Friday, October 17, 2008

About that strange Libertarian silence....

... that jason over at Delawareliberal keeps imputing to us regarding eight years of Dubya shredding the US Constitution, bloating the budget, and engaging in imperialistic foreign wars:

As Steve moans and winges for the next 8 years I’ll laugh my ass off recalling the utter silence created by high mineded “Libertarians” during Bush’s term.

OK jason, the current LP archive for press releases only goes back into 2007, but let's see what we find:

September 25, 2007:

The Libertarian Party rejects President Bush's claims that the "Protect America Act" needs to be made permanent, citing that the bill fails to live up to its name and only limits American civil liberties. The controversial Act that was passed by Congress last August altered the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and legalized the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap program, which many civil liberties organizations had strongly protested....

Here's part of the note of condolence that the LP sent to the GOP in February 2008 when John McCain secured the Presidential nomination:

"Libertarians encourage competition within both the free-market and politics. Unfortunately, with the rise of John McCain and the big-spending practices of the Bush administration, the two-party system has emerged as representing only one philosophy - big-government liberalism.

With your loss, the Libertarian Party will continue to move forward to represent those American patriots who still believe in smaller government, lower taxes and more individual freedom."

"McCain's Super Tuesday win marks the death of limited government values within the Republican Party, which had struggled with its principles throughout the Bush administration," says Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian Party. "It is a day of mourning for the few remaining small-government Republicans."

April 28, 2008:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Libertarian Party issued a statement from Executive Director Shane Cory following the announcement of the federal government's new practice of collecting DNA data from people arrested, though not convicted, for federal offenses:

"The new practice of collecting DNA data from people arrested for federal crimes raises serious privacy concerns. The government will now be compiling a databank from people arrested, though not convicted, of any federal crime. Therefore, if you are detained for a federal crime, even a minor offense in a national park, you will have your DNA stored forever with the federal government. This is a sad day for privacy rights in a country that used to value the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty.' However, this comes as no surprise given this Republican administration's eagerness to increase the power and scope of the federal government."

June 6, 2008:

The Libertarian Party is questioning John McCain's rhetoric of bringing "real change" to Washington after it was revealed by a McCain adviser that the Republican presidential candidate supports the warrantless wiretap programs of the Bush administration. "McCain's support of President Bush's domestic spying program would indicate that a McCain administration would be another four years of Constitution treading and civil liberties abuse," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis.

Even though I'm not supporting Bob Barr [primarily for domestic policy reasons], it is equally instructive to see his position on the Iraq war:

The invasion and occupation of Iraq were two separate mistakes, which collectively have cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Every day that the occupation in Iraq continues without a withdrawal plan is a day that more American blood and treasure (some $400 million a day) is needlessly wasted....

Then there's Georgia Libertarian Senatorial candidate Allen Buckley, whose latest ad (it's on Vimeo at the link; I couldn't get it to embed properly), is quite clear according to AJC [and quite consistent with the positions he took in his 2006 run for Lt. Gov.}:

The Libertarian candidate in a U.S. Senate race that’s getting ever more complicated says he’s about to launch two TV ads.

In the one posted below, Smyrna attorney Allen Buckley makes passing references to the economy and the bailout, but concentrates on the issue of the Iraq war, which he calls a “fraud.”

How about North Carolina Senatorial candidate Chris Cole, who says clearly:

When asked why he chose to run for federal office, Cole said issues such as the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq drove him to get into the race.

I will grant jason the existent of certain pro-war Libertarian Republicans, just as he would have to grant that certain politicians like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman have used the term Democrat to describe themselves, when most of the part itself doesn't accept them.

The sad fact of the matter, which jason and most Democrats prefer to forget/ignore, is that big-L Libertarians have been more consistently against civil rights violations like the Patriot Act, interventionist military adventures like Iraq and nation-building in Afghanistan, and the bloating of the Federal budget with massive debt than any of them have ever been.

It damn sure wasn't Libertarian votes that joined the Republicans and the Democrats to authorize force in Iraq, to pass either version of the Patriot Act, or the craven FISA legislation.

Not that it will matter: jason had his narrative, and he'll stick with it, no matter what the facts.


Hube said...

Steve! Steve! You're wasting your time, my friend. You once wrote that Jason writes first and thinks later (if at all, really). Don't think that will ever change.

Jason started out as a troll among the blogs and the WNJ, one who constantly "called me out" on virtually everything and refused to maintain a reasoned discourse. He's only gotten worse since the inception of DL.

Eric Dondero said...

A poll was conducted in 2004 by LP News which found that clearly 40% of Libertarian Party members were in favor of the War in Iraq. To say that only Libertarian Republicans are Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism is simply a lie.

You need to run a correction of that blatant falsehood.

Steve Newton said...

Cut the crap, Eric

1) A survey by LP News barely touches a fraction of Libertarians

2) Subsequent evidence is pretty clear that primarily your "Libertarian Republicans" prefer interventionist war to an non-aggressive foreign policy

3) If you had any evidence that wasn't four years old, you'd use it

Steve Newton said...

I've spent most of the day sitting in airports--got nothing better to do than poke through the bars of his cage....

Pietro de Simone said...

If libertarians actually ever walked the balk they would turn their little venal crusade supposedly waged on behalf of “freedom” and “the individual” not just at government infrastructure and moral doctrine but at the “private” realm of concentrated power and wealth which dominates their own lives – as well as the very economy they want to liberate. In short, libertarians deny that the realities of overwhelming bureaucracies are not distinctly the work of “federal” planning but actually endemic to liberal capitalism itself, to both the “private” and “public” realms, where interest group bargaining and the forming of corporate cartels with high-priced lawyers have always been the norm. Ever hear of Frederick Winslow Taylor? JP Morgan? Henry Ford? Enron?

The ugly truth is that the banking and financial sectors are themselves the absolute epitome of hierarchical command and control, mindless paper trails, and a bunch of middle-class stiffs in business suits whose job it is to serve The Man.

Steve Newton said...

Our venal little crusade, Pietro, often includes working against corporatism, which you'd know if you actually read this or any other really Libertarian blog.

For example, you might try

Wherein Tom Knapp explains the need for Libertarians to be against corporate personhood and the liability shields that the State provides for poor conduct.

But that, unfortunately, would require you to both read and think about the venal Libertarians, which quite obviously will never happen.

Eric Dondero said...

Yeah Steve, and if it found that 99% of all Libertarian Party members opposed the War on Islamo-Fascism, I'm sure you'd be playing it up.

As it is, the findings are inconvenient, so you conveniently call the poll "crap."

Then again, you're a Newbie to the Libertarian Party, so you wouldn't know anything about the fact that the LP has had a strong and steady Pro-Defense wing since its inception. In fact, the very first LP Prez candidate John Hospers is a Founding member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus, and even endorsed Bush over Badnarik in 2004, because he supported the Iraq War and Badnarik did not.

Another inconvienent fact for you, no doubt.

Eric Dondero said...

What "agressive foreign policy" Steve? We were attacked!!!

I guess you've forgotten about your 3000 fellow countrymen who were burned alive, had their knives slit by boxcutters, or had to jump out of 110 story windows to their deaths on 9/11.

And don't give me any BS about Saddam not being involved. That's been disproven 1,000 times over. Turns out he was a supreme backer of Terrorism including Al Qaeda throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s.

He may even have had a hand in the Oklahoma City Bombing.

But again, inconvenient facts that don't quite fit your Blame America First template, so you ignore them.

PS, I'd be willing to bet, that at least a few of the 3000 who perished at the Pentagon in DC and at the Twin Towers were Delawareans. So, how about showing a little compassion for their families, but supporting vengence against the Terrorists, 'eh?

Eric Dondero said...

You want evidence that isn't "4 years old"?

Look at all the "Fair-Weather Libertarians" who've been emerging in the last few months, claiming that they were "never opposed to the Iraq War, and supported it all along..."

When we were losing n 2005/06, some of our fellow Libertarians were more than willing to diss Bush and the War. Now that we've won, all of a sudden, Libertarians are coming out of the woodwork, saying "they supported the Surge all along."

Yeah, right! Where were you when the going was tough in 2005/06?

Shirley Vandever said...

I honestly don't know why you are so obsessed with DL. He is an obsessed moron who does not contribute to any reasoned discourse.

Keep it classy, Steve.

Bowly said...

He could also try Reason's Hit and Run for Bush criticism, or The Distributed Republic, or Cato-At-Liberty...just to name a few. There are hundreds of them out there. That he hasn't found them is an embarrassing indication of how narrowly and/or how little he reads.

Steve Newton said...

Totally off subject: has anybody reported problems loading your blog? I'd ask over there but everytime I try to load LR (or even a single post via google) it locks up my browser.

Don't know if anybody else has these problems, but I have now had them on two different computers and thought you might want to check.

Steve Newton said...

If, in 2004, 60% of the LP objected to the War in Iraq, that made the LP far more anti-war than any other major political party. In 2004 80% of the Democrats and GOPers supported the war.

As for your other cheap shots, here's the truth

1) The 2004 LP poll was a partial poll of subscribers to a specific periodical (and registered LP members); it was not scientific and has no claims to accuracy

2) Your persistent need to argue that anybody who disagrees with you must have forgotten September 11 is exactly what I'd expect.... a passionate, pseudo-patriotic smear

3) When all else fails, accuse me of being a "newbie" to the LP--as if you knew much about my history, or as if that matters to the accuracy of my statements.

But plainly you have to be worried that your jingoistic, militaristic vaux-Libertarian viewpoint is being challenged successfully--or you wouldn't be bothering to respond here.

Read (in simpler terms): if I'm so wrong and so insignificant, why are you even engaging me?

Rob Power said...

Also, that LP poll in 2004 was clearly a fundraising gimmick. Most of us who aren't "newbies" in the LP (I was around for Browne's first campaign a dozen years ago, and before that I was too young to vote) simply ignored the poll. We knew it wasn't scientific, and that the pro-war Republicans who had wriggled themselves into key positions in the LP would nonetheless ignore the results (which they did, since 60% opposed the war, and the LP still refused to take an official anti-war stance until years later).

Libertarian Girl said...

Nice list there.

I've found that many people, when confronted with facts that prove them wrong, simply ignore the facts and try to go on their merry little way.

The guy's assertion is so ridiculous that it gave me quite a laugh. Nice job refuting it.