Ron Paul and the Libertarian National Convention

On the Free Liberal Blog Stephen Gordon predicts that Libertarian convention delegates will change their bylaws in order to nominate Ron Paul for President.

86 Responses to “Ron Paul and the Libertarian National Convention”

  1. disinter Says:

    I hope so.

  2. Gene Berkman Says:

    Ron Paul joined the Libertarian Party as a life member in 1987, at the California LP convention. He even paid for his membership in gold, violating Greshem’s Law.

    In Texas, voters do not register by Party. I don’t understand what by-law would be violated by giving Ron Paul the Libertarian nomination.

    Anyway, I will vote for Ron Paul on any ticket.
    www.libertariansforpaul.com

  3. Robert Milnes Says:

    I hope not. Maybe by the time of the convention delegates will come to their senses.

  4. Joseph Knight Says:

    BAD idea. Nominating “None-of-the-above” is one thing, changing the Bylaws is another. We would just wind up being Junior Republicans.

    And I’m not even in favor of None-of-the-above. If Paul gets the GOP nod, we can each decide as individuals how to vote.

  5. Tom Blanton Says:

    I think Mr. Knight is right.

    Anyway, why do so many folks think Ron Paul isn’t telling the truth when he says he won’t run as a third party candidate? Besides, if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination and decides to run, he would probably be better off running as an independent.

  6. disinter Says:

    Tom – he would lose his House seat. He can’t run as an independent or Libertarian and as a Repug for House at the same time.

    Not to mention it would be a huge waste of his time.

  7. Jeremy Brannon Says:

    Well disinter, considering how many people support him, I think he could make a serious impact. It would show the pigs in the upper echelon of the major corporate parties that the people want something different. So it wouldn’t be a waste. I think people might begin paying attention to some of the third parties were he to run. In my opinion, he is the only true conservative left in the Senate…if not the whole fascist…er… Republikan Partei.

  8. Jay Matthews Says:

    Tom B., has he said he wouldn’t run as a third-party candidate? I’ve only heard him say he wouldn’t run as an independent. He often cites ballot access problems. Badnarik had access in 48 states in ‘04. Of course that can change. The LP is up to 26 states right now according to their website.

  9. rj Says:

    I watched him on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart brought up his Libertarian candidacy in 1988. Paul explicitly stated that how our country’s politics is setup, you spend the majority of your time not campaigning for president but trying to get ballot-access, and then said that he’s getting far more coverage now than he would were he running as a third-party candidate. The video’s out there on the internet I’m sure.

    I thought Steve Kubby’s remarks on Paul were interesting, citing that 77% of his party membership support Paul for president, he thought it best he would to.

  10. Robert Milnes Says:

    rj, 77% of my friends are shooting themselves in the foot. I guess it’s best that I do too.

  11. Tom Bryant Says:

    It’s better than shooting yourself in the head by nominating some unstable guy like Robert Milnes.

  12. Michael Says:

    He said he’s only going to run as GOP. Plus he goes LP and he loses 90 percent of his campaign contributions. It’s not worth it.

  13. Tom Bryant Says:

    How would Ron Paul lose 90% of his campaign contributions? There’s nothing requiring him to return the money.

  14. Gene Berkman Says:

    Ron Paul has to say he will not run as an independent or third party candidate while he seeks the Republican nomination. If he were to discuss going outside the GOP, they would use that as an excuse to keep him out of the debates.

    Anyway, it is his call what he wants to do, and I will support his campaign on any ticket.

    www.libertariansforpaul.com

  15. Michael Says:

    Tom, I should have written, “90 percent of future campaign contributions”. Namely people and contributions supporting him as GOP, not LP.

  16. Kn@ppster Says:

    Michael,

    Um … so? If he doesn’t win the nomination and doesn’t run LP (or independent or other party), he loses 100% of his campaign contributions.

  17. Tom Bryant Says:

    Michael,

    If 90% of future contributions are lost, so what? He’s already raised about 3 times as much as the 2004 LP candidate. He’ll be in a better position than if he started out running as a Libertarian.

  18. Don Wills Says:

    This is just more LP fantasy, which is not surprising as LP members continue to fantasize that the LP matters. In most states it is illegal for a candidate to represent multiple parties. Ron Paul is Republican and has said he will stay a Republican. If LP members actually want to be relevant in politics, they should register as Republicans and work to change that party for the better, like running as a ‘Ron Paul Republican’, not unlike those who have used the label ‘Goldwater Republican’. Paul Broun and Jeff Flake are the future of the Republican
    Party – ex-LPers should hitch their wagons to elected officials like them.

  19. Ken H Says:

    A drawback to hitching one’s wagons to the likes of Paul Broun is that you also end up hitched to folks the likes of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, et al.

  20. Kn@ppster Says:

    Don,

    Assuming that Ron Paul rans for re-election to Congress as a Republican, and for president as an Independent, Libertarian, or whatever, he would only be “represent[ing] multiple parties” in one state. That leaves 49 in which he would be running for a single office as the candidate of a single party.

    Any “represent[ing] multiple parties” restrictions would also likely be just as vulnerable as “sore loser laws”—you might want to check with Richard Winger on that, but my recollection is that there used to be seven states with such laws, that one state has already had its law overturned, and that the other six states’ laws are vulnerable to a similar outcome.

    Not that I think that Paul should run as a Libertarian, independent or whatever, of course. But your argument for the unlikelihood of that happening doesn’t seem any more sound than your suggestion that Libertarians should become Republicans.

  21. Tom Blanton Says:

    I’m certain that Ron Paul has said that he will not run as an independent or in a third party candidate. Of course, he could be lying. Perhaps this is a secret code for “I will run on the LP ticket if the GOP doesn’t nominate me”.

    My best guess is that if you want to vote for Ron Paul, you better get to the polls to vote in the primary – if your state has a GOP primary. His name is most likely not going to be on the ballot in the general election.

    The GOP is already challenging open primaries in at least one state. If they think Ron Paul could do well in the primaries, they might even get state parties to scrap the primaries and opt for the convention.

  22. Don Wills Says:

    Ken H. writes “A drawback to hitching one’s wagons to the likes of Paul Broun is that you also end up hitched to folks the likes of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson, et al.”

    Yep, it’s a big tent party! (Horrors – what a thought.) There is a little corner of the Republican Party that I feel comfortable in, and there is no corner of Bill and Hillary’s party that I would feel comfortable in.

    What’s interesting is how disingenuous the LP is with regard to the big/little tent issue. In many states, the LP powerbrokers (what an oxymoron!) have no room in their party for constitutionalists or half-libertarians, but they fall all over themselves to embrace the likes of Howard Stern and Bob Barr when such luminaries fawn interest.

  23. Jackcjackson Says:

    The LP has it’s faults, but it’s certainly more “big tent” when it comes to actual LIBERTARIANS than the Republican Party is. And, honestly, I fail to see how the Republican Party is in any way more welcoming to libertarians than the Democrats.

  24. Sean Scallon Says:

    Ron will run for his Congressional seat if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination. But let’s say he does. I hope the LP does change its bylaws nominates him with his permission. Then it can challenge the silly multi-party lines rule and overturn them in federal court.

  25. Eric Dondero Says:

    I think reality is finally setting in for all of you here. A few months ago you could be all starry-eyed and ga ga over the prospects of Ron Paul for President. Now you’ve looked at the continuing poll numbers, and many of you are saying to yourselves: This just ain’t gonna happen.

    The very latest poll numbers out yesterday show this to be a Rudy Giuliani versus Hillarty Clinton race. Both Rudy and Hillary are way out in front for their nominations. It’s starting to get solidified. And I’d even say it’s too late for Fred Thompson (or Bloomberg).

    So, what’s a diehard Libertarian to do? The Ron Paul thing is kaput.

    Only thing left is for you all to back Steve Kubby or George Phillies. Yeah, Wayne Root’s out there. But I think Wayne is too smart for the Libertarian Party ultimately, and the Libertarian Party too dumb for Wayne Root.

    So, you’re faced with yet another ho-hum year for the LP. My guess Kubby will win the nomination. He’s more charasmatic than Phillies, and has a tiny bit of celebrity on the Pacific Marijuana front. This will be enough to garner him about 350,000 votes. Standard LP vote total.

  26. Eric Dondero Says:

    Libertarians will have to utlimately ask themselves this question:

    Do we sit out this race, or back a no-name virtually unknown Libertarian Party candidate like Steve Kubby or George Phillies, and help to elect Hillary Clinton?

    Or, do we back a guy whose solidly libertarian on economic issues, is identified by the mainstream media as a “libertarian”, is quite libertarian on many sexual issues, but has some questionable views on gun control
    and drug legalization?

    It’s Hillary Clinton versus Rudy Giuliani versus Kubby or Phillies.

    I know it’s hard to accpet, but that’s reality Jack.

  27. Jay Matthews Says:

    “is quite libertarian on many sexual issues”

    Yes, and Rudy leads by example.

  28. Dale C. Says:

    LMAO! Well put Jay. I see his adulteress, cousin-marrying, crossdressing past taking off with the public and giving him a landslide win.

  29. Eric Dondero Says:

    I think a little adultry is not even in the same leagues of Hillary Clinton having Vince Foster murdered, and her husband Bill knocking off those two kids at the Mena, Arkansas Airport, and Ron Brown in that plane.

    All this will surface again when Hillary is the Nominee. It will make any dalliances that Rudy has done, look to be small potatos indeed.

    There’s a plenty buried bodies in the Clintons’ past.

  30. Eric Dondero Says:

    Oops, forgot to mention the 80 Texans Clinton & Reno burned to death at Waco.

  31. Joe Says:

    Nice campaign slogan: “Vote for me. I am less of a scumbag than my opponent.” I will never vote for Giuliani or Clinton.

  32. Trent Hill Says:

    Eric,

    Paul is slowly rising in polls. He was polling 0% consistently. Then 1%. Then 2%. Now 2-3%.
    It’sa slow rise…we’re just waiting for a breakout.

  33. Joanne Cook Says:

    Eric,

    You have insight into third party trends. Would you say that today’s Reason Magazine article on Ron Paul is an indication that mainstream libertarianism can still accept him given his constitutionalist pull?

    Also, is it possible that Hillary Clinton won’t be the nominee?

  34. Jay Matthews Says:

    There is no voter with legitimate libertarian views who is voting for Giuliani over Ron Paul in the primaries.

    Trent, there is a recent post over at dailypaul.com which points out how some polls aren’t giving Ron Paul as a choice during phone surveys.

  35. Ken H Says:

    Joe Says: “I will never vote for Giuliani or Clinton.”

    I’m with you on that, Joe. I don’t see how any libertarian could possibly vote for either one of those people. A “libertarian” who did so would be be a LINO.

  36. Sean Scallon Says:

    Eric, you peeking your head up from your hole in the ground? Lord knows you haven’t been around TPW lately since Ron Paul announced he has more money than John McCain. Here, let me step on you you little worm.

    The bottom line is libertarians aren’t going to vote for a man who likes to throw jay-walkers in jail and wants more war and more government to fight that war. That isn’t libertarianism, that’s neoconservatism. And that’s what you are Eric. So why should libertarians vote for a neocon?

    Tomorrow I’m sure you’ll tell us the non-candidate Wayne Allyn Root (WAR, get Eric it, WAR?) is the savior of the Libertarian Party. Just make sure to tell him he has to file with FEC first. After all, we wouldn’t want to do anything that would upset the Feds now would we?

  37. Tom Blanton Says:

    I would never vote for Giuliani, Hillary OR Wayne Root.

  38. Jay Matthews Says:

    I’d take Root over Hilliani. In a three-way debate he can easily equal if not exceed their bluster winning over many of their sheep. If exposed to it the small-gov’t / low tax message is attractive to people and he can sell it. Root strikes me as a guy who could be the LP’s version of Romney: Slick and sophisticated but with a more positive message.

    I’d prefer if he’d at least entertain running for some other office in the meantime. He’d garner more supporters with some kind of track record.

  39. Andy Says:

    “It’s Hillary Clinton versus Rudy Giuliani versus Kubby or Phillies.

    I know it’s hard to accpet, but that’s reality Jack.”

    If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani (or any other Republican besides Ron Paul) then we are screwed. So at that point we might as well support Steve Kubby or whoever else.

    Ron Paul may seem like a long shot, but he’s not as much of a long shot as any of the minor party candidates are, and he’s also the best chance that we’ve got.

  40. Andy Says:

    “is quite libertarian on many sexual issues,”

    Except of course when Rudy Giuliani was getting prostitutes arrested and shutting down porn shops.

  41. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    July 27th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
    I think a little adultry is not even in the same leagues of Hillary Clinton having Vince Foster murdered, and her husband Bill knocking off those two kids at the Mena, Arkansas Airport, and Ron Brown in that plane.

    All this will surface again when Hillary is the Nominee. It will make any dalliances that Rudy has done, look to be small potatos indeed.

    There’s a plenty buried bodies in the Clintons’ past.

    Eric Dondero Says:

    July 27th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
    Oops, forgot to mention the 80 Texans Clinton & Reno burned to death at Waco.”

    Wow, I thought that Eric Dondero said that he didn’t believe in “conspiracy theories”.

    I actually happen to agree with all of this stuff, I’m just suprised to see Eric bringing it up when he automatically dismisses any evidence that elements within the government carried out 9/11, the wars in Afganistan and Iraq are based on lies, and that Bush is a New World Order puppet.

    I suppose that Eric only believes in “conspiracy theories” when they involve Democrats.

  42. Jay Matthews Says:

    And isn’t Rudy a member of that America-loving organization, the CFR?

  43. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wrong Trent. Absolutely wrong.

    Paul was at 3% in Zogby back in March. In July he was down to 0%. I believe he might be back up to 2% in the July Zogby, but that’s hardly “rising in the polls.” All that indicates is that he’s wavering from 0% to 3%, well within the margin of error in the Zogby poll. And indicates to me, that in reality, he’s probably at about 1.5% support, splitting the difference.

    Hardly an impressive number for someone who has been campaigning for 6 months now don’t ya think?

  44. Eric Dondero Says:

    Trent, Dick Morris said on Fox News 6 months ago, that if a candidate had not raised about $50 million by late September, they had zero chance of winning either party’s nomination.

    Hillary and Obama are approaching that number.

    Rudy Giuliani is I believe in the $30 to 40 million total raised category.

    Ron Paul is at $3 to 4 million or so?

    Hell, Tommy Thompson and Tom Tancredo has raised just about as much. Certainly Sam Brownbeck.

    Ron is at the bottom level of the 2nd tier of candidates and vastly approaching 3rd tier level of Jim Gilmore and whatshisname Jim Cox?

  45. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Sean, explain to me please how it is that a guy who is Pro-Choice on abortion, and Tolerant on Gay issues could be considered a “Neo-Con”?

    A Bill Bennett/Pat Robertson/Pat Buchanan/Howie Phillips/Richard Vigeurie/Gary Bauer/Bill Kristol/Fred Barnes clone Rudy Giuliani is definitely not.

    They all hate Giuliani! (Except Bennett who has said some nice things about him recently).

    Neo-Con = Religious Right

    Rudy Giuliani is anything but.

  46. Eric Dondero Says:

    No, quite the contrary Andy.

    I firmly opposed Bush on the Ports Dubai deal, and found myself on the same side and even the same team as New York Senator Chuck Schumer in opposing it. (Michael Savage even temporarily aligned with Schumer on this too, and even had him on as a guest on his show).

    I’ve been pretty skeptical on the subject of George Bush ever since his idiotic stance on Port Dubai.

    I have this theory that some space alien temporarily came down to earth and occupied Bush’s body to make him take such an idiotic stance against our national security and in favor of turning our ports over to the Arabs.

    That’s the only explanation I could come up with. But I’m all ears on perhaps some CFR, Tri-lateral deal behind it??

    All I know is that something very, very wierd happened to Bush to get him to so enthusiastically support the Port Dubai deal 2 years ago.

  47. Eric Dondero Says:

    Addendum for Andy:

    I’m starting to subscribe to the conspiracy theory put forth by Glen Beck on Bush’s utter inanity on the subject of Ramos and Campean.

    I mean what the fuck! How can anyone explain Bush’s not wanting to pardon Ramos and Campean?

    Perhaps he’s got some secret “Mexi-Ameri-Canada” deal going on behind the scenes, and the Mexicans have said to him, “deal’s off if you pardon Ramos and Campean.”

    Can you figure it out? I’m just baffled.

    So, I blame Bush for these two fine Border Patrol Agents still rotting in some Federal Penitentiary in Alabama.

  48. Eric Dondero Says:

    Andy, yet another Addendum:

    I am further baffled as to why Bush has not exposed Clinton’s complicity and cover-ups on the Oklahoma City Bombing?

    There’s undeniable evidence as documented by Jayna Davis that Muslim Radicals were clearly behind McVeigh and Nichols. Friggin’ Nichols visited the Southern Phillipines 5 MOTHER FUCKING TIMES the year before the bombing. And as one who has spent a great deal of time in the P.I. I can tell you from personal experience YOU DO NOT GO TO THE SOUTHER PHILLIPINES UNLESS YOU ARE A MUSLIM TERRORIST OR MEETING MUSLIM TERRORISTS.

    Yet Bush has been completely uninterested in possible Iraqi Intelligence connections to McVeigh and Nichols.

    Go figure?

  49. Kn@ppster Says:

    Quoth Eric Dondero:

    “I mean what the fuck! How can anyone explain Bush’s not wanting to pardon Ramos and Campean?”

    Sure—Bush is stupid and evil, but not that stupid and evil.

    Next?

  50. Jay Matthews Says:

    “Ron is at the bottom level of the 2nd tier of candidates and vastly approaching 3rd tier level of Jim Gilmore and whatshisname Jim Cox?”

    Eric, please say you were breaking chops with this statement. If you were serious, you have less than zero credibility. And admit the polls are slanted when they don’t give the pollee all the current choices.

    And here are the thoughts of the CFR’s President:

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/9903/sovereignty_and_globalisation.html

    Eric, how can you be proud of the guy you’re supporting when he’s associated with a group which has this sort of agenda for America?

    And if you’re pro-civil-liberty-killing legislation, pro-military-industrial-complex, pro-Iraq war, pro-attacking Iran, pro-real ID act, and in general pro-continuing to turn the country into a police/surveillance state that qualifies you for neo-con status.

    Let’s also remind people his law firm is representing Cintra, one of the firms behind the Trans-Texas Corridor/ Superhighway project. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence and not a conflict of interest.

    Rudy can fear monger all he wants, his “they hate us for our freedoms” mantra holds zero water. But he’s using the classic brainwashing tactic: say it over and over and some people will buy it even if it’s a baseless premise.

  51. Ken H Says:

    Dondero wrote: “how it is that a guy who is Pro-Choice on abortion, and Tolerant on Gay issues could be considered a “Neo-Con”?”

    Because Giuliani goes along with the foreign policy prescriptions of the neo-”conservatives”.

    Tell me, Mr. Dondero, how can anyone who claims to be a libertarian, as you do, support an authoritarian such as Giuliani?

  52. Eric Dondero Says:

    So, let me get this straight now. There’s only one part of the political spectrum all of a sudden ‘eh?

    Economic issues and Civil Liberties issues no longer count. One is judged only on one’s position on foreign policy, more specifically, the War in Iraq. If you’re Pro-War in Iraq you can only be judged as a “NeoCon.” Defense Conservatives, Libertarian Hawks, Iraqi Freedom Advocates, or whatever, no longer exist. Everyone who supports the War in Iraq is a “NeoCon.”

    And it doesn’t matter how you feel about other foreign policy stances either. One can be in favor of pulling out of the United Nations, ending all foreign aid to all nations, pulling our troops out of Europe and Japan, and even South Korean. But hey, if you support the War in Iraq, you’re an “evil NeoCon.”

    I guess folks like me will have to have our own “wing” of the NeoCon movement; one that’s open to Pro-Choicer, Pro-Drug Legalization advocates who want to abolish the IRS, and pull our troops out of Europe and Japan.

    Hmmn, what could we call ourselves, “Small Government NeoCons” maybe?

  53. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ken, easy answer.

    Cause I trust the judgement of non-partisan organizations like ontheissues.org who rate Giuliani as a “Moderate Libertarian” rather than small-time no-name political activists posting on a low-traficked political web Blog.

    And though I don’t normally trust the NY Times who called Giuliani a raving “extremist privatizing Ayn Randian,” I do happen to trust the Wall Street Journal, who just last week christened Giuliani a “libertarian.” And I do trust the London Times-Herald who 6 months ago, called Giuliani a “libertarian conservative.”

  54. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Jay, are you aware that there’s a small sect of diehard Liberals who are in favor of the War in Iraq?

    Yes, we all know about Joe Lieberman. But I’m actually not talking about him.

    There’s a website, I’m sorry the url doesn’t immediately come to mind, that I ran across about 2 months ago, of principled Liberals who supported the War in Iraq.

    They are very human rights oriented. They come about it from a strictly human rights perspective – liberate the Iraqis from authoritarian oppression, ect…

    Then there’s Democrats like Tammy Bruce, radio talk show host who is also Pro-War in Iraq. Tammy, as you know is a diehard Liberal, former ACLU of Los Angeles Director and outfront Lesbian activist.

    I was in Seattle doing a special political job a couple months ago, and I worked for a woman, her name is Sharon, who is a self-described “Pro-Defense Liberal.” Like Tammy Bruce she was Pro-War in Iraq, Anti-Islamo-Fascist, Pro-Choice, Pro-Civil Liberties, but generally Moderate to Liberal on economic issues – Pro-Union, Pro-Minimum Wage and such.

    Now, it’s one thing to lump Pro-Defense Hawk Libertarians like me into the NeoCon category, but how do you explain Joe Lieberman, Tammy Bruce, and Sharon? Are they NeoCons too?

    If so, that’s quite a huge coalition ya got going there. Everyone from Pat Robertson and Bill Bennett to Tammy Bruce and Joe Lieberman.

  55. Eric Dondero Says:

    Here you go Jay. Here’s one of the “Liberal Hawks” websites.

    http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/liberals/13562/liberal-hawks/

    But there are a few others. One I remember came from South Dakota or something and was quite popular: “Dakota Democrats” or something like that.

    Now, again, I ask you, if everyone who is in favor of the War in Iraq is considered a “NeoCon” what’s your explanation for these Liberal Hawks?

    Ya think they’d feel comfortable in the same bed with the likes of Pat Robertson, Bill Bennett, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, and Dick Cheney?

  56. Jay Matthews Says:

    Eric, don’t cherry-pick one item and harp on it. To answer your question I could care less if there’s a small sect of liberals who are pro-war? You can undoubtedly find pro and anti-war people affiliated in ANY party big or small. So what?

    You can throw in all the red-herrings you like. It doesn’t matter. Giuliani is little more than a Bush clone.

    And about neo-conservativism,......while a much used term it’s not a true descriptor. Neo-conservatism isn’t conservative. Which is why I suppose the “neo” is its prefix.

    If you want to tell everyone here an undeclared war with a country that was not a threat to our nat’l security making the annual budget soar and costing our military to date over 3,600 lives, wounding about 27,000 others, and causing the deaths of about 71,000 Iraqi civilians, and now also wanting to invade Iran too, another country not a threat to our nat’l security is somehow conservative go right ahead.

  57. Ken H Says:

    In other words, Mr. Dondero, you trust those who agree with you and distrust those who do not.

    Do you ever stop and think that you, and those whom you trust, could be wrong?

  58. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    July 28th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
    Andy, yet another Addendum:

    I am further baffled as to why Bush has not exposed Clinton’s complicity and cover-ups on the Oklahoma City Bombing?

    There’s undeniable evidence as documented by Jayna Davis that Muslim Radicals were clearly behind McVeigh and Nichols.”

    Bush has not exposed Clinton’s complicity in the OKC bombing or any of the other crimes committed by the Clinton administration because they are PARTNERS IN CRIME. The Bush’s and the Clinton’s work together. They are both a part of the New World Order crime syndicate.

    The OKC bombing was NOT the work of “Muslim radicals” and it was also NOT the work of home grown “militia kooks”, it was the work of the federal government. There is no way that that truck bomb could have caused that kind of damage to the AP Murrah building. In addition to this there is also documented evidence that there were bombs planted INSIDE the AP Murrah building.

    Don’t believe me, then watch the following clips (which contain local OKC news broadcasts from when the bombing happened).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Sipn9npq4

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7YCCduzahw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOBIUGBTB9w

    Timothy McVeigh was nothing more than a patsy. The OKC bombing was carried out by the feds so they could demonize the militia movement and anyone else who supported gun rights and spoke out about the New World Order. It gave the feds the pretext to pass more police state legislation and increase the the budget for police state agencies like the BATF.

    When I say “feds” I’m not talking about everyone in the federal government (although the entire federal government benifitted), I’m speaking of a select group, just like it was a select group within the federal government that carried out 9/11.

    The OKC bombing was a “Reichstag Fire” type of incident, just like 9/11.

  59. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    July 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
    No, quite the contrary Andy.

    I firmly opposed Bush on the Ports Dubai deal, and found myself on the same side and even the same team as New York Senator Chuck Schumer in opposing it. (Michael Savage even temporarily aligned with Schumer on this too, and even had him on as a guest on his show).

    I’ve been pretty skeptical on the subject of George Bush ever since his idiotic stance on Port Dubai.

    I have this theory that some space alien temporarily came down to earth and occupied Bush’s body to make him take such an idiotic stance against our national security and in favor of turning our ports over to the Arabs.

    That’s the only explanation I could come up with. But I’m all ears on perhaps some CFR, Tri-lateral deal behind it??

    All I know is that something very, very wierd happened to Bush to get him to so enthusiastically support the Port Dubai deal 2 years ago.”

    Nothing “wierd” happened to Bush to get him to enthusiastically support the Dubia port deal. That was just Bush being himself, a traitor and a manipulative lying weasel that has zero regaurd for the Constitution.

  60. Andy Says:

    Ron Paul hit the nail on the head with the Dubai Ports controversy.

    The Port Security Controversy

    by Ron Paul
    2/28/06

    Many Americans are upset by the thought of a Dubai-based corporation running port operations in several major American cities. The company involved now has agreed to delay taking over those operations while the Bush administration and Congress settle their differences and address the ire of the American people.

    There’s nothing necessarily wrong with a company from the United Arab Emirates being involved in U.S. port operations. After all, Islamic terrorists have lived in many European countries, and nobody suggests that E.U. corporations should be similarly disqualified.

    But this is not a matter of one foreign company buying another and taking over existing operations in the United States. The Dubai company, DP World, is owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates. It is in essence an agent of a foreign government, which raises questions: Does DP World truly operate like any corporation, answering to a board of directors, serving shareholders, and working to boost profitability? Or does it serve the foreign policy and economic goals of the United Arab Emirates?

    This is not a true free market transaction, but rather a marriage of multinational corporate and state interests. And surely the American people should have a say over foreign governments doing business here, especially when that business affects port security.

    It’s important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all.

    There also is an important states’ rights issue involved in this controversy. Why are Treasury department bureaucrats in Washington making decisions about port security? Most American ports are owned by U.S. states, cities, or local port authorities, not the federal government. Do Treasury department personnel 1500 miles away really know what’s best for the ports of Galveston or Freeport?

    I strongly support those governors who have indicated they do not intend to allow the federal government to dictate who will run their ports. I hope Texas state officials display the same determination and resist a potentially dangerous federal dictate regarding the operation of our ports.

  61. Andy Says:

    “That’s the only explanation I could come up with. But I’m all ears on perhaps some CFR, Tri-lateral deal behind it??”

    Turning these ports over to Arabs would have provided the Bush administration or some future regime with the perfect opportunity to stage another 9/11. It could have been a lot worse, like bringing in a nuke and setting it off in a highly populated area. Then the administration could declare Martial Law, blame the Arabs, and launch another war in the Middle East.

    Aside from a possible false flag terror operation, as Congressman Paul correctly pointed out, the President has no constitutional authority to hand over a port to anyone, and in addition to this, the corporation in question was owned by the nation of Dubai. This deal had NOTHING to do with the free market.

  62. Andy Says:

    “Perhaps he’s got some secret ‘Mexi-Ameri-Canada’ deal going on behind the scenes, ”

    Perhaps he’s (Bush) got some secret “Mexi-Ameri-Canada” deal going on behind the scenes. WTF? Have you not been paying attention for the last year? Have you not heard that Bush signed on to the Security and Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico which is the foundation for the North American Union.

    Yes, that’s right, Bush wants to merge the USA with Canada and Mexico. This might sound “happy & fun” or even harmless to some people, but anyone who thinks this is extremely naive. What it is going to mean is the FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN for any semblance of government under the US Constitution. The North American Union is not going to be some kind of anarcho-capitalist libertarian utopia, it is going to be a socialist nightmare.

    North American Union to Replace the USA
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/north_american_union_replace_usa.htm

    Here’s the government’s propaganda website for the SPP.

    http://www.spp.gov/

    This has all been planned by the Council On Foreign Relations and was laid out in a report called Building a North American Community.

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/

    They even have a new currency planned for the North American Union, the Amero. They will probably crash the dollar before they bring in the Amero. Here’s a TV clip where the Amero was mentioned.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

    When the North American Union comes in the united States of America as espoused in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution will officially be dead. This is PURE AND BLATANT TREASON!

  63. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    July 28th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
    Hey Jay, are you aware that there’s a small sect of diehard Liberals who are in favor of the War in Iraq?

    Yes, we all know about Joe Lieberman. But I’m actually not talking about him.

    There’s a website, I’m sorry the url doesn’t immediately come to mind, that I ran across about 2 months ago, of principled Liberals who supported the War in Iraq.”

    You are obviously too caught up in the whole phony “liberal vs. conservative” “Democrat vs. Republican” political system.

    Yes, there are some people on the supposed “left” who are war supporters. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that there are a lot of Democrats out there whose only reason for not supporting the war is because Republicans are running it, if Democrats were in charge of it they’d probably support it.

    A warmonger is a warmonger. These Democrats who support the war are no better than the neo-cons, and in fact are neo-con on this issue.

    “They are very human rights oriented. They come about it from a strictly human rights perspective – liberate the Iraqis from authoritarian oppression, ect…”

    This is twisted “logic”. Let’s “liberate” the Iraqis from a regime that was installed and supported by the US government for decades (Saddam) by murdering a bunch of innocent Iraqis, destroying their infastructure, forcing them to breathe depleted uranium, and occupying their country and violating their civil liberties. Yeah, this makes sense….NOT!

  64. Andy Says:

    “Eric Dondero Says:

    July 28th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
    Ken, easy answer.

    Cause I trust the judgement of non-partisan organizations like ontheissues.org who rate Giuliani as a “Moderate Libertarian” rather than small-time no-name political activists posting on a low-traficked political web Blog.”

    Oh come on, you are STILL pushing this “Rudi Giuliani is a libertarian” NONSENSE! Have you no shame?

  65. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Eric Dondero quotes OnTheIssues.org as a justification for his support of Rudy Giuliani as a libertarian.

    OK- let’s put it to the test.

    Enter twenty questions based on the LP party line:

    ABORTION - no opinion
    AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - strongly against
    GAY RIGHTS - strongly for
    “FAMILY VALUESTAUGHT IN SCHOOLS - strongly against
    DEATH PENALTY - no opinion
    “THREE STRIKESLAWS - no opinion
    GUN RIGHTS - strongly support
    FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HEALTHCARE - strongly oppose
    PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY - strongly support
    SCHOOL VOUCHERS - weakly support
    ALTERNATIVE FUELS - strongly oppose
    DRUG WAR - strongly oppose
    FAITH BASED INITIATIVES - strongly oppose
    LOWER TAXES ON THE RICH - strongly support
    ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT AMNESTY - no opinion (party split)
    FREE TRADE - strongly support
    BUILD UP ARMED FORCES - strongly oppose
    CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS -strongly oppose
    REPEAL USA-PATRIOT ACT - strongly support
    REPLACE US TROOPS WITH UN PEACEKEEPERS IN IRAQ - strongly support (no ‘out now, out completely, out forever’ option)

    Vote matching results:

    RON PAUL 48%
    SAM BROWNBACK 35%
    DUNCAN HUNTER 33%
    BILL RICHARDSON 33%
    TOM TANCREDO 33%
    DENNIS KUCINICH - 30%
    MIKE GRAVEL - 30%
    RUDY GIULIANI - 25%

    Furthermore, ontheissues.org splits those results into economic and social. Brownback, Hunter and Tancredo match 0% on social issues; Paul, only 25%, which still leaves him a better social-liberty match than any other Republican candidate.

    What does this mean? What we should have already known: none of the Democrat or Republican candidates, Paul included, represents libertarians.

    (Oh, and disclosure time: when I put in my personal answers, I come up with Kucinich as my leading match… at only 50%. Ron Paul is in the middle of the pack.)

  66. Jay Matthews Says:

    Kris, do the candidates actually answer these questions or are their answer assumed by the site based on a candidates voting record? It seems like the latter but correct me if I am wrong.

  67. Eric Dondero Says:

    Hey Kris, since when does the Libertarian Party have “No Opinion” on abortion???

    I was recruited into the Libertarian Party in 1985 from an Abortion Rights Action League meeting. The LP has always been a solidly Pro-Choice Party. Yes, opposed to government funding of abortions. But that doesn’t mean opposed to abortions.

  68. Eric Dondero Says:

    The correct Libertarian position on the Military is to support a build-up of our Armed Forces, not retreat.

  69. Eric Dondero Says:

    Man, I could tear all these questions a new asshole.

    Okay Kris, Ron Paul is not “strongly in favor of Gay Rights.” Though, Giuliani is. And fyi, he IS in favor of Values taught in our Public Schools. While Giuliani would be mostly opposed.

    How did you score Giuliani on Nationalized Health Care? If you gave him anything less than Strongly Oppose, you are incorrect. The Washington Post just headlined a story, “Giuliani’s Libertarian Health Care Plan.”

  70. Eric Dondero Says:

    Kris, btw, the Libertarian Party does not represent the views of the entire libertarian movement. The LP only represents the views of a very small portion of the overall libertarian movement, usually, very hardcore radical libertarians in the very upper right hand corner of the Nolan Chart.

  71. Eric Dondero Says:

    Your question “Support Peacekeepers in Iraq” and saying that the “proper” libertarian position is to pull-out is just entirely false. Sure, that’s the position of an extremist sect of Anarchists within the libertarian movement, but it most certainly DOES NOT IN ANY WAY represent the views of Mainstream Libertarians.

    So, strike up another point for Giuliani on the question, and strike one off of Paul.

  72. Eric Dondero Says:

    I count at least 12 “Strongly Supports” for Giuliani. He lapses on Gun Rights, gets a “Weakly Supports” there and failure on the Drug War question.

    I give Ron Paul a failure on the Abortion question, Gay Rights, and of course the Military issues.

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention Kris. Looks like ontheissues.org is not entirely correct. Maybe Giuliani is more libertarian than Ron Paul after all!

  73. Eric Dondero Says:

    Wowy! Isn’t TPW informative.

    First we now learn from our friend Andy that “Liberals who support the War in Iraq are NeoCons.”

    That’s a real interesting coalition those pesky NeoCons got going there. Everyone from Lesbian fmr. ACLU Activist Tammy Baldwin to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right.

    Hey, what was it that Nixon said…

    “We’re all NeoCons now.”

  74. Eric Dondero Says:

    Ken H.

    I like Susan Estrich, Alan Colmes, Bob Bechel, and a host of other prominent Cable News Liberals. I like them personally, and I trust their judgement particularly on political matters. I agree with them on about 20 to 25% of the issues.

    So yes, to answer to your question, I do most certainly trust some people I disagree with.

    Oh, and Bill Bennett. The guy is about as far away from me on the political spectrum as you could possibly get. But I do like his radio talk show. And I generally think he’s a good, fair-minded guy. I trust him, as well.

  75. Eric Dondero Says:

    “Giuliani is little more than a Bush clone” thus says Jay.

    Wow. Sheesh. I’m speechless.

    Tell us Jay, if that’s the case why is it that James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and other bigtime Religious Right supporters who are fanatic Bush backers are so determined to defeat Giuliani?

    And fyi, every one of the Bush Administration people who have left to get jobs with the Presidential campaigns has signed on with Mitt Romney, NOT Rudy Giuliani.

    I’d say Romney is a Bush clone. Maybe Sam Brownback too?

    But not Giuliani.

  76. Ken H Says:

    Mr. Dondero,

    Concerning the your claim that former Mayor Giuliani is a libertarian, how do you answer these:

    What about Giuliani’s extreme use of federal racketeering statutes? Was that libertarian?

    What about Giuliani’s confiscation of guns? Was that libertarian?

    What about Giuliani’s many attempts to squelch free speech? Was that libertarian?

    What about Giuliani’s support of Bush’s domestic surveillance program? Is that libertarian?

    Mr. Dondero, do you really believe that Giuliani would not attempt to further concentrate power in the executive branch of the U.S. government?

  77. Eric Dondero Says:

    Mr. Ken H.

    Here’s your response. There are tons and tons and tons of political issues out there. When one considers the BIG PICTURE and includes ALL political issues out there, Giuliani rates by all unbiased standards as a “libertarian-leaning Republican” or “Moderately libertarian.”

    You are correct. He’s not a Radical Libertarian who believes in mandating Bazookas for every American household, reads L. Neil Smith on a daily basis, and wants to legalize crack cocaine. Ya got me there. I’ll come clean.

    For the record:

    Rudy Giuliani IS NOT A RADICAL LIBERTARIAN.

    There, I said it. Happy now?

    But a Moderate Libertarian – generally “fiscally conservative yet socially tolerant,” in the mold of Gov. Arnold, Cong. David Dreier of CA, Dennis Miller, Jess Ventura, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, FL Gov. Crist, and many others, Giuliani certainly fits the bill.

  78. Eric Dondero Says:

    Question for Ken H.

    Would you acknowledge that there is such a thing as a “Mainstream” or “Moderate” Libertarian? Or, is it required that anybody who uses the term “libertarian” has to be a radical extremist type?

    And if you do acknowledge Moderate Libertarians, could you kindly suggest a few names of people who you believe qualify for such a title?

  79. Ken H Says:

    Mr. Dondero,

    I don’t engage in subdividing libertarians. Someone either consistently advocates limited government or he doesn’t.

    A credible case cannot be made based on Giuliani’s record as the mayor of New York City that he has been a consistent advocate of limited government.

    Thus, there is no way he will ever receive my vote.

    And, frankly, if it comes down to Clinton vs. Giuliani I hope that Clinton wins(and expect that to be the result). Neither of them is a friend to liberty and I want to see the reaction of the warvangelicals to a Hillary Clinton administration since they have been such big advocates of the consolidation of power in the executive branch while “their guy” has been president.

  80. Andy Says:

    “I was recruited into the Libertarian Party in 1985 from an Abortion Rights Action League meeting. The LP has always been a solidly Pro-Choice Party. Yes, opposed to government funding of abortions. But that doesn’t mean opposed to abortions.”

    Abortion is not a definitional libertarian issue.

  81. Andy Says:

    “First we now learn from our friend Andy that ‘Liberals who support the War in Iraq are NeoCons.’

    That’s a real interesting coalition those pesky NeoCons got going there. Everyone from Lesbian fmr. ACLU Activist Tammy Baldwin to Pat Robertson and the Religious Right.”

    These “liberals” in question are neo-con on THAT ISSUE, and it just happens to be THAT ISSUE - foreign policy – which is the most important definitional issue to the neo-cons.

  82. Sean Scallon Says:

    Eric, is it possible for you to answer a question with one post instead of 12 in a row? Talk about spamming.

    How is Rudy a neocon? Simple. Rudy believe the United States should be a global empire, with bases all over the world to station our troops. He has put neocons like Norman Podhoretz on his campaign staff. He belives the U.S. should subservient our foreign policy interests to that of Israel. He believes the U.S. has duty to spread “democracY’ all over the world, by gunpoint if necessary. And Rudy has an authoritarian personality. Anyone who watched how Rudy governed New York cannot call him a libertarian.

    After all Eric, how can you support Rudy when he forced all the porno theaters and hookers off Times Square and 42nd St. For someone who reportedly has a taste for hookers, I thought you would be upset with that.

    Bottom line: If Rudy is elected, we’re going to war with Iran. If RP is elected, we will be at peace. How can you have a government that’s supposed to be decentralized and yet maintain a global empire abroad? You can’t Eric, a no amont of bogus studies or newspaper editorials can change that fact of common sense.

    Today’s Monday Eric, now go support Wayne Allyn Root.

  83. Mark Hosler Says:

    Dondero! D.O.N.D.E.Ro!

    Dondero…Is there any escape from noise? Is there any escape from noise?
    Is there any escape from noise?

  84. Free Says:

    Come chat with sexy cam girls

  85. Dan Says:

    When do you think the Feds will implement the Amero currency?
    Do you think the Amero will be just as worthless as the current dollar? Do you think things will be far worse if they do bring in the Amero?

    What things can we expect to see (economy, society, housing, food, energy, foreign relations ect..) when they do bring in the Amero?

    If I were you I would start buying gold and silver coins which I am.
    Because those coins will be worth more than the dollar and the Amero.

  86. Dee Dillon Says:

    I believe some of you misunderstood what Ron Paul has said in the past.

    It’s my understanding that he DID NOT say he WOULD NOT RUN on a 3rd Party ticket.

    He has said from time to time that he doesn’t have intentions to run on a 3rd Party ticket.

    Of course, that is not a definitive statement, and intentions can change.

    And I believe the horrible way the GOP has treated Ron Paul—denying him delegates in Tex & La, and now in Nevada WARRANTS HIM CHANGING HIS INTENTIONS AND ACCEPTING THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY NOMINATION!

Leave a Reply