I thought the "Rittberg half" were adoptive parents hence the reason he now uses Dondero except when convenient as in this case. What he is asking is to the CTLP to abandon the principle of non-intervention and support the interventionists policies of Lieberman. I personally, as former official in the CTLP would be horrified if they did this. Republicans, even those who are Republican Light, like Mr. Dondero should not lecture libertarians on what to do. His party gave his George Bush. He should be so ashamed of that as to remain quiet.

Eric is not a libertatarian Party member,He has his own agenda against the Libertarian Party.

There are lots of reasons to be against the Libertarian Party, but the idea that Lieberman could ever run as a Libertarian is so ridiculous I can't understand how anyone could be expected to take it seriously.

Dave

Eric is one of the least libertatrian folks I've run across.

However, having said that, I do agree with his (and Sen. Lieberman's) stance against the threat of Islamo-fascism, which the LP seems oblivious to.

I do believe Joe Lieberman is a decent man, a victim of his constiuency as much as anything else.

I probably would not support an LP endorsement of the Senator, but if I lived in CT, I just might end up voting for him.

The LP isns't oblivious to the threat of terrorism. However, many Libertarians believe:

(1) A non-interventionist foreign policy is less likely to create hatred of America, and hence is a response to terrorism. The LP would fight terrorism by not inpsiring terrorism.

(2) "Terrorists" are not one unfied thing. Al Qaeda is not the IRA, is not Hezbollah, is not Peru's Shining Path. Each is a different group of individuals. They are more analogous to disparate organized crime gangs than to a unified global entity. Thus, you fight them the same way you'd fight organized crime gangs. You go after the specific gang, or individual, which is at the moment threatening the US; you do not declare a "war on crime" and invade every nation that has criminals.

"His economic policies are socialist."

Oh, man...haven't laughed that hard in a while...dude, you gotta meet some real socialists, they might help you figure out what that word means...

A lot to respond to here. Firstly, Eric Dondero (Rittberg), myself, IS a Member of the Libertarian Party. In fact, former Libertarian National Committee member, fmr. Sec. of the Florida LP, fmr. LP State House candidate, fmr. LP elected official, fmr. Travel Aide to Libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul, you name it.

I campaigned for Joe Lieberman in CT. Just got back yesterday. Ran into tons of self-described "Libertarian Party members". All signed the petition for Joe enthusiastically, and all said they would back him in November.

Some people here think that it's pathetic to even think that Libertarians would back Lieberman. But what's really pathetic is the complete lack of touch that the CT Libertarian Party has with its membership base, and the attitudes of its members, most of whom are far more pragmatic, and willing to work with others
in coalition efforts to build the libertarian movement.

It'd be one thing if the CT LP had a candidate in this race. But they don't! So backing Lieberman, who is libertarian on Affirmative Action, Tax Reform, and Educational Choice (Lamont blasted Lieberman on these 3 issues for being a "radical Right-winger"), would be far more preferable than being a complete non-entity/non-factor in the most watched race in the Nation.

Hey CT LP; either put up a candidate or shut up and get active in the Lieberman race.

Activity for non-pure libertarian-leaning candidates is far preferable to inactivity and obscurity.

Eric: "Lieberman, who is libertarian on Affirmative Action, Tax Reform, and Educational Choice"

As I remember it, Lieberman was anti-affirmative action until 2000. Then when he ran for VP, he back-peddled. Made some pro-affirmative action remarks, essentially pandering to the Dem's national base.

Perhaps he's flip-flopped again since then, and is once again anti-affirmative action?

IAE, Lamont is more libertarian on the war issue than is Lieberman -- Lamont shares Ron Paul and the late Harry Browne's position on Iraq -- so libertarians can just as easily support Lamont as Lieberman. (Not that I'm endorsing either one.)