Rudy Giuliani: Public Funding For Abortion Is A Constitutional Right

In an interview with CNN political reporter Dana Bush, Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said that he still supports public funding for abortions for poor women:

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (CNN) — Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani told CNN Wednesday he supports public funding for some abortions, a position he advocated as mayor and one that will likely put the GOP presidential candidate at odds with social conservatives in his party.

“Ultimately, it’s a constitutional right, and therefore if it’s a constitutional right, ultimately, even if you do it on a state by state basis, you have to make sure people are protected,” Giuliani said in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash in Florida’s capital city.

Giuliani’s argument is, of course, nonsense. Using this logic, you could also argue that the poor have a right to federal subsidies to allow them to buy a home since property rights are a constitutional right, or that the government should provide people with free access to television broadcast facilities so that they can exercise their constitutional right to freedom of speech.

In the same interview, Giuliani also suggested that the judges he appoints could conceivably find that Roe v. Wade, one of the most illogical Supreme Court decisions ever, was good law:

“A strict constructionist judge can come to either conclusion about Roe against Wade,” he said. “They can look at it and say, ‘Wrongly decided thirty years ago, whatever it is, we’ll over turn it.’ [Or] they can look at it and say, ‘It has been the law for this period of time, therefore we are going to respect the precedent.’ Conservatives can come to that conclusion as well. I would leave it up to them. I would not have a litmus test on that.”

Personally, I am generally pro-choice. I also happen to have actually read Roe v. Wade and find it to be one of the worst examples of judicial overreach ever to come out of the Supreme Court. What concerns me is the idea that Giuliani’s idea of strict constructionist judges includes people able to look at an illogical decision and decide not to overturn it.

But that’s beside the point really. If nothing else, Giuliani’s continued belief that public funds should be used to provide a medical procedure to poor women, along with his belief that just because something is a constitutionally protected right means that it deserves to be subsidized by tax dollars, is yet further evidence Rudy Giuliani is not a libertarian under any conceivable definition of that word.

Update: And thanks to YouTube, you can hear Rudy say it himself:

H/T: GopProgress

  • Wild Pegasus

    What if he supports public funding for aborting terrorist babies? Huh? What then, smart guy?!?

    – Josh

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Josh,

    I’ll let our good friend Mr. Dondero answer that one ;)

  • Nick M.

    Awesome, I really hope some repub runs with this and buries him with it. Then maybe Dondero will shut the f up. Seriously, I can not see any republicans voting for someone that believes “killing babies” should be publicly funded. It’s not even a question of the religious right, it’s the whole freakin’ party.

    Disclaimer: I’m pro-choice, “killing babies” was for demonstration purposes only.

    Nick

  • uhm

    I wonder if this is the first step towards a eugenics policy if he is elected.

  • LLR

    I am going to go a little bit off the subject and say this.

    I am pro-life, but even if I was pro-choice I would not support tax dollars going to this. Pro-Choice supporters are always saying that it’s a private decision. Well I say that it should be funded with private funds.

    Where I live (Mississippi) the health clinic gives out birth control and condoms. There is no telling what other stuff they give out. I am sick and tire of “liberals” saying stay out of my bedroom when they won’t stay out of my wallet. If we are not suppose to be in your bedroom then we sure should not be funding bedroom behavior.

    Also under Rudy’s rational the government should be proving guns to low income families. The 2nd amendment is clear and the government should be protecting our right to bear arms instead of taking it away. I think that under Rudy’s plan the gov’t should provide guns, gun ranges, ammo, and training free.

  • Michael

    I’d rather the State pay for the abortion over 18 years of child raising.

  • uhm

    Michael, you should look into moving to China ;)

  • uhm

    PORTSMOUTH, N.H. – Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday defended President Bush’s extensive use of national security tools such as the USA Patriot Act as no worse than other countries, but Sen. Barack Obama said he would use executive orders to roll back some of those powers.
    “The Patriot Act does give the government more tools, more power, but it’s not vastly out of line with what other governments have, free governments, democratic governments,” Mr. Giuliani told the Portsmouth Chamber of Commerce while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination here in New Hampshire./

    http://washtimes.com/national/20070404-122704-5881r.htm

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    I’m starting to wonder why a Blog site called Liberty Papers has turned into the “Daily Bash Rudy Giuliani” site?

    Could it be that you all recognize what a threat Giuliani presents to Radical Libertarianism? For the first time ever we have a Moderate Libertarian running for President on a major party ticket, and lo and behold the guy is ahead in all the polls.

    I’m starting to suspect that the Radical Libertarians are more scared of Giuliani, than even Leftist Republican-hating Democrats.

    If Giuliani, a Moderate Libertarian wins the Presidency, the Radical Libertarian approach will be doomed.

    Thus, we see all the vitriolic bashing of Rudy Giuliani on Liberty Papers almost on a daily basis, now.

    Do we see any bashing of Hillary Clinton? Hussein Obama? Even John McCain?

    Nope. It’s all Bash Rudy, 24/7, 365 days a year.

    Something more is at work here than meets the eye.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    BTW, there was an article in the Boston Herald yesterday about the GOP primaries. They asked an older gentelman what he thought of Romney. He praised Giuliani, and then said, unlike Giuliani, “Romney is not libertarian enough for me.”

    Bet you won’t see any reporting of that quote, or other mentions of Rudy as a “libertarian” here at the “Bash Rudy 24/7 365 days a year Network,” otherwise known as Liberty Papers.

  • TerryP

    Eric

    Guiliani is getting “bashed”, because unlike with Clinton, Obama, and McCain, people such as yourself keep telling us that he is libertarian. If people like yourself continue to tell us that he is a libertarian expect plenty of comments about why he is not. If you want the posts and comments to stop, then stop telling us that he is a libertarian.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    Giuliani isn’t the only candidate I’ve gone after on this site, I’m no fan of McCain either.

    And I notice you aren’t addressing the real issue here — how can someone who supports public funding for abortion and believes that such funding is a “constitutional right” be considered a libertarian in any sense of the word ?

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    BTW, there was an article in the Boston Herald yesterday about the GOP primaries. They asked an older gentelman what he thought of Romney. He praised Giuliani, and then said, unlike Giuliani, “Romney is not libertarian enough for me.”

    Again, you’re making the assumption that just because someone calls Rudy a libertarian that is in fact one. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

  • tarran

    Didn’t the New York Times lay the blame for the U.S. loss in Iraq on Bush’s free market policies in that country?

    So apparently even George Bush is a libertarian.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    On George Bush a “libertarian” guess you missed the news from yesterday. Of course, you wouldn’t see it here on the Democrat-backed suck Leftwing Dick site otherwise known as Liberty Papers. Cause, you know it puts Republicans and Bush in a good light. So, it must be ignored here at Liberty Papers.

    Anyway, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH APPOINTED A LIBERTARIAN AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

    Andrew Biggs, Researcher at the Cato Institute was appointed by Bush despite the Democrats trying to block the nomination.

    Biggs becomes the 5th or 6th Libertarian appointee in the Bush Adminstration. Others have included: Former Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair Gayle Norton as Interior Secretary (she has since resigned), The head of the Civil Rights Commission (his name escapes me at the moment, but he is a self-described “libertarian”), Chris Cox to head the SEC, Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation as Undersecretary of Interior, and former Libertarian National Committeeman Bill Evers to the Education Dept. Advisory Comm.

    Now, question for you all. Do you EVER hear about any of this on any Libertarian sites? Does Liberty Papers, or LewRockwell.com ever talk about how Bush has appointed more Libertarians to his Administration than any previous President in US History?

    Jimmy Carter – 1 Libertarian Appointee, Charles Murray

    Reagan – 3 Libertarian Appointees, Doug Bandow (Educ. Comm.), Dana Rohrabacher (Speechwriter), and Clarenc Thomas, EEOC

    Bush 1 – 1 Libertarian Appointee, James Pinkerton as Top Policy Advisor

    Clinton – 0 Libertarian Appointees

    Bush 2 – 5 to 6 Libertarian Appointees (There’s another SEC guy, sorry I forget his name, but he also calls himself a “libertarian”)

    Note, also that except for Rohrabacher, no hardcore exlicit Libertarian Appointee of any Administration HAS EVER had ties to the Libertarian Party until Bush 2. Bill Evers, Gayle Norton and Lynn Scarlett are hardcore Libertarians with extensive ties to the Libertarian Party. Evers served as Campaign Manager for David Bergland for President in 1983. Norton was Colorado Chair of the Libertarian Party in 1982.

  • http://thelibertypapers.org/2005/11/22/a-bit-about-kevin/ Kevin

    On George Bush a “libertarian” guess you missed the news from yesterday. Of course, you wouldn’t see it here on the Democrat-backed suck Leftwing Dick site otherwise known as Liberty Papers. Cause, you know it puts Republicans and Bush in a good light. So, it must be ignored here at Liberty Papers.

    Anyway, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH APPOINTED A LIBERTARIAN AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.

    Andrew Biggs, Researcher at the Cato Institute was appointed by Bush despite the Democrats trying to block the nomination.

    Biggs becomes the 5th or 6th Libertarian appointee in the Bush Adminstration. Others have included: Former Libertarian Party of Colorado Chair Gayle Norton as Interior Secretary (she has since resigned), The head of the Civil Rights Commission (his name escapes me at the moment, but he is a self-described “libertarian”), Chris Cox to head the SEC, Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation as Undersecretary of Interior, and former Libertarian National Committeeman Bill Evers to the Education Dept. Advisory Comm.

    Now, question for you all. Do you EVER hear about any of this on any Libertarian sites? Does Liberty Papers, or LewRockwell.com ever talk about how Bush has appointed more Libertarians to his Administration than any previous President in US History?

    Eric, it doesn’t matter how libertarians Bush appoints to his cabinet. It matters if Bush takes their advice. Bush’s record states that on spending, civil liberties, and federalism; Bush has not been listening to his libertarian appointees.

  • uhm

    Moreover, while the Bush administration has been taking victory laps as the unified budget deficit declined from $413 billion in 2004 to $318 billion in 2005 and $248 billion in 2006, the annual increase in the national debt barely changed. The national debt soared by $595 billion in 2004, $551 billion in 2005 and $546 billion in 2006. To put a fine point on the matter, the national debt has increased from $5.728 trillion on Jan. 20, 2001, to $8.713 trillion last week. When fiscal 2007 ends on Sept. 30, the national debt will exceed $9 trillion, according to the administration’s forecast.

    http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070212-091022-6828r.htm

    http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Mataconis,

    I direct you to ontheissues.org that rates all the major Presidential candidates on a variety of issues. They give Giuliani a score of 60/60. He is the only one besides Ron Paul at 70/70 to get a Libertarian designation. They rate Giuliani as a “Moderate Libertarian.”

    Secondly, unlike you, who obviously lives in La La Land of Politics, I prefer to stay in the Real World of American Politics. Endorsements DO MATTER to folks like me.

    And though I see numerous Libertarians backing Giuliani, I see NO LIBERTARIANS BACKING ANYONE ELSE.

    Let’s recap shall we:

    Giuliani Libertarian & Libertarian Conservative endorsements: Dennis Miller, Cong. David Dreier, Cong. Ed Royce, MI State Rep. Jack Brandenburg, Steve Forbes, Bill Simon, CA State Assmb. Mark Vilinus, and CA State Sen. Ken Pachoogian.

    Libertarians who have publicly let it be known that they are “seriously leaning towards Giuliani”: Stephen Moore, formerly of the Cato Institute and Club for Growth, Edward Crane, President of Cato, and Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform.

    Libertarians supporting Ron Paul: Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and many grass roots Libertarians. (But no prominent Libertarians or Libertarian celebrities, currently backing Paul).

    Libertarians endorsing any other Republican candidates:

    Zero

    (There are some rumors that Cong. Jeff Flake is leaning toward backing fellow Arizonan John McCain. Also, there are some rumors that the formerly Libertarian Billionairs Charles & David Koch are funding Sam Brownback’s campaign)

    Sorry Mataconis, but I think I’d rather be on the side of the Dennis Millers, Ed Cranes, Stephen Moores, Grover Norquists, Jack Brandenburgs and Ed Royces of the world.)

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    So are you now saying that George W. Bush — the man who signed McCain-Feingold into law, who authorized warrentless wiretaps and holding people without access to Courts or counsel, and who has presided over six years of fiscal mismanagement — is a libertarian just because he appointed a few libertarians to a few positions ?

    You’re kidding right ?

    Anyway, there are two reasons I haven’t blogged about this “news.” First, until you mentioned it I didn’t know about it — it didn’t exactly make the front page of the newspaper, you know. Second, even if I did know about it I wouldn’t blog about it for a very simple reason — it means absolutely nothing

    The fact that Bush appointed one person from Cato to a relatively meaningless position (or that he’s appointed others with libertarian leanings in the past) means nothing compared to the record he’s compiled over six years in office.

    George W. Bush is barely a conservative. Calling him a libertarian is either a sick joke or an indication that someone is smoking something very interesting.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Sorry Mataconis, but I think I’d rather be on the side of the Dennis Millers, Ed Cranes, Stephen Moores, Grover Norquists, Jack Brandenburgs and Ed Royces of the world.)

    And, Dondero, unlike you, I’d rather be right than popular.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Deputy Director of the Social Security Administration a “meaningless position.” You are now on record Mataconis for saying something completely and utterly stupid.

    Do you also consider Interior Secretary to be a “meaningless position”?

    Again, Gayle Norton was not just some person who sent the Libertarian Party $20 dues one year. SHE WAS THE FRIGGIN STATE CHAIRWOMAN OF THE COLORADO LIBERTARIAN PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Doesn’t that mean anything to You??

    Would you rather a President NOT appoint prominent Libertarians to Cabinet Positions?

    And Bill Evers. Do you know anything at all about Libertarian Party history?

    Bill Evers is one of the most longest serving, hardcore Libertarian Party activists in the history of our movement. He ranks right up there with the Don Ernsebergers, Cliff Thieses, Bill Redpaths, Steve Dasbachs and David Nolans as one of the all-time Libertarian Party stalwarts.

    And Bush appointed him to an Educational Committee Panel, AND sent him to Iraq to advise the Iraqis on Education.

    And you describe this as simply “meaningless”?

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    Yes, these appointments are entirely meaningless, because they say nothing about how the Bush Administration has actually governed over the past six years. Reagan may not have appointed as many libertarians as Bush 43, but I would submit that he was much closer to being a libertarian in his policies than Bush 43 will ever be.

    But you haven’t really answered my question — are you really saying that George W. Bush is a libertarian ? If yes, then what evidence, other than a few appointments he’s made over the years (and 6 people is an incredibly small number compared to the number of appointments he’s actually made) do you have to support this ?

    Oh wait, I bet I know — someone called him a libertarian once didn’t they ?

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    No, I am not saying George Bush is a “libertarian”. I’m not even saying George Bush is “libertarian leaning.” I say as I’ve always said, that Bush is a Moderate Republican, with very, very slight Conservative leanings. He’s a 55/50 on the WSPQ. He’s right on the Military Draft, Guns, Affirmative Action, Taxes, ANWR (Oil Drilling & Energy), decent on Privatization of Social Security, and wrong on a whole host of issues. He’s right down the middle.

    But, HE IS LIBERTARIAN FRIENDLY!!!

    This is a man who knows who libertarians are. When he was Governor of my State for 6 years, he made a serious effort to help Ron Paul win his election in 1996.

    I was serving as RP’s Campaign Coordinator. I had two private phone conversations with Carl Rove. At a critical point when we were behind Democrat Lefty Morris in that first campaign, Rove (and Bush) put the word out to all South Texas Republicans (Houston), to pull out all the stops for Paul. And magically, within days the campaign turned around.

    I dare say, Ron Paul would not be a United States Congressman today if it were not for George W. Bush (and Carl Rove).

    So how did the Libertarians respond to this?

    Why, they kicked George Bush in the teeth, of course.

    That’s the Libertarian way. “You scratch my back, and you continue to scratch my back, and I return the favor by calling you every ugly name in the book.”

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    As a matter of fact, someone did call Bush a “libertarian” once.

    Jeff Birnbaum of Fortune Magazine on Fox News in 2004, said the following: “George Bush seems to be running a libertarian style campaign of tax cuts and cutting spending…”

    But you’re right, Bush has been called a Fascist and worse by many, as well.

    Here’s my favorite from the former Democrat Mayor of Baltimore, now Governor of the Great State of Maryland Bill O’Mally, circa 2004:

    “George Bush doesn’t care about state and local governments… He has cut so much spending, so many taxes that he’s like a 9/11 Terrorist.”

    I want to make sure you understand that quote Mataconis. For it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!

    The Democrat Governor of the State of Maryland (and you live in Virginia don’t you, so you ought to be familiar with this guy), actually compared Bush to a “9/11 Terrorist” for his “severe cuts” to state and local governments.

    Now, help me out here, will ya.

    I’ve got crazy-ass Radical Libertarians on one side of me, saying that Bush is a Fascist, Communist, Ugly-ass Redneck Puke whose Mother wears Army Boots cause he has increased spending by leaps and bounds and hasn’t cut any taxes, and on the other side of me I’ve got a Democrat Governor of a State with a population of around 5 million, who calls Bush a “9/11 Terrorist” cause he cuts spending and taxes too much.

    As with most things, truth is probably close the middle. Bush is neither an extreme tax and spending cutter as the Democrats claim, nor a big government tax and spender as the Radical Libertarians claim.

    He is what he is, a 50/50 straight down the middle sort of guy.

    Squishy? Yes. Moderate? Yes.

    A “9/11 Terrorist” or a “Communist/Fascist Big Government guy” No, neither one.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    George Bush…..libertarian friendly.

    Okay, it took me about 10 minutes of good solid belly laughing before I could address that issue.

    Again, you’re kidding, right. Other than the tax cuts, name one Bush Administration policy that actually supports that assertion. This is the same guy who appointed an Attorney General — John Ashcroft — who went to war against California because he didn’t think people who were dying of cancer should be allowed to smoke marijuana. And he may have talked a good game on Social Security, but when push came to shove he never did anything about it. And then there’s the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. And, oh yeah, McCain-Feingold again.

    Bush may well have supported Paul in 96, but I would submit that it was because the man was a Republican, not because of his ideology. Admit, though, you’re really just mad at Congressman Paul because he disagrees with you about the war, right ?

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Reagan “more libertarian than Bush.” Are you friggin’ kidding me??

    The guy that threw my friend Paul Jacob and 18 others in jail for 6 months for refusing to register for the Draft?

    GEORGE W. BUSH IS ADAMNETLY OPPOSED TO THE MILITARY DRAFT.

    Does he get any credit for this? Nah. Once again, ungrateful fuck Libertarians:

    “You scratch my back, and continue to scratch my back, and I’ll call you ugly names, diss you on my website, support your enemies and oppose you in everything I do.”

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    Bush is neither a facist nor a 9/11 terrorist, he’s simply incompetent.

    And take my advice, don’t ever take anything Governor O’Malley says seriously.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    George Bush may oppose the draft but he:

    1. Signed into a law a campaign finance bill that muzzles political speech

    2. Heads an Administration that actively opposed state efforts to legalize marijuana for medical purposes.

    3. Instituted an electronic surveillance program that purposely evades the requirements of FISA

    4. Holds people in confinement without access to courts or attorneys

    5. Signed on to the biggest expansion of Medicare since the days of LBJ

    6. Let the federal budget and the deficit skyrocket beyond belief.

    This is the man you contend is “friendly” to libertarians ?

    With friends like that, we don’t need enemies.

  • tarran

    I’m amazed that people could consider George Bush’s private accounts and improvement over the current Social Security system.

    My reasoning is a href=”http://www.reason.com/blog/show/115524.html#47211″>here

  • tarran

    Aaah. Stupid html tags. clickable link

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    I see how you tried to twist my words there. That’s libertarian friendly as in “friend of libertarians,” not as in “leaning libertarian.” Big difference.

    So fucking what Bush supported Paul in 1996 because he was a Republican and not because of his libertarian side. So fucking what???!!!

    The point is HE SUPPORTED RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!

    This is the greatest underreported story of the entire history of the libertarian movement.

    Libertarians like you NEVER thanked Bush for this. Instead you KICKED HIM IN THE TEETH MERCISSLY.

    If I was George Bush, and I saw a Libertarian like you, I’d spit in your face. I’d say YOU MOTHER FUCKING UNGRATEFUL LIBERTARIANS. I fucking helped your guy get elected and not only did you NOT thank me, but you attacked me savagely for years after that.

    And you wonder why people hate Libertarians so much? It’s because of ungrateful Libertarians like you. You don’t understand politics. You have no conception that politics is a two-way street.

    Libertarians like you always want Republicans to give, give, give, to you, but you NEVER want to return the favor.

    I’ve seen it with my own eyes: Numerous occasions where Republicans have introduced and helped pass Ballot Access legislation for the Libertarian Party: Georgia, Michigan, Other states.

    Republicans put their reputations on the line. They go out on a limb, to help Libertarians. Their legislation gets passed, and the Libertarians don’t even take the time to write them a thank you letter.

    And of course, the Libertarian Party folks are nowheres to be found when that Republican needs help walking precincts or with a campaign contribution in a tough election. They scatter, and pretend they don’t even know the Republican who just helped them out.

    Look at Leon Drolet in Michigan. In the Legislature Leon got passed a bill to enormously reduce the ballot access requirements for the Libertarian Party.

    Leon has had two very tough races in the last 3 years, one for reelection to the Legislature, and another for Macomb County Commission.

    You know how many Libertarians turned up to help Leon walk precincts in those two elections?

    1.

    His name is Dan Sheils. Sheils was so disgusted with his fellow LPers not helping Leon, that he left the LP and joined the Republican Liberty Caucus.

    It’s the same deal with Bush.

    Not a single Libertarian Party person ever thanked him for helping to elect Ron Paul to Congress.

    There were no articles written about his support for Paul. No mentions on LewRockwell.com. Hardly anyone even knows about it.

    Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Makes me ashamed to be associated with Ungrateful SOBs in my Libertarian movement. Utterly ashamed.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    And George Bush is the very guy that gave me a hefty tax cut in 2002. In the middle of fucking August!!! out of nowheres I got a $300 check from the Federal Treasury.

    Bush’s tax cut in 2002 trumps every single thing you mention above.

    I’ve never had a Democrat President return $300 of my money to me in the middle of fucking August!

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    And as far as “letting the federal budget skyrocket beyond belief” and Bush’s alleged spending like a drunken sailor on social programs, allow me to tell you a little story:

    Every night I watch Fox News, and switch to CNN and MSNBC when Fox is a little dry. I usually watch the News from about 6:00 pm til about 9:00 pm (Greta talking about Anna Nicolle Smith holds little interest for me).

    During the News, I usually clean the kitchen or take car of the dog, or do other housework, and often times I’m not able to run to the Tube to swich off the commercials.

    Like clockwork, every single night, I’m forced to hear this God-awful Television Commercial by some Political Interest Group called HOPE.

    Perhaps you’ve seen it too. If you watch the Cable News in prime time, you can’t escape this commercial.

    The commercial is all about how the “evil” George W. Bush is slashing programs for the elderly, and for hospital patients. The commercial urges listeners to “Call President Bush now!” and tell him “Mr. Bush, stop cutting government programs for the elderly and for our hospitals that care for them…”

    Now, I’m like, “What the fuck???”

    Every morning I get on Libertarian Message Boards, and I hear all this constant chatter from Radical Libertarians that “Bush is a Big Government Fascist, blah, blah, blah…”

    And at night, I hear the exact opposite on the Cable News. I hear that Bush is a libertarian extremist who wants to cut government and let little old ladies die out in the cold.

    Which is it?

    Like everything in life, the truth is somewheres in the middle. Bush does not want to slash government programs, but neither does he want to grow them. Like your typical Moderate Republican he wants to keep things pretty much the way they are.

    But even more importantly, you’d think that the Libertarians would attack the groups like HOPE, calling them Nazis, Fascists, Communists and such. But noooooooooooo. Why, the Libertarians attack the guy in the middle instead.

    Ah yes, the world turned upside down.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    So as long as Bush buys you off, it doesn’t matter that he’s violating civil liberties left and right, letting the government grow at a rate unseen since the days of LBJ, and supporting legislating that is blatantly unconstitutional ?

    I too appreciated the tax cuts, but I’m not going to ignore the reality of the last six years. There are very few votes I’ve cast over the years that I regret, but the ones I cast for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 are the ones I wish I could take back.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    As of yet, you have not addressed what this post you’re commenting to is all about……

    Do you support Rudy Giuliani’s assertion that taxpayer funding for abortions is a constitutional right ?

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Yupper, Bush is “so incompetent” that he graduated from both Yale and Harvard.

    He’s “so incompetent” that he’s brought freedom and democracy to TWO, not one, but TWO Nations on the planet that were formerly controlled by Murderous Hitler/Stalin like Tyrannical Thugs.

    If that’s the definition of “incompetent” than “bring it on” as they say. I’d like more of that “incompetence.”

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    “And, Dondero, unlike you, I’d rather be right than popular.” From Doug Mataconis, spoken like a true Libertarian Party Libertarian.

    In other words, “I’d rather lose and hold to my principles, than bend a little and actually win something for a change.”

    And you wonder why after 35 years the Libertarian Party has failed to elect a single United States Congressman, Governor of win any other significant Public Office, and has not elected a State Legislator anywheres in the United States in over 10 years?

    Mataconis:

    Life is too short. My guess is that you’re in your 40s, huh?

    I’ve seen countless Libertarians die over the years, and not once have they ever come close to winning anything. They died bitter old resentful men. But oh yes, they went to their graves still “clinging to their principles.”

    You do that Mataconis. You go to your grave never having won an election. You’ll still have your principles.

    Sorry, if I don’t decide to join you, and would rather win, once in a while. Life is too short.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    I am not now, nor have I ever been, active in the Libertarian Party. Frankly, I think the LP has been next to useless for years. I just don’t go around supporting people who I don’t agree with.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    Here’s some truth about George Bush:

    look to discretionary spending—which is made up of defense and all other non-entitlement spending. When you stick to discretionary spending, a slightly different, but hardly better, picture emerges. Richard Nixon, for instance, cut total discretionary spending 15.2 percent, the first George Bush cut it by 3.2 percent, and Bill Clinton by 8 percent in his first term (all three accomplished this by reducing defense spending). Other than that, it’s always been onward and upward. Even Ronald Reagan boosted discretionary spending in both of his terms—by 8.2 percent in the first and 7 percent in the second.

    (…)

    Those figures come by way of the American Enterprise Institute’s Veronique de Rugy, who has calculated that George W. Bush has boosted total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending in his first term by 35.1 percent. To put that in context, chew on this: LBJ—the Texas legend who created the Great Society and, for all intents and purposes, the Vietnam War—only boosted discretionary spending 33.4 percent. What’s more, the gap between Bush and LBJ will only grow

    Source: Reason Magazine, 2005

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Again, you entirely miss the point.

    Don’t blame Bush. Blame yourself. Blame the worthlessness of the entire libertarian movement. Look in the mirror. YOU are to blame for the growth in government NOT GEORGE W. BUSH.

    You “Mr. Spend my time Blogging as a Computer Geek Activist instead of picking up a clipboard and actually doing some work for Liberty.”

    We Libertarians don’t COUNT FOR SHIT in the American electorate. We have almost zero political pull. Our Presidential Numbers for Libertarian Party candidates are pittifully small.

    Why would any politician in their right minds want to cater to us?

    When was the last time you went to the State Capitol in Richmond to lobby for libertarian causes?

    You know the only organization out there who does this? The Republican Liberty Caucus. That’s it!!

    Ahh, the LP has done it sporadically over the years with their “Capitol Hill excursions.” But that was under the deceased Ron Crickenburger.

    President Bush is a politician. He looks at poll numbers. He looks at election results.

    What does he see?

    The vast, vast, vast majority of Americans wanting Big Government, wanting Socialized Health Care, Prescription Drugs, Federally Subsidized Education.

    It’s the Soccer Moms who count. Not us white male 30s to 50s something Libertarians.

    Bush’s inclinitions are towards Fiscal Conservtism. So, he sees the poll numbers and says to himself, the best I can do is to give them about half of what they want. To do otherwise would be political suicide.

    You should be glad he’s only giving the American Electorate (Soccer Moms), half. But instead of praising him for this, you and other Libertarian cynics kick him in the teeth.

    Again, blame yourself. If you and other Libertarians in Virginia and the other 49 states were more effective at politics, instead of isolated on the fringe, perhaps you could put Bush in more of a middle position, where he could have more of a backbone to go up against the Democrats and their Soccer Mom constituency.

    But alas, you’d rather sit on the sidelines and bitch, than actually doing something about it.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    On taxpayer funded abortions:

    No, I do not support taxpayer subsidized abortions.

    That said, I can think of a heluva lot more other things in government I’d cut before that.

    And I hesistate to say that if a women needs an abortion to save her life at an ER in some taxpayer subsidized Hospital, the Hospital should refuse her if she can’t pay for it herself.

    To save the life of the mother, or in a serious emergency, admittedly I might fudge a bit on this issue.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Eric,

    Believe me George Bush was the last person I wanted to see get the Republican nomination in 2000 had there been another candidate on the General Election ballot that had a snowball’s chance in hell of beating Al Gore, I would’ve voted for him or her over W any day.

    I agree with you that libertarians are politically weak, but how is backing a candidate who is absolutely not a libertarian going to solve that problem ?

    Bush’s inclinitions are towards Fiscal Conservtism. So, he sees the poll numbers and says to himself, the best I can do is to give them about half of what they want. To do otherwise would be political suicide.

    Where I come from, we call a person like that a sellout and a hypocrite.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    And where I come from we call a person like that simply a POLITICIAN.

  • http://belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    And where I come from we call a person like that simply a POLITICIAN.

    In other words, you are okay with someone who sells out their principles in the name of buying votes ?

    If that’s the case I wish you luck in your endeavors, because we offically have nothing in common.

  • http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com Eric Dondero

    Hey Ron Paul did it. When we first campaigned in 1996 for this Congressional seat here, Ron and I went to every rinky dink little even in the entire District and campaigned as hardcore Conservatives. With Ron it was all Pro-Life this, Pro-Life that. And if he wasn’t talking about outlawing abortion, it was Stop Clinton this, and Oppose Clinton on that.

    Foreign Policy? Ron campaigned in 1996 as a hardcore Pro-Military guy/Pro-Defense, Clinton is weak on foreign policy.

    When Ron couldn’t make it to a VFW or American Legion event, he sent me, his only Veteran on staff, to go. He sent me to almost every single Veterans event from Corpus to Freepot all the way to San Antonio that year. We were all red, white and blue, rock-ribbed Conservatives, “Gov. Bush Republicans.”

    Then he gets himself elected a couple times. Gets a safe comfy seat, in a safe Republican District. And he starts feeling his oats, and on the National level he starts selling himself like some far-out non-interventionist.

    No more talk about Bush, or his “Conservative” principles. It’s all Leftwing stuff to gain the attentions of the Liberal media.

    Now, if it’s good enough for Ron Paul, than why not other politicians?

  • tarran

    ROFL

    Don’t blame Bush. Blame yourself. Blame the worthlessness of the entire libertarian movement. Look in the mirror. YOU are to blame for the growth in government NOT GEORGE W. BUSH.

    You see, it’s not his fault, it’s society’s fault. Don’t blame him, blame his environment! Spoken like a true socialist. Ha! Ha!

    Oh God, that’s so funny.