You’re right. I’ve never even heard of Paulie Frankel.

Eric, you’re clearly losing your grip on reality. Misquoting The Godfather aside, comparing Iraq War opponents to Germans who did nothing during nazification is not only an absurd analogy, it’s intellectually dishonest.

You either know that, and don’t care…or you’re DELUDED.

I can have intelligent, respectful conversations with those who favor an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. I’ve worked with dozens of students who refer to Khalizad in ‘95 as the foundation of their belief in benign hegemony. Then there are the HACKS. These are folks, like you, who have no intellectual scruples. These are the people who lie, represent themselves as something they’re not, and accuse their opponents of being unpatriotic, treasonous, or akin to nazi collaborators.

You’re a hack. You’re not a libertarian by any stretch of the word, and need to stop pretending you are. War is the health of the state, and if you want to be warmonger then go be one and comment on how you “saw the light” and regret your past libertarianism.

But when your OBVIOUS PERSONAL BIAS leads you to threaten a run against the most prominent elected libertarian in the nation, and then to support a two-bit neoconservative hack in his attempt to unseat him, you’re a TRAITOR to libertarianism. I’d disagree with you—and probably dislike you—if you left the movement and became a “former libertarian.” But I’d have some respect for you. Your sad, sad attempt to have it both ways shows that you have NO PRINCIPLES. You’re an angry, insignificant excuse for a man who isn’t guided by anything more than your own ego.

You have no principles. You have no credibility. And you have no SOUL.

“Go now, and die in whatever manner seems best for you.” So long as it’s at least 100 yards from our movement.

April 6th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Hey, Paulie Frankel is that you? See you’ve got a new “pet” name with the bogus “Jack Parkman.””

I’m almost positive in saying that’s not Paulie.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12640

Personally, I am for Bob Barr for president. Is Barr as pure a libertarian as most LP members would like? Maybe, maybe not. Is Bob Barr light years better than Clinton, Obama, McCain and Nader? Absolutely.

This year provides libertarians a unique opportunity. Bob Barr is perfectly positioned to take advantage of it and, at the very least, secure ballot access for the future. It’s been a very unusual election cycle. Anything can happen—especially if the nincompoop neocons attack Iran and the economy continues to tank.

I want the Libertarian Party to have more influence, more members, and more elected representatives in government. I will not however, compromise core libertarianism for electoral success. Lest anybody wants to paint me as a purist who has a prescription for failure, I believe that a good strategy and promotion of libertarian policies means realizing that not all government coercion is going to be eliminated in a day. Let’s face it, those who would abandon core libertarianism because the “voters don’t like them” have essentially given up on libertarianism. I believe our principles are best for people, and finding the best way to persuade the voters of this is our best overall program. I am not willing to throw “the baby out with the bathwater”.

My “prescription” is; adherence to core libertarian principles coupled with the best strategy to promote our ideas to the voters. In my view, Mary Ruwart meets these criteria best.

Mr. Williams, keep laughing, humor is good for the psyche; but I find your rants fall very far short of having value.

HAHHAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA….More living proof…

Wes Benedict Says:
April 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am

First, I’ll disclose that I’m a Bob Barr for president supporter. I’ve contributed $1,000 to his campaign. I’ve also contributed $500 to Mary Ruwart and $250 to Wayne Allyn Root; okay, also $825 to Ron Paul.

Today Silence in the face of the Rising Threat of Islamo-Fascism is akin to Silence during the Holocaust.

If you apologize for Al Qaeda, or lend to their cause by opposing the War on Islamo-Fascism, you’re as good as supporting Al Qaeda yourself.

Thus, you are no different than the Germans who allowed their country to be taken over by the crazed Nazis in the 1930s.

Your silence sill lead eventually to the deaths of tens of millions of Americans.

Given up on those Cannolis ‘eh? Guess you finally remembered what happen to that other guy who went fetchin’ those Cannolis.

“Leave the gun in the car, but bring the Cannolis…”

Those “controversial ties” of yours in the ahem… “underground” got you sweatin’ perhaps?

Hey Knapp, isn’t Ron Paul the enemy? RP is a Republican who talks to the evil Glenn Beck (as per Knapp a few threads back)....so I guess you are the enemy too Binaca, guilty by association … I rest my case.

You people remind me of the guy at work who doesn’t have a favorite team, he “likes all of them”...so he can jump on the ‘winning’ bandwagon as soon as it comes along and say “weeee look at me…I’m a winner and you’re not…it’s fun being a grown up 2nd grader…weeee”

As I implied above, if Root needs an LP attitude adjustment he’ll get one.

Asinine references to a “key cultural point vis a vis the LP” aside, the VP decision should involve many factors, including realpolitik. The VP nominee should be someone who brings something to the table. You’re right, the VP decision IS separate. But you’re wrong about the rationale.

I’d like to have a minority, a woman, celebrity status, experience, credibility, military service, etc., in a nominee. But I’d mainly like balance. If the presidential nominee is someone like Bob Barr, I’d rather not have a similar candidate get the VP nod. IN CHOOSING THE VP NOMINEE, EVERYTHING SHOULD BE BACK ON THE TABLE. IF A CANDIDATE WHO ALSO RAN FOR PRESIDENT BRINGS SOMETHING TO THE TICKET, THEY’RE AN OPTION. If a candidate emerges because the presidential nominee brings them into the loop, that should be considered. The LP need not bow down to the nominee and coronate his/her choice, but it’d be foolish to be so inflexible as to not give the nominee’s prefered choice MAJOR CONSIDERATION.

What if Ron Paul does enter the race, and has a big name in mind for VP who isn’t even an LP member? Are we to pass up the chance to spread libertarian ideals and expand our base out of “cultural points?” I love the LP but if we want to be a player in the political arena we can’t cling to ceremonial traditions out of sentimentality.

2. Steve Kubby is a terrible candidate. Is he a nice guy? A purist? To be admired? Yes, yes, and yes. But this election will represent a major opportunity to present libertarianism as a viable, mainstream alternative to the two parties. There IS an alternative to the fascist warmongering of the right and the socialism of the left. We’d be fools to nominate someone who will (rightly or wrongly) be viewed as a single-issue candidate (drug war) with no government experience. It’d set the movement back 20 years.

3. Will Eric Dondero please just drop dead? Seriously, is this self-important asshat actually trying to promote a bigger tent? This is the fool who thinks drumming Ron Paul out of the libertarian movement is a good idea and has invited Saul “Silence Debate” Anuzis to his little circle jerk session.

Let me get this straight: we have a neoconservative poser actively trying to reduce libertarian influence in Congress, making cozy with those who want to push libertarian ideals out of the GOP race, but he’s the champion of expanding the base? Oh, and after he rants about Wayne Root (who I have nothing against), he then attacks everyone who’s NOT a fan of the War on Terror as “hating America first.”

But according to Dondero, there’s no “purity test” for his little rump organization.

Then again, this is the same clown who flagrantly fabricates information and has the nerves to speak for others by claiming that libertarians were “flocking to Giuliani.”

Eric, find a hobby. You’re done. You’ve been exposed. You’re nothing more than a vindictive shell of a man. You may have labored long and hard for the cause, but you’ve lost all credibility and the best thing you can do for libertarianism is to fade away.

As far as Ron Paul is concerned, the perception that his exposure via the Republican debates, that as the LP candidate Paul would give the LP the potential for 2 to 3 million or more votes, minimizes the necessity of radicalism as the main goal. There is no question, in the presidential electoral world, law (ie constitutional law) is the target. As Harry Browne explained many times, once we reach having the federal government operating purely constitutionally, the rest of us who want to go further can rent out the Superdome to talk about it. (a little sarcasm Harry used there at the end).

However, this does not mean that purely constitutional government is the LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S members position. Nor should fundamental libertarianism call for only constitution’s limitations of government, and adopt as libertarian theory’s limitations of the government. Thus, the platform ought to adhere to libertarian theory, and seek to abolish all functions of government which are coercive/aggressive in nature. I’ll not define this, but government limitation beyond the constitution is a no brainer for every thoughtful libertarian. Even Ron Paul agrees the constitution is flawed, and could be more limiting of government, in certain areas.

So, I know the radicalism is there, it just is not the “political goal” for the forseeable future. As a matter of fact, Mary Ruwart’s way of delivering her positions on problems in society and with government’s intrusion into it, appear rather commonsensical. It takes the “edge” off the extreme nature of what she proposes. Without knowing it, her way of explaining the lack of coercive elements in society (anarchy), that is, the “good neighbor” policy she promotes, we seen to rather easily accept it as right. A given. An OBVIOUS truth!

I think it is truly remarkable how she disarms a great deal of opposition to her “solution to the problem”! We really ought to, NO . . . NEED TO promote Ms. Ruwart and her unique approach to persuading in a inoffensive, warm, and non threatening way. Has any of the prior LP presidential candidates ever TRIED to reach voters in this way? Not to my knowledge, yet the most radical libertarian candidate we can potentially have, ever (Mary Ruwart) can be radical and strangely mainstream at the same time! I say we go for it, and forget about “star power” or prior government experience, or smooth talking salesman, and see how it goes.

Libertarians, and a host of other interested people will see the light and vote for Ruwart if we promote her approach far and wide.

In a nutshell, the Reform Caucus is changing the wrong things within the LP. The fundamentals, the radicalism isn’t wrong, the strategy is. The promotional strategy is wrong. Mary Ruwart’s strategy is right!