

    I live in New York and I wouldn’t vote for Giuliani for dogcatcher. Ditto for McCain and Romney. I agree that Ron Paul will not run as a third party candidate – because he said so himself. I also doubt he will endorse Tancredo the way he rejected out of hand the speculation that he would choose Tancredo as his running mate if nominated.

  16. Sean Scallon Says:

    Eric I have to hand it to you. Any man who can get excited over the potential presidential prospects of Doug Manhope is truly a man who sincerely believe his own delusions.

    Most libertarians (assuming you still are one) would not view jay-walking as a jailable crime. Ergo I doubt your Libertarians for Guliani organization is going to get off the ground.

    Apparently, the party of “family values” and “moral responsibility” is going to somehow just going give its nomination for president to a man who’s been divorced and several public affairs with other women, supports abortion rights, dressed in drag on live TV and supports homosexual marriage. I don’t know about you, but I find it to be a little far fetched without a serious intra-party battle. I don’t disagree that Guliani is a serious candidate, but I wouldn’t read too much into polls that are more name recognition than anything else at this point. Remember, before 9-11, nobody would have thought of Guliani as presidential timber any more than they would have thought Ed Koch could make a good president. He happened to be in the right place at the right time. But seven years afterward maybe little a too late for him.

    Mitt Romney would be an attractive candidate if he figured out what he exactly stood for. Why would anyone who has a successful background as an administrator run for President as preacher? And what serious Mormon would support homosexual right or abortion to begin with even before his pre-election “conversions?” (Boy it must be liberating not to be governor of Massachusetts isn’ it?) Romney is simply pandering to a base that may very well not support himanyway because of his religion. It’s simply a stupid strategy and shows him to be a phony.

    As I said Eric, a weak GOP field. I do not take that back. Rep. Paul has a good shot as anyone.

  17. Eric Dondero Says:

    Doubt all you want Sean. You’re talking to the guy who virtually single-handidly organized “Libertarians for Bush” immediately after Badnarik won the Libertarian Nomination over Russo and Nolan in 2004. We had hundreds of supporters for the Group.

    And I’m very, very, very proud to say, that our Web Site had hundreds of thousands of visitors in 2004.

    On one single day in August of 2004, we had, over 28,000 hits. (We had a little help. Neal Boortz one of the biggest supporters of Libertarians for Bush, plugged the site on his web site).

    But that’s 28,000 hits Over the course of that week we averaged about 20,000 hits a day.

    Read it and weep!

    We got a late start with Libertarians for Bush. Ain’t gonna happen again for Libertarians for Giuliani. We’ll be well-organized early on, and I anticipate we’ll have some major Celebrity supporters this time too.

    Oh, and btw, did I mention that Dr. John Hospers, the Libertarian Party’s Very First Presidential candidate was one of the main backers of Libertarians for Bush?

    The Libertarian Party has a choice for 2008. Nominate someone that all libertarians can support, someone more in the mainstream, or at least someone with a little celebity: a Wayne Root, Michael Moriarty, Doug Stanhope, Ed Thompson, Judge Gray, Sheriff Masters, et.al. or nominate another Badnarik schmuck, and watch all us Mainstream Libertarians go GOP.

  18. matt Says:

    None of the GOP frontrunners can win the south. Maybe Brownback could. but he’ll be slaughtered in the early primaries and would alienate the rest of the country anyway. If the GOP had a win-at-all-costs attitude, they’d get behind Ron Paul, but they don’t so they won’t. They know that he would derail the gravy train, and they’d rather see Hillary win the White House than allow that to happen.

  19. matt Says:

    Another interesting fact about Ron Paul: to the best of my knowledge, he’s the only candidate in either primary who has written a book about a subject other than himself.

  20. Sean Scallon Says:

    There’s nothing libertarian about you Eric if you support Bush II. You may think you are, but the reality is you’re nothing more than just another neo-conservative (and they used to be Trotskyites). That’s why you are Ron Paul’s ex-staffer. My advice to you is to start the Libertarians for Guliani group now because it’s doubtful the LP is going to pick amongst the motley group of D-list celebrities you’re trying to pimp as presidential candidates. Yes the LP does not need an schmuck like Bednarik (and hopefully the moderation fo the LP platform will drive away the crazies that keep picking LP nominees). However, they also don’t need to become GOP-lite either

  21. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Scallon, who are you anyway? Never heard of you before. Never ran into you on the Libertarian petitioning trail. Are you a Newbie to our Libertarian movement?

    I’ve got 25 years in this movement buddy, and a Libertairan Activist resume that would make your head spin.

    Many have referred to me as the Nation’s Number One Libertarian Political Activist. (I dispute this to some extent, believing that title ought to go to Jake Wittmer, and perhaps also Scott Kohlhaas.)

    Libertarian Party Vice-Chairman Chuck Moulton said in front of an audience of 60 in Florida back in September:

    “I’ll take one Eric Dondero over 100 on-line Do Nothing so-called Libertarian activists any day of the week.”

    Bruce Cohen, Chairman of the Orange County Libertarian Party has praised me to the tilt, even calling me the “Matt Drudge of the Libertarian Movement.”

    I am literally a Libertarian Hero in Alaska for my most recent efforts on their behalf. Go ahead, Call up any single Alaska Libertarian and ask them about me. You can start with State LP Chairman Jason Dowell. Or Treasurer Zach Keeton.

    I challenge you. Pick up the phone and dial the Alaska Libertarian Party. Tell them that some Crazy Dude from Texas named Dondero is claiming to be one of the “Top Three Libertarian activists in the Country” and that you are disputing that.

    Then report back here as to their reaction.

    No go away Newbie, and stop bothering those of us who actually do the grunt work for this Libertarian movement of ours.

  22. Eric Dondero Says:

    “D List of Celebrities.”

    Is that what you call a guy like Wayne Root who in the last few months has had appearances on Fox News, Fox Sports, ABC Sports, ABC News, NBC, ESPN, CNN, CSNBC and even HBO?

    Or Doug Stanhope who was one of the Co-Hosts of the extremely popular Spike TV Show “The Man’s Show.” Also, Host of “Girls Gone Wild.”

    Tell me how many shows like that has George Phillies, Steve Kubby or Michael Badnarik been on?

  23. Eric Dondero Says:

    You seem terribly confused Sean. You say no Badnariks, but at the same time you say no GOPers.

    So who then, is your first choice for the LP Presidential nomination?

    And btw, I’d be perfectly happy if the LP were to nominate semi-celebrity Libertarian officeholders like Ed Thompson, Judge Grey or Sheriff Masters, all of whom have impeccable Libertarian Party credentials.

    If you don’t support Wayne Root, Doug Stanhope, Thompson, Grey, or Masters, than just who do you support?

    Surely not ‘F’ level non-celebrities like George Phillies, or Steve Kubby.

    You couldn’t possibly argue that a Phillies or a Kubby would be more qualified to represent the LP than former Wisconsin Mayor Ed Thompson?

  24. matt Says:

    Behold

    The future of the Libertarian outreach:

    “Go away, Newbie”

    Remind me again why this party isn’t in power?

  25. Sean Scallon Says:

    Gee Eric, can’t you say in one post what you say in three?

    I am no libertarian or LP member. I am a journalist and author of Beating the Powers that Be: Independent Political Movements of the Upper Midwest and their Relevance to Third Parties of Today. The hope of my book is to get non-major parties away from using ideolgy to organize themselves and towards more tangible voting blocs the major parties use like race, class, ethnic groups, religion, economic groups and so forth. The LP could be a major party in my opinion if they organized libertarian lifestyle groups and libertarian economic groups to help organize the party and vote for its candidates. Instead it tries to base its votes on those who are libertarian in ideology, pure libertarian as it turns out, and fails because there aren’t that many voters who are pure libertarians and the ones who are, like like Chief Wana Dubie and Starchild for example, turn off the non-ideological voters (who are a clear majority of the voting public.) .

    I could care less what you’ve done in the past Eric. That was then, this is now. I don’t see how you can claim any loyalty to the LP when you were out working for the GOP. Nor can I see any libertarian tendencies in a person who supports an administration and political party of big spenders, big businessmen, right-wing social democrats, religious fanatics, and military-industrial complex dependents. As I said, its neconservative yes, libertarian no. Not even close. And the Republican Liberty Caucus, while a good idea in theory, has been utterly ineffective in influencing the GOP in Congress. Otherwise they may very still be in the majorty or at least not earmarking bridges to nowhere in Alaska.

    Since I’m not an LP member, I’m not going to tell them who they should nominate. Ed Thompson, who is from my home state and whom I voted for in 2002, would be a great nominee along with Sheriff Gray. There’s nothing wrong with a celebrity candidate who has shown past interest in public issues and has worked on statewide campaigns or campaigns for local office and has some political experience. I’m sorry, but I don’t think messrs. Moriarity, Stanhope or Root meet that criteria. Wayne Allyn Root gets on TV to pick football games, not pontificate on national issues. Let him stick to what he does best or run for Las Vegas City Council first before making the big leap OK? Moriarity is an actor who’s not well-known for his activism and Stanhope is not even worth discussing.

    And since you are all ready to bolt the LP once again to support Guliani of all people, I doubt if your appeals to their members for your celebrity candidates are going to be taken seriously. You may have toiled in the LP vinyards, but you’ve also worked both sides of the street as well. You’re better off just admitting you’re a Republican and getting it over with.

  26. Eric Dondero Says:

    Firstly, I’m a proud LIBERTARIAN REPUBLICAN! That means a member of both the LP and the GOP. I support both.

    You diss Bush. I don’t see anyone else stepping up to fight the most vicious attack on our individual liberties in the history of our nation; The Threat of Islamo-Fascism. Bush is a bit tepid and almost wimply in his War on Islamo-Fascism. But at least he’s doing something about it.

    “Big spenders, rightwing social Democrats…” Methinks you’ve been reading too much leftwing propaganda. Get your head out of the NY Times, and other leftwing rags.

    “NeoConservative”? Yeah, right. I guess I’m just a Pro-Choice NeoCon who supports Drug Legalization, Prostitution, Gambling, Repealing Seat Belt Laws, Gun Rights, Lowering the Drinking Age to 18, Absolishing the Income Tax, Ending Foreign Aid, and getting us out of the UN. That’s real NeoCon. Last time I checked Bill Bennet, Bill Kristol, and Fred Barnes were the Nation’s leading Necons. There’s virtually nothing that I agree with those guys on, outside of their interesting and accurate political predictions on TV and radio.

    NeoCon and Libertarian Republican are near polar opposites. They are Religious Right. We are most certainly NOT.

    “Bolt the LP.” I am both LP and GOP. There’s no “bolting necessary.”

    “Republican Liberty Caucus is ineffective…” That’s funny, over 80% of all RLC-backed candidates in 2006 won their elections. New libertarian Republican legislators were elected in Alaska, New Hampshire, Arkansas (for the first time EVER the State of Arkansas has a libertarian state legislator), and numerous other states. Libertarian Republican Butch Otter was elected Governor of Idaho! Other libertarian-leaning Governor like Charlie Crist in Florida, Mark Sanford in SC and most especially Sarah Palin in Alaska won election. All were identified as “libertarians.” Palin was even backed by the Libertarian Party in the last few days of the race.

    Compare that to the record of the Libertarian Party in 2006. Less than 10 Libertarians won election to public office. That’s down from their usual 30 to 40 each election cycle. Even LP Director Shane Cory right here, admited as such, and that 2006 was a down year for the Party.

    Calling the “RLC a failure” is like calling a Black Cat a Blue Dog. I suggest you get some new glasses so that you can read Election stats correctly for the future.

    Cheers!

  27. matt Says:

    So, is power an end in itself, or is power a means to achieve other ends? If the former is true, then the RLC has been moderately successful. If the second criteria is used, however, any “success” is obscured beneath evidence of their mindless following of the biggest Government-Expander since LBJ. Namely, George Bush Jr.

  28. Sean Scallon Says:

    Notice that RLC’s election victories came outside of Congress. As I said, inside Congress the RLC has been ineffective and while you may be able to claim a few politicians here and there on the margins, the general thrust of the GOP has been and always will be towards state capitalism and it’s truer now than ever given that many Republicans are ex-New Deal Democrats from the South who don’t mind spending my tax money on themselves and their region. The 1994 Republican Revolution failed because Southern Republicans would not give up the legacy bequeathed to them by their New Deal daddies, meaning the TVA, cotton subsidies, NASA and military bases.

    So when George Bush II wins who is it a victory for, libertarians or Republicans? You can’t reconcile the two I am afraid. All the things you mentioned that don’t make you a neocon, well, I don’t think Bush II supports those either. So what’s in it for you? Ahh, yes, the Great War on Terror, the one you think Bush II has been wimpy fighting. The reason I think you are neocon is that you are foresquare for sending troops all over the globe to crusade for democracy in the hopes that the end result is the ending of terrorism, even though terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. That’s what the neocons believe. To do this would require the creating of the largest government edifice in U.S. history, in short an empire in all but name only. And yet you still call yourself a libertarian with a straight face. Not only that, but as a libertarian, you do believe in having open borders and unlimited immigration do you not? Do you realize that would allow in the very Islamo-Fascists you fear, trying to use their numbers to install sharia law in communities across the county? Do you realize we are at war and yet do not have a Declaration of War as called for by the Constitution? And yet you still call yourself a libertarian?

    You can call yourself whatever you want, that’s your right. The problem is, other people are going to see right through it.

  29. General Lee Says:

    “any “success” is obscured beneath evidence of their mindless following of the biggest Government-Expander since LBJ. Namely, George Bush Jr.”

    Correction: since at least FDR.

  30. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    Anyhow, ...

    I whole-heartedly support Ron Paul for president.

    LP member from Wisconsin

  31. Eric Dondero Says:

    NeoCons support the War on Terror because they are Religious Right. Libertarians support the War on Terror because we’re scared shitless of losing our civil liberties to the Islamo-Fascists.

    Look at the Netherlands. Look at the murder of Theo van Gogh, and Pym Fortuyn. Look at how Muslims are clammoring to relegalize marijuana in Amsterdam and outlaw Prostitution. Look at how Muslim youth on the streets of Amsterdam are throwing stones at Gays and Lesbian couples who hold hands or kiss. Look at how Muslims across Europe are trying to outlaw freedom of speech, and rioted over cartoons depicting Muhammed.

    I hardly think NeoCon Religious Righters would be happy with Pro-War Libertarian stances on legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and gay rights.

    Again, show my a single NeoCon anywhere! who is Pro-Choice on Abortion?

    You can’t. NeoCons are Religious Righters who hate social tolerance.

    Try as you might, you can’t label individuals who are in favor of drug legalization and are Pro-Choice as “NeoCons.”

    Warmongers, Pro-War, Islamo-Fascist haters, ect… Yupper, have no problem with those labels. But NeoCon! Don’t you dare put me in the same category as the likes of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol and the like.

  32. Eric Dondero Says:

    Both of you all seem to be incredibly ignorant about the Republican Liberty Caucus and the group’s electoral successes. I suggest you read up more on the RLC before you start spouting off about stuff you obviously know very little about.

    You could start with my site at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com or the RLC site at www.rlc.org

  33. matt Says:

    Yes! Let’s shout from pillar to post! Let’s sing the praises of the RLC and it’s August Founder, Mr. Dondero. They’re making us so much freer! Can’t you feel the warmth as the sun of liberty rises across this great land courtesy of the blessed RLC?

    Give us some stats on RLC members in congress and how they voted on the Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act, Eric.

    Oh, don’t get me wrong. An organization like the RLC is a great idea, but they hold no interest to me until they wake up to non-interventionist foreign policy.

  34. Joe Says:

    I have never heard of Wayne Root, Doug Stanhope, Thompson, Grey, or Masters, nor “The Man Show.” Isn’t Girls Gone Wild a porno?

  35. Sean Scallon Says:

    The reason that people like Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gough were killed is because of unlimited immigration that allowed such Muslims to settle in the Netherlands in the first place Eric and if you believe in open borders like many libertarians do, then you are importing sharia law right into the United States.

    The neocons main issues are protecting Israel, using U.S foreign policy to promote democracy around the world and to maintain a U.S. global empire. It doesn’t matter whether or not you and Bill Bennett agree on gambling. If you want American foreign policy to send U.S. troops around the world instead of defending against the Islamic threat here at home, you are a neocon, It’s that simple.

  36. Timmer Says:

    Legally, the parties-in-interest are the electors. If someone wants to nominate a slate of electors who pledge themselves to Ron Paul, there is nothing he can do to stop it.

  37. Andy Says:

    Eric is libertine on social issues, but social issues are NOT what defines a neo-conservative.

    Click the link below and read the excellent speech from Ron Paul where he exposes the neo-conservatives.

    “NEO-CONNED!” by Ron Paul
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

    Here is an exert from the speech where Ron Paul lays out the characteristics of a neo-conservative. You’ll see that most of these characteristics apply to the likes of Dondero.

    “More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

    They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

    They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

    They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

    They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

    They express no opposition to the welfare state.

    They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

    They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

    They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

    They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

    They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

    They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

    They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

    Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

    9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

    They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

    They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

    They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.”

  38. Andy Says:

    “Look at the Netherlands. Look at the murder of Theo van Gogh, and Pym Fortuyn. Look at how Muslims are clammoring to relegalize marijuana in Amsterdam and outlaw Prostitution. Look at how Muslim youth on the streets of Amsterdam are throwing stones at Gays and Lesbian couples who hold hands or kiss. Look at how Muslims across Europe are trying to outlaw freedom of speech, and rioted over cartoons depicting Muhammed.”

    These Muslims have a lot in common with many of the Religious Right Theocrats in the Republican Party.

    “I hardly think NeoCon Religious Righters would be happy with Pro-War Libertarian stances on legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and gay rights.”

    All neo-cons are NOT Religious Righters, and all Religious Righters are NOT neo-cons.

  39. Andy Says:

    “You diss Bush. I don’t see anyone else stepping up to fight the most vicious attack on our individual liberties in the history of our nation;”

    The Bush administration is the one that is lauching the most vicious attack on our individual liberties in the history of this nation. Have you been paying attention for the past 7 years?

  40. Eric Dondero Says:

    Yeah, guess you’re right. That was actually George W. Bush who stormed into that Jewish Community Center in Seattle last summer and shot those 6 Jewish Women while screaming “Alah Ahkbar.” It wasn’t some Muslim extremist. It was just Bush wearing a mask posing as a Muslim extremist.

  41. Eric Dondero Says:

    Andy, of all the points on what a NeoCon is that you outline above, I agree with a grand total of two. Maybe 3? The ones I agree with are:

    Pre-emptive strike is justified. And the 2nd “willing to redraw the map of the Middle East and use force to do so.”

    I might go along with the 3rd “ends justify the means, hardball politics” one, if I knew a little more as to just what that means.

    So, I guess I fail horribly your NeoCon Test. I score a 2.5 out of 17.

    And not only do I disagree with the other 14.5 questions, but I violently disagree with many of them.

    Welfare State? Not only do I NOT SUPPORT THE WELFARE STATE, but I believe essentially that the WELFARE STATE SHOULD BE ABOLISHED!

    Trostky? A horrible Communist. Glad he died a painful death.

    Close alliance with Israel? Yeah fine, so long as they ain’t sucking off the US Government Tit. Immediately end all foreign aid to Israel! They can survive just fine on their own.

    A “powerful federal government is neccessary”??? Hell, I want the Federal Government to be able to fit into my closet. We don’t need it much beyond Defense, National Monuments and Parks, Judicial System, and um, well, that’s about it. Maybe, maybe a tiny little safety net for truly disabled people and Veterans. But that’s as far as I go.

    And finally, who the fuck is Leon Strauss? Wasn’t he the guy who invented Levi Jeans or something? I don’t get the connection here. What do Blue Jeans have to do with NeoCons?

  42. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wrong Andy. All NeoCons are most definitely Religious Righters.

    Bill Bennett, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Pat Robertson.

    There’s no such thing as a “Pro-Choice NeoCon.” That’s like calling a Zebra a Donkey. The species simply does not exist.

    I have a book in my library about the New Right. On the cover of the book they have a bunch of photos of NeoCon stalwarts. Every single one of them is a Religious Right Conservative: Howard Phillips, Richard Viguerie, Ed Meese, Paul Weyrich, Bill Rusher, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Morton Blackwell.

    The book is a bit dated, from the 1980s. But many of these people are still alive and kickin’.

    Howie Phillips would be horrified at the thought of being aligned with Pro-Choicers and Drug Legalizers like me. I can’t imagine that NeoCon Phillips and I have anything at all in common.

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    Well, well, well, we seem to have an interesting disagreement developing here between Andy and Sean.

    Andy says that “Yes” NeoCon means more than just foreign policy. Sean says that it means only foreign policy.

    Andy says that economics plays into it, and offers the fact that NeoCons support the welfare state. Sean avoids the issues of economics.

    Both Sean and Andy avoid the issues of civil liberties.

    Guess Sean has never heard of the term “Defense Conservative” or “Defense Hawk.”

    In Sean’s world anyone who supports the Military or a Strong Defense is a “NeoCon” economic issues and civil liberties issues be damned.

    Wowee! Imagine that. With one full swoop Sean has taken Economic issues and Civil Liberties right off the table. He is saying essentially, that one’s stances on those issue do not matter. The only issues that matter are foreign policy issues.

    So, since Sean is a non-interventionist that must mean he is identical in beliefs to Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and Hillary Clinton. After all, they’re non-interventionist and their views on economic issues and civil liberties issues do not matter.

  44. Eric Dondero Says:

    Sean, why do you assume that I’m in favor of allowing immigration from Middle Eastern Nations into the United States?

    I’m in favor of a Guest Worker Program for Mexican Immigrants who have passed a criminal background check. Beyond that, Individuals wishing to immigrate to the United States from anywhere’s in the world should be required to pass a Libertarian and American History Test of 100 questions. If they do not accept the majority of Libertarian principles of free enterprise, and social tolerance, and cannot answer simple questions like who Thomas Jefferson was, and what he stood for, then they should not be permitted from entering the United States, for anything more than a 2 week vacation trip to DisneyWorld.

    Mexicans? No problem with them. They’re our neighbors. They get special consideration.

    Others from alien non-American cultures, should be held to a different standard.

  45. Eric Dondero Says:

    So Matt, since your such a diehard non-interventionist and all, tell me, just where do individuals fit into your scheme of things, who are 100% Pro-Free Enterprise Economics, 100% Pro-Civil Liberties wanting to legalize just about everything, yet Strong on Military and Defense issues?

    Where do Barry Goldwaterites like me fit in?

    We must really confound your ideas of a political spectrum.

  46. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 26th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
    Andy, of all the points on what a NeoCon is that you outline above, I agree with a grand total of two. Maybe 3? The ones I agree with are:

    Pre-emptive strike is justified. And the 2nd “willing to redraw the map of the Middle East and use force to do so.”

    I might go along with the 3rd “ends justify the means, hardball politics” one, if I knew a little more as to just what that means.

    So, I guess I fail horribly your NeoCon Test. I score a 2.5 out of 17.

    And not only do I disagree with the other 14.5 questions, but I violently disagree with many of them.”

    I NEVER said that you agreed with all of it. However, even you admitt to being in agreement with some of it (I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF IT), and I think on some of those points you agree more than you’d like to admitt.

    From reading your posts I’d say that you agree with the following…

    “They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.” You agree with this one.

    “They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.” You agree with this one.

    “They accept the notion that the ends justify the means—that hardball politics is a moral necessity.” You seem to agree with this one.

    “They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.” I haven’t seen you show any signs of not supporting the empire concept.

    “They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.” You support the lying Bush administration and you admitt to being a bullshitter yourself.

    “They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.” I’d say that you sort of believe in this one, at least when it comes to military adventurism.

    “They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.” You certainly seem to believe in this one.

    “They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.” This one too.

    “Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.” Ditto.

    “9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.” You believe that 9/11 happened because the “Islamofascists hate us for a freedom” instead of our government’s interventionism and you oppose any talk of questioning the official government story about 9/11 or re-opening the 9/11 investigation.

    “They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)” While you agree with libertarians and constitutionalists on a variety of issues, you hold disdain for the fact that REAL libertarians and constitutionalists support a non-interventionist foreign policy.

    “They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.” I’ve never seen any indication that you oppose the Patriot Act, the Department of Homeland Security, NSA spying on American citizens, the Military Commissions Act, the Real ID Act, or any other intrusions on civil liberties in the name of the “War On Terror”.

    “They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.” I’m glad to see that you oppose tax payer funded foreign aid to Israel, however, it is still pretty clear that you do support an alliance with Israel. You have no problem with the fact that Israel has the 4th largest stockpile of WMD’s on the planet (thanks in great part to the US government) and that the pro-Israel lobby spends millions of dollars every year buying off American politicians. When any Jews are murdered by Muslims you make a big case out of it (and I do NOT condone Muslims murdering innocent Jews), but when Jews or non-Jewish Americans murder Muslims you don’t seem to give a rat’s ass. Far more innocent Muslims have been murdered or maimed than innocent Jews have. When the Israeli government committs a henious act such as running over a peace protester with a bulldozer or a tank or destroying an innocent person’s home I don’t see you condemming it.

    So yeah, I’d say that most certainly have a lot in common with neo-cons. In fact, the things that you have in common with neo-cons seem to have greater importantance to you than other issues that you claim to have in common with libertarians. This is evidenced by the fact that you support the likes of George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, Rudi Giuliani, Joe Lieberman, etc… You are obviously willing to sell out whatever libertarian principles that you’ve got in exchange for your pro-war interventionist views.

  47. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
    Wrong Andy. All NeoCons are most definitely Religious Righters.

    Bill Bennett, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, Pat Robertson.”

    Nope, not true at all. There are different types of people on the Religious Right. Yes, some of them are also neo-cons but not all of them. There are also paleo-conservatives in the Religious Right who ahere to the Old Right priciple of non-intervention in foreign affairs. I’m talking about the John Birch Society and Constitution Party types. Some of these people are still in the Republican Party but they are obviously a minority.

    All neo-cons are not religous and in fact the leaders of the neo-cons themselves are not even really religious, unless of course you take into account that some of them are members of The Order Of Skull And Bones and The Bohemian Grove and likely worship Satan if anything. Look it up. It is a documented fact that Bush is a Skull & Bones and Bohemian Grove member and that these organizations engage in bizarre Satanic rituals.

    “I have a book in my library about the New Right. On the cover of the book they have a bunch of photos of NeoCon stalwarts. Every single one of them is a Religious Right Conservative: Howard Phillips,”

    Howard Phillips is NOT a neo-con. Howard Phillips is one of the founders of the Constitution Party and was their Presidential candidate on 3 occassions. I’d consider him to be a paleo-conservative, in other words a REAL conservative.

  48. Andy Says:

    “Andy says that “Yes” NeoCon means more than just foreign policy. Sean says that it means only foreign policy.

    Andy says that economics plays into it, and offers the fact that NeoCons support the welfare state. Sean avoids the issues of economics.”

    I’m not the one who came up with that list of characteristics. It came from your old boss, Ron Paul.

    The neo-con leaders to hold all of those traits. They are really basically national socialists.

    As I said before, you may not hold all of those characteristics but you’ve got enough of them to where you are obviously somewhat of a neo-con. Maybe you should be called a neo-libertarian or a liberventionist. Since you like Joe Lieberman how about a Liebertarian?

    “Both Sean and Andy avoid the issues of civil liberties.”

    I haven’t avoided it. Assuming that you aren’t lying about this, I recognize that you hold libertine social views. You believe that drugs, prostitution, pornography, and gambling should be legal. You are for free speech/expression, with the exception of the fact that you’ve said that it should be legal to beat up flag burners. You don’t like seat belt and helmet laws. You don’t like anti-smoking laws. I imagine that you support other civil liberties as well. However, I have yet to see you condem any of the civil liberties violations that have happened and/or anti-civil liberties “laws” that have been passed in the name of the “War On Terror” such as The Patriot Act, NSA spying on American citizens, torture, the Military Commission Act, the Department Of Homeland Security, the Real ID Act, etc…

    “Guess Sean has never heard of the term ‘Defense Conservative’ or ‘Defense Hawk.’”

    You go beyond advocating defense to advocating OFFENSE.

  49. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Eric D.: It would probably be in the best interest of the universe if the RLC just admits that it was “duped by the neo-conservatives”; declares that the “War on Terror” is over since the Bush-Cheney Administration lost Afghanistan and Iraq; fold up its tent; and go home.

  50. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 26th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
    Sean, why do you assume that I’m in favor of allowing immigration from Middle Eastern Nations into the United States?

    I’m in favor of a Guest Worker Program for Mexican Immigrants who have passed a criminal background check. Beyond that, Individuals wishing to immigrate to the United States from anywhere’s in the world should be required to pass a Libertarian and American History Test of 100 questions. If they do not accept the majority of Libertarian principles of free enterprise, and social tolerance, and cannot answer simple questions like who Thomas Jefferson was, and what he stood for, then they should not be permitted from entering the United States, for anything more than a 2 week vacation trip to DisneyWorld.”

    I’m can sort of agree with this. I’ve talked to a lot of immigrants. Some of them are great people and are an asset to society. Others, I don’t think they come here for the right reasons. If you don’t believe in the principles that this country is supposed to be about – which are enshrined in the Declaration Of Independence and Constitution – then why bother comming here? If you support the welfare state, high taxes, gun control, drug laws, censorship, rent control, minimum wage, Affirmative Action, entangling foreign alliances, or any other anti-REAL American policy, go back to where you came from.

    Some people may say, “Countries aren’t legitimate because government itself is not legitimate and government borders are just imaginery lines on the ground drawn up by governments.” I can agree with this too, however, I can also say that if we had real anarcho-capitalism we would have a vastly different society and even then there would still be people that I wouldn’t want to live around.

    The sad thing is that there are many Americans who advocate the policies above that I said that I oppose. There aren’t too many real Americans left.

    “Mexicans? No problem with them. They’re our neighbors. They get special consideration.

    Others from alien non-American cultures, should be held to a different standard.”

    While there are certainly good Mexicans, the La Reconquista movement is for real and should be regaurded as a dangerous threat as they want to implement The Plan Of San Diego and establish Aztlan. La Raza and MECHA are both racist organizations. MECHA’s motto is “For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.” They advocate killing whites and blacks and driving them out of Aztlan. Of course all of this is being funded and pushed by globalist organizations like the Ford & Rockefeller Foundations and the Council On Foreign Relations. They are using the Mexicans so they can get their North American Union and later declare a martial law emergency.

    Racist Mexican Gangs “Ethnic Cleansing” Blacks in Los Angeles
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigration/mexican_gangs_ethnic_cleansing_blacks_in_la.htm

  51. Phil Sawyer Says:

    “Andy” thinks that he has a very simple solution for people who do not agree with him: ” ... go back to where you came from.”

    Try this one out, Andy: I have many ancestors that go back to Colonial Days and, in addition, I am approximately 1/16th Native American. I am going to turn sixty years old in a couple of months and I still live in my native state of California. I am a Vietnam Veteran and I have never missed an election in my life -not even a little one for school board or something like that.

    Since I am against capitalism and in favor of socialism, under your rules I would not belong in this state and country. It is time to change your rules, my friend.

    Member: CUIP; GPUS

  52. Eric Dondero Says:

    Phil, thank you for your service in the Vietnam War. While I vehemently oppose your views, I will defend to the death your right to voice them. You are a TRUE American as evidenced by your ancestry and your Military Service. Besides, like Rush Limbaugh always says, even if we were to defeat the Liberals, we’d still want a few of them around on our college campuses as relics just so we know what our country should not be doing.

    I do like a couple Liberals, btw. For some reason, I’ve always liked Jerry Brown. Alan Colmes is pretty cool too, as is Susan Estrich. They all have a good sense of humor. I don’t agree with them, but they’re fair-minded and not rude to libertarians and conservatives.

    Oh, Pat Caddell too. He’s a nice guy Liberal.

    Again, thank you for your service in Vietnam. You unlike the non-Servers here are a Hero. (My Dad served in Vietnam, as well.)

    I salute you!

    Eric Dondero, US Navy (honorable)
    1981-85
    USS Kittyhawk CV-63
    USS Luce DDG-38
    3 Medals including Expeditionary for War Service in the Iran/Iraq War

  53. Eric Dondero Says:

    Okay, Andy, this is getting real fun.

    Let’s look at your list. Very nice of you to answer the questions for me btw. Didn’t know that I didn’t have free will, and could answer the questions for myself. Nice to have you around to just answer them all for me.

    Just fyi, there’s not a single assertion you make on my behalf that I would agree with.

    You seem to have caught a bad case of “Sean-itis” thinking that Foreign Policy issues trump everything else. In your world it’s 80% Foreign Policy, 15% Civil Liberties, and maybe 5% at most Economics.

    For me, one’s ideology should be judged more like 40% Economics, 40% Civil Liberties and maybe 20% Foreign Policy.

    In this sense, people like Lew Rockwell who is quite conservative on social matters, is far more of a “NeoCon” than myself or others in the Pro-Defense movement. Certainly Howie Phillips. My God how you are DEAD WRONG here! Shiiiiiiiiit man, Howard Phillips is the ULTIMATE NEOCON

    The Man practically founded the friggin’ movement! I know! I was there back then in the 1980s, and I remember how he used to talk all this crap up. The Man was obssessed with defeating the Soviets. He was obssessed with the “Atheism” of the Soviet Union.

    That’s the genesis of the NeoCon movement. Opposition to the Atheistic Communism. We Libertarian Anti-Communists used to listen to these NeoCons and just roll our eyes. Yeah, we hated the Commies too, but for entirely different reasons; cause they were anti-Free Enterprise, not because they were “Godless Atheists.”

    Andy, no offense California Dude, but you are horribly ignorant of libertarian and conservative movement history.

    As for the questions themselves, again, I would answer “yes” to 2 maybe 3 of the questions you outline above. And I do not appreciate at all, you putting words in my mouth and answering these questions for me.

    How would you like it if I went around spouting off, “You know that California Dude Andy, he’s in favor of legalizing Child Pornography, Chicken Fights, and Bestial Dominance.”

    Quit it! Stop friggin’ putting words in my mouth. You have NO RIGHT!

    Again for the record:

    I oppose all foreign aid to all nations around the world, and believe aid ought to be repealed or at least phased out. This includes Israel.

    I oppose stationing our troops in Germany, Japan and South Korea. They should be brought home or even better moved to Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia to fight our enemies; the Islamo-Fascists.

    I support Israel only for the fact that they are an extremely socially liberal Nation that allows Nude and Topless Beaches, and has one of the most excellent nightlifes and nightclub scenes in all of the Middle East. If the A-Rabs were to move to stop the Topless Beaches or start bombing the nightclubs, YES, I would most certainly advocate the United States assisting Israel with their defense. Beyond that reason, they can find for themselves.

    On lying, by your definition Bill Clinton would be the biggest NeoCon in the land. As a matter of fact, all politicians and everyone involved in politics would be considered to be a NeoCon by that definition. Maybe even Ron Paul?

    Why is Ron Paul a “NeoCon” according to the Andy standard. Cause he has one persona nationwide amongst libertarians and liberals, and quite another here in his Congressional District. Here, he’s Mister Patriotic Conservative, Red, White and Blue, Support our Troops, Support our Veterans. Since Ron Paul is less than truthful in his District about his beliefs, guess that makes him a “NeoCon.”

    “Real libertarians and constitutionalists support a non-interventionist foreign policy…” So tell me Andy, how does that explain Barry Goldwater, Dana Rohrabacher, Bob Poole, Dr. John Hospers, PJ O’Rourke, Jack Wheeler, All the Members of Mike Dunn’s Libertarian Defense Caucus in the 1970s and ‘80s, in present day Bruce Cohen, Tim Starr, Bob Hunt, and other Pro-Defense Libertarians. Are none of the above mentioned “real Libertarian”?

    Funny, for it is Dana Rohrabacher himself who is largely credited with being the official Founder of the Modern Libertarian Movement. I think he’d be quite surprised to learn that some other California Dude has taken his title of “Libertarian Founder” away from him because of his Pro-Defense views.

    Again, on all other points you mention above – answers to the questions – I completely disagree with your assertions.

    Again, I would kindly ask you to refrain from answering tests for me. I answered all the questions and scored a 2.5.

    How’d you like me to willy-nilly take the WSPQ for you?

    Let’s see now, did you know Andy from Cali is in favor of More Taxes, the Drug War, and a Return to the Military Draft?

    Doesn’t feel so good now does it?

  54. Eric Dondero Says:

    Andy, thank you. You’ve given me inspiration for an article:

    “Are you a NeoCon? Take the Test and Find out?”

    It will be up on my blog at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com shortly.

  55. Eric Dondero Says:

    Are you a NeoCon? Take the Quiz and find out! 17 short questions. Fun and easy. Now up at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

  56. Eric Dondero Says:

    Andy, you know the more I look at these questions, the more I think these standards are not bad, but rather just plain goofy.

    I mean even NeoCon stalwarts like Bill Kristol, Charles Kraughthammer, and Fred Barnes would answer No to many of the questions. Especially the Welfare State questions and most certainly the Strauss and Trostkey questions.

    I could see Fred Barnes on Fox News, not just saying NO to those questions, but Heeeeeelllllll No!

    So who does that leave? If Kristol, Kraughthammer, and Barnes score only “Quasi-NeoCon” who would be considered to be a Perfect NeoCon?

    I need someone as a NeoCon stalwart so that I may represent that to my readers at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com

    Help me here. Who in your mind is the ultimate NeoCon who would score a perfect 17 on that Test?

  57. Phil Sawyer Says:

    Eric D.: Thank you, also, for your military service – and for your kind words. It is okay with me that we are on opposite sides of the barricades on many of these political issues. I never take any of it personally. (Actually, I do not take anything personally these days). I have a brother who is thirteen years older than me and he sounds a lot like you on certain issues. I just recently stopped trying to convince him to jump off the Titantic Party (GOP) and into a lifeboat (something like the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party). We both are strong in our beliefs and it seemed to me like it was just time to gve it a rest!

    Member: CUIP; GPUS

  58. Eric Dondero Says:

    Phil, this is a bit too cozy. Let’s get back to bashing each other.

    Seriously, I invite you to visit my website from time to time at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com and also to listen to my national top ten radio show on BlogTalkRadio.com “Libertarian Politics Live.”

    Thanks!

  59. Andy Says:

    “On lying, by your definition Bill Clinton would be the biggest NeoCon in the land. As a matter of fact, all politicians and everyone involved in politics would be considered to be a NeoCon by that definition. Maybe even Ron Paul?”

    Bill Clinton is actually in bed with the neo-cons. He hangs out with the Bush family. Barbara Bush refered to him as one of the family. Hillary Clinton has diner with Rupert Murdoch. Bill Clinton has been to Bohemian Grove with George Bush. Forget all of the labels, at the top of the food chain they are all partners in crime.

    “Why is Ron Paul a “NeoCon” according to the Andy standard. Cause he has one persona nationwide amongst libertarians and liberals, and quite another here in his Congressional District. Here, he’s Mister Patriotic Conservative, Red, White and Blue, Support our Troops, Support our Veterans. Since Ron Paul is less than truthful in his District about his beliefs, guess that makes him a ‘NeoCon.’”

    I’ve already explained how one can “support the troops” without supporting unconstitional and/or immoral wars of aggression. I support the troops by saying that they should be brought home and those that were wounded should not be screwed out of their medical care and benifits.

  60. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am
    Andy, you know the more I look at these questions, the more I think these standards are not bad, but rather just plain goofy.

    I mean even NeoCon stalwarts like Bill Kristol, Charles Kraughthammer, and Fred Barnes would answer No to many of the questions. Especially the Welfare State questions and most certainly the Strauss and Trostkey questions.”

    Some neo-cons might TALK about reducing the welfare state but what do they actually do? Since Bush has been in office we’ve seen the fastest growth in government since the days of FDR, and this includes growing the welfare state. Neo-cons are liars. Follow their actions and not their words.

  61. Andy Says:

    “’Real libertarians and constitutionalists support a non-interventionist foreign policy…” So tell me Andy, how does that explain Barry Goldwater, Dana Rohrabacher, Bob Poole, Dr. John Hospers, PJ O’Rourke, Jack Wheeler, All the Members of Mike Dunn’s Libertarian Defense Caucus in the 1970s and ‘80s, in present day Bruce Cohen, Tim Starr, Bob Hunt, and other Pro-Defense Libertarians. Are none of the above mentioned ‘real Libertarian’?”

    These people that you mentioned are all a bunch of phonies. They are not REAL libertarians or real constitutionalists.

    I already outed PJ O’Rourke as a member of the Council On Foreign Relations, or did you forget about that? Click the link below for a reference to the fact that PJ O’Rourke is a member of the CFR.

    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-HPRgFsXeVYJ:www.nndb.com/org/505/000042379/+pj+o%27rourke+council+on+foreign+relations&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

    Think that the CFR is made up? Think again.

    http://www.cfr.org/

    You don’t think that the CFR is a threat? Then you are an idiot.

    http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Council_Foreign_Relations.htm

    Exert from the article:

    “If one group is effectively in control of national governments and multinational corporations; promotes world government through control of media, foundation grants, and education; and controls and guides the issues of the day; then they control most options available. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the financial powers behind it, have done all these things, and promote the ‘New World Order’, as they have for over seventy years.

    The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its’ ‘experts’ write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.”

  62. Andy Says:

    “Nor can I see any libertarian tendencies in a person who supports an administration and political party of big spenders, big businessmen, right-wing social democrats, religious fanatics, and military-industrial complex dependents.”

    Well said. Eric claims to be a libertarian but then he aligns himself with people who keep making government bigger and bigger.

  63. Andy Says:

    “In this sense, people like Lew Rockwell who is quite conservative on social matters, is far more of a “NeoCon” than myself or others in the Pro-Defense movement. Certainly Howie Phillips. My God how you are DEAD WRONG here! Shiiiiiiiiit man, Howard Phillips is the ULTIMATE NEOCON

    Here is more evidence that Eric doesn’t know what in the hell he is talking about. Howard Phillips is one of the founders of the Constitution Party, and was its presidential candidate on 3 occassions. What kind of views does that party espouse? Check it out.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29

    Exert:

    “The Constitution Party is a conservative third party in the United States, whose membership mainly comprises paleoconservatives. It was founded as the U.S. Taxpayers Party in 1992. The party’s official name was changed to the Constitution Party in 1999;”

    Did you see the part where it says, “WHOSE MEMBERSHIP COMPRISES PALEOCONSERVATIVES.”? Notice that it does not say neo-conservatives, it says PALEOCONSERVATIVES.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative

    www.ConstitutionParty.org

  64. Andy Says:

    Old Right
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Right_%28United_States%29

    Exert:

    “In the United States, the Old Right, also called the Paleoconservatives are a faction of American conservatives who both opposed New Deal domestic programs and were also non-interventionists opposing entry into World War II. Many were associated with the Republicans of the interwar years led by Robert Taft, but some were Democrats. They were called the “Old Right” to distinguish them from their anti-communist New Right successors, such as Barry Goldwater, who were interventionist in foreign policy (although a great majority of Old Right intellectuals were passionately opposed to communism and socialism).”

  65. Andy Says:

    I found the article below on the Constitution Party’s blog. This illustrates a difference between paleo-cons and neo-cons.

    Sunday, January 14, 2007

    The Founders Warned Us about Playing Globo-Cop
    The deepening of America’s commitment in Iraq with 21,500 more young Americans on course to be sent into that forsaken desert death trap has us asking how this could possibly be happening.

    Obviously President Bush doesn’t care about the political fallout because, despite the overwhelming disapproval of the “surge” strategy, (upwards of 70% of Americans think committing more troops is a bad idea) he’s going ahead with it anyway.

    The thought occurs to those of us who know this war is less about “bringing democracy” to a country that has never, nor will ever be interested in it and more about a sinister invasion for which we have no constitutional or moral authority.

    On January 11th Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. had the courage to say what a lot of Republicans did not: “Increasing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq is flawed strategy because it is based on a flawed premise that there is a military solution to the violence and instability in Iraq, when what is needed is a political solution among the Iraqi leaders and factions.

    As we sit by and watch the daily carnage continue along with the plan to increase troop levels to upwards of 153,500 adding to the number of young and vital Americans being sent to quite possibly their deaths, let’s not forget that the cost comes not just in lost life or an estimated cost of $5.6 billion. This undeclared, unconstitutional war shows us just how far we, as a nation have come from the founding principles of our country.

    George W. Bush had no constitutional authority to get us into this war and he has no authority to “surge” us deeper into that war.

    The Constitution Party needs to make that very clear- something neither the Democrats nor Republicans have seen fit to do.

  66. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    January 27th, 2007 at 8:58 am
    Phil, thank you for your service in the Vietnam War.”

    Why would you thank him for serving in a bullshit war? Who did he serve? The military industrial complex and lying politicians.

    I think that it is a shame that Phil and so many other people got sucked into fighting in that bullshit war.

  67. Andy Says:

    “Again, I would kindly ask you to refrain from answering tests for me. I answered all the questions and scored a 2.5.

    How’d you like me to willy-nilly take the WSPQ for you?

    Let’s see now, did you know Andy from Cali is in favor of More Taxes, the Drug War, and a Return to the Military Draft?

    Doesn’t feel so good now does it?”

    I anwsered the questions for you based on reading numerous posts and articles from you as well as listening to your “performance” on those radio shows with Harry Browne and George Phillies. So I had a wealth of evidence from which to base those anwsers.

    What evidence do you have that I am in favor of more taxes, the Drug War, and a return of the military draft?

  68. Eric Dondero Says:

    Great Andy, Great response to Phil there. Guess you’ve been reading Carnegie’s “How to win friends and influence your enemies.” You’re a great recruiter for the Libertarian movement. Keep attacking Veterans and our Troops. You’ll gain us Libertarians a great many adherents.

    And did you ever consider the consequences of us leaving Vietnam?

    1 million South Vietnamese murdered after we left by the NVA.

    2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

    You happy with those figures? Do they make you sleep well at night?

  69. Eric Dondero Says:

    The Constitution Party today in 2007 is not the same Constitition Party under Howie Phillips in the 1980s and 1990s.

    And btw, Phillips is a huge supporter of Israel. Since you hate Jews and Israel, how does that fit with your political dichotomy?

  70. Eric Dondero Says:

    You support the Troops by saying that they should be brought home, huh?

    Tell me Andy, do you support the United States having a Military? Or do you favor abolishing the Military?

    If we are to have a Military, what should they do, just sit around staring at their rifles all day long?

    Would you at least deploy them on US Borders to protect against Islamo-Fascists coming into the US? Or do you wish to just completely abolish the Military.

    Come clean California Dude. You can’t have it both ways. If you support having a Military and your a non-interventionist you have only two options:

    1. Deploying them on the US border

    2. Keeping them inside their barracks and never using them at all. Sort of like Museum relics. That’d certainly be great for readiness.

    Which is it?

  71. Eric Dondero Says:

    Let me ask you something Andy. If you were not to abolish the Military and just keep it around as a Museum relic, keep the soldiers tied up in their barracks, not engaging in any Wars around the globe, what do you think the result will be for retention?

    Do you think any read-blooded American male would ever join the Military if they knew they would never be able to fight and go to War?

    Do you think any currently active Military personnel would re-enlist knowing this?

    American males join the Military PRECISELY so that we may go overseas and fight in Wars. We wish to be true to our Masculine values.

    Do you wish to completely destroy the American male? Is that your utlimate plan. Turn all American males into girly men?

    In your perfect world, the American Military would never fight any wars. Unless you support the complete abolishment of the US Military – in that case you would be an Anarchist and most certainly NOT a Libertarian – you have to live with the fact that a Military who never fought in any wars would be completely useless. Not too mention male masculinity would be completely destroyed.

    Look at the pathetic state of the Western European Armies, and the Canadian Armed Forces.

    Is that what you want for the US, to turn us into the French Army?

  72. George Phillies Says:

    Eric,

    There are serious studies of why people of different backgrounds join the army. For large numbers of young and women, the army is an American institution that does not discriminate on grounds of race, and that offers wonderful skills training in non-combat skills. (Many mercs will speak at least politely of getting their start in their highly lucrative field through this path.)

    Of course, these people tend not to vote Republican for other reasons. Starting a Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi is someplace on that list.

    George Phillies

  73. Eric Dondero Says:

    Huh? Your post in incomprensible. I can’t understand what you are referring to.

    And henceforth, call me Eric Dondero, or Mr. Dondero, not by my first name. You and I are no longer friends. Since you do not ackowledge that Muslim Terrorists attacked the United States on 9/11, nor support any Military response to 9/11.

  74. matt Says:

    keep the soldiers tied up in their barracks, not engaging in any Wars around the globe, what do you think the result will be for retention?
    =================================
    Oh the agony. The soldiers are heartbroken to be kept away from the hostile gunfire. How will they comfort themselves?