Imperato Weighs in on Republican Debate Controversy over 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul

. . . Weighing in on the discussion was Daniel Imperato, a libertarian, and a 2008 Presidential Candidate.

Imperato stated, “first of all, I find it interesting that Giuliani took such offense to Ron Paul’s comment when he needed to look no further than himself. Why didn’t Giuliani protect the city after the 1993 bombings?”

The 2008 Presidential Candidate pointed to Giuliani’s poor track record for not following recommendations given to him after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

“He did not fully implement a single recommendation made by the fire department official who identified crucial emergency response failures after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Giuliani also did not implement a clear chain of command for police officers and firefighters prior to 9/11, in order to create an effective response system. In addition, he made no structural adjustments and improvements to the World Trade Towers to make them less susceptible to an attack and collapse.”

In addition, Imperato felt that Giuliani was not the only one to blame for not taking the appropriate steps to secure America’s borders and New York City .

“He was asleep and it took 3000 lives and an economic disaster for him to wake up. While Giuliani and Bill Clinton where in power, they allowed all of the al-Qaeda members to infiltrate New York and our country. They took no steps to enhance security, check visas, and make sure that our country wasn’t being quietly invaded.”

Imperato also called for a debate between Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and himself.

You can read the entire article here.

24 Responses to “Imperato Weighs in on Republican Debate Controversy over 9/11, Rudy Giuliani, and Ron Paul”

  1. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Imperato is not a libertarian. Please stop referring to him as one.

  2. Nigel Watt Says:

    Agreed with Susan.

  3. Austin Cassidy Says:

    He seems like he might be nuts or a con artist, but he’s traveling around speaking at Libertarian state conventions and campaigning for the LP nomination…

  4. Andy Says:

    Imperato doesn’t sound like much of a libertarian, but he brought up some good points about Giuliani and 9/11.

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Imperato is running for the LP’s presidential nomination, so I have to assume he is a member of the party. Therefore, he is a Libertarian, even if he’s not a libertarian.

  6. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 21st, 2007 at 2:58 am
    Imperato is running for the LP’s presidential nomination, so I have to assume he is a member of the party. Therefore, he is a Libertarian, even if he’s not a libertarian.”

    Then he’s a LINO (Libertarian In Name Only). Sounds kind of like some other people I know…

  7. globalist_elitist Says:

    I forgot: Andy the authoritarian control freak zealot is the self-appointed god of libertarianism, and he gets to decide who’s libertarian. Of course, being a racist border Nazi / Ovarian Marxist is okay. Being a fan of Adam Smith makes you a Commie or “economic fascist.” Oh, and 9/11 was an inside job, too.

  8. Susan Hogarth Says:

    Independents Across America:

    http://www.imperato2008.com/imperato2008/iaa.asp

    Imperato ‘got Libertarianism’ when he realized that was the cheapest way to get on the ballot in most states. Before that he billed himself as an Independent. (now, amusingly enough, he calls himself an “Independent Libertarian”).

    He may be a member of the Libertarian Party, but he is not a libertarian.

    “One of the biggest abuses in America is charitable contributions. Many people who have made money off of the hard work of the American people, place their wealth in charities that do little for the American people. ... Charities that maintain honest business practices will be categorized numerically, with a rating system, and preference will be given to the ones that direct money towards America, and its people first. ”

    Great. A Department of Charities. Some Libertarian.

  9. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 21st, 2007 at 6:30 am
    I forgot: Andy the authoritarian control freak zealot is the self-appointed god of libertarianism, and he gets to decide who’s libertarian. Of course, being a racist border Nazi / Ovarian Marxist is okay. Being a fan of Adam Smith makes you a Commie or “economic fascist.” Oh, and 9/11 was an inside job, too.”

    You are a fan of the Federal Reserve System so that ALONE DISQUALIFIES you from being a libertarian. You also support a bunch of other bullshit laws like nanny state seat belt laws.

    I have NEVER stated my position on abortion so you don’t even know what it is.

    And guess what, I actually am opposed to government controlling immigration. However, I’d want to first have all land placed back in private hands and eliminate the welfare state and repeal gun control laws and drug laws. I actually don’t think that government “controls” education right now because it is actually the government that WANTS mass immigration because they are using it to expand government, and in fact plan to merge into world government. So I don’t think that there is any government solution to the immigration situation beyond cutting off welfare benifits to immigrants.

  10. globalist_elitist Says:

    Susan - I don’t disagree with you.

    Andy - You don’t get to decide what one thing disqualifies someone. I say your border zealotry disqualifies you. There. You’re disqualified.

  11. Ghoststrider Says:

    I would hesistate to call Imperato a libertarian, he’s just a little far out. As for his personal little debate—that will never happen. Period. Nobody wants to give him anymore attention. Ron Paul, that is.

  12. Jackcjackson Says:

    Well, so many people are outraged when GOP officials and other Republicans say Ron Paul shouldn’t be in the Republican race/debates..

    Yet so many here want to EXCLUDE people who are LP members and/or running for LP nomination because they aren’t libertarians..

    How is that any different than saying Ron Paul isn’t a Republican? We know many of his views are not consistent with his party in the modern form.

    I agree many LP candidates are not libertarians, but shouldn’t we let the nomination process ( market) weed them out? Let them be heard and then reject their ideas if they are so bad.

    Sound FAMILIAR?

  13. Susan Hogarth Says:

    I’m not outraged. I’m delighted that Republicans would be stupid enough to publicly try to get Paul - a several-term RP congressman - canned. That’s their problem.

    Imperato is the LP’s problem. He’s a ballot-access parasite. Of course the market will weed him out, but it behooves Libertarians to denounce him publicly until that happens so that people don’t get the wrong impression about what the LP stands for.

    If the RP wants to be the Party of big-government war-mongering, I can see where Paul would get in the way of that. If the LP wants to be the Party of government program piled on government program in the name of freedom, we should embrace (or tolerate) Imperato. If we don’t, we should call him what he is - a ballot-access parasite.

  14. ELarson Says:

    As someone who has met Imperato on two occasions in Michigan, I can say pretty certainly that he is not a Libertarian. Both in respect to his political philosophy and practically with respect to his ‘recent’ LP status. Even his literature that was provided at our state convention listed him as an independent (much like Jingosian’s).

    I don’t worry that he will secure the nomination because he appealed to no one I spoke to and turned off most. He is slick, has money (obviously) but his political saavy is questionable because he fails to at least speak the rhetoric of the party. He must be under the impression that the party is so desperate for a win that it will nominate anyone who seems like a winner.

    We clearly are lacking for a quality candidate who can appeal both inside and outside of the party. I don’t expect anyone to gain much traction until Paul has officially dropped out of the race - which now looks like it will be quite a while.

  15. globalist_elitist Says:

    ELarson - Did Imperato have an entourage with him at the MI convention? You say he “obviously” has money. How so? I’m suspicious of his supposed wealth.

  16. ELarson Says:

    GE - Imperato obviously has money in the sense that he is flying all over the country to conventions. Also, he has ‘handlers’ which the other candidates don’t have. He has an organization which has a secretary who answers the phone.

    Okay, I’m not implying that he is worth millions but he has a semblance of a campaign that ‘looks’ serious. As convention chair I contacted all the presidential candidates that I could and very few of them have anything that I would describe as credible campaigns. His is serious in the sense of his organization having a Michigan presence. I can’t speak for his presence in other states.

  17. George Phillies Says:

    The Democrats had to face the ‘exotic candidate’ issue with Lyndon LaRouche and his advocacy of various issues. They concluded he was outside the pale, and would not admit his delegates, on the occasion he won two, to their convention. It is entirely reasonable for the Republicans to say that they also have such limits, whether Ron Paul supporters like it or not.

    Should Republicans accept Ron Paul? He says he is running as a conservative? He says he is on purely conservative issues like: Pull out of the UN. Abolish the Federal Reserve in favor of metal coins. No foreign entanglements. Current immigrants are bad people. It is appropriate for states to ban gay marriage.

    That’s a Republican problem. His literature says ‘conservative’ not ‘libertarian’, so his literature does us no good. He is being tagged as a libertarian, when his social issues are radically non-libertarian, which is going to seriously damage our 2008 and thereafter branding, so he is also a problem for real Libertarians.

  18. Robert Milnes Says:

    George, again, agreed. ELarson, agreed. Ron Paul’s candidacy is evidently suppressing the real libertarian candidates’ campaigns.

  19. Carl Says:

    Ron Paul is doing what many a radical Libertarian has advised me to do: work within the Republican Party.

    So, are we now saying that moderate libertarians should be excluded from both the LP and the RP? Is this the consensus of the body?

    (OK, in all fairness, different people have taken parts of the above stance.)

  20. globalist_elitist Says:

    ELason - Thanks for the info. I agree with you, RE: the lack of credibility for most of the presidential “campaigns.” I wish I would have come to the MILP convention. I was at last year’s.

    Carl - Ron Paul is not a “moderate” libertarian. He is a conservative with all of the worst “libertarian” ideas and only a few of the good ones.

  21. Andy Says:

    “Should Republicans accept Ron Paul? He says he is running as a conservative? He says he is on purely conservative issues like: Pull out of the UN. Abolish the Federal Reserve in favor of metal coins. No foreign entanglements. Current immigrants are bad people. It is appropriate for states to ban gay marriage.”

    Pulling out of the United Nations, abolishing the Federal Reserve, and getting out of foreign entanglements are ALL libertarian issues. DO YOU DENY THAT ANY OF THESE ARE LIBERTARIAN ISSUES?

    Ron has NEVER said that all current immigrants are bad people, and in fact it is quite hypocritical for you of all people to be attacking Ron Paul’s immigration stance since your stance is essentially the same.

    Ron has NEVER said that it is advocated that states ban gay marriage or to even be involved in gay marriage, and Ron OPPOSED the anti-gay marriage amendments. Ron simply said that it is not a Federal issue and that other states should not be forced to recognize gay marriages that happened in other states which would lead to a bunch of frivolous law suits.

    “That’s a Republican problem. His literature says ‘conservative’ not ‘libertarian’, so his literature does us no good. He is being tagged as a libertarian, when his social issues are radically non-libertarian, which is going to seriously damage our 2008 and thereafter branding, so he is also a problem for real Libertarians.”

    Ron is seeking the Republican nomination and he is doing outreach to and trying to raise funds from Republicans, so of course he is going to use language that appeals to them.

    What Ron Paul social issues are “radically non-libertarian”? Ron OPPOSES the drug war. Ron OPPOSES the war in Iraq. Ron OPPOSES bringing back the military draft. Ron OPPOSES police state legislation like the Patriot Act, the Military Commission Act, and the REAL ID Act. If Ron is so “radically non-libertarian” on social issues then why is his campaign seeking so much positive interest from civil libertarians?

    Ron Paul seeking the Republican Presidential nomination is the biggest and best thing to happen to the libertarian movement in a while. If Ron doesn’t get the Republican nomination I hope that he changes his mind about not running for President under a minor party banner and seeks the LP nomination.

  22. Andy Says:

    “globalist_elitist Says:

    May 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
    Susan - I don’t disagree with you.

    Andy - You don’t get to decide what one thing disqualifies someone. I say your border zealotry disqualifies you. There. You’re disqualified.”

    You scored so low on The Libertarian Purity test that you are not even qualified to comment. In fact, your score was so low that you don’t even belong in the party.

    As for my “border zealotry,” the old question on the Advocates for Self Government’s World’s Smallest Political Quiz talked about PEACEFUL people crossing borders. I don’t have a problem with PEACEFUL people, I just don’t consider violent gang bangers and welfare recipients to be peaceful people. Also, if we had private property borders people could be as restrictive or as non-restrictive as they wanted with their borders.

  23. globalist_elitist Says:

    Andy - If I’m such a non-libertarian, then why does the test say my “libertarian credentials are obvious” or something like that?

    “I just don’t consider violent gang bangers and welfare recipients to be peaceful people.” Neither do I. But I’m not willing to keep peaceful people out just to stop the bad ones. In fact, letting the peaceful people in makes keeping the bad ones out easier.

  24. sam i am Says:

    http://praxeology.net/blog/2007/05/23/immigration-secession-and-taxation/

Leave a Reply