Reason Writers Around Town: Dave Weigel on Ron Paul's Ongoing Presidential Campaign

September 24, 2008

At Culture 11, Associate Editor David Weigel explains why Ron Paul is still running for president...whether he wants to or not.

Read all about it here.

Comments

JMR|9.24.08 @ 4:37PM|#

But don't you think the Baldwin endorsement ends that for good? I do.

Invisible Finger|9.24.08 @ 4:37PM|#

If there's anyone who doesn't want to be in charge of the Wall Street Reparations, it's Ron Paul.

|9.24.08 @ 4:45PM|#

What the hell. The banking system is about to collapse anyway. If that happens, you are talking about a pretty serious contraction of say 10% or more and probably give us 20% unemployment for a while. Why not go all in and go for the gold standard and get a 50% contraction and 30% unemployment? "Thinks are tough out there. So let's dispense with these half measures. I am Ron Paul and I have a plan that will completely destroy the economy. ." Why only half way destroy the economy? Let's go all in and destroy the entire thing.

fyodor|9.24.08 @ 4:46PM|#

Montana is one of three states - Louisiana and Virginia are the others - where Ron Paul has been placed on the general election ballot.

Will this cut into Bob Barr's vote?

|9.24.08 @ 4:49PM|#

Yeah, there does seem to be more than a little excitement at the prospect of complete financial collapse in some Ron Paulite circles... A devilish glint in the eyes when they say "what the market needs is a harsh correction..."

But then again, Austrians were pretty much spot on about the current economic crisis, but are they like broken analog clocks or high-tech digital super-nuclear clocks?

Andy|9.24.08 @ 4:49PM|#

But the great thing about Paul is that if you look at his interviews from 20 years ago, he's talking about all the same stuff. Also, I found a funny one with Morton Downey Jr where some rube was arguing for the military getting involved in the War on Drugs, and Paul called him fat while arguing against govt involvement in personal lives. It was awesome.

"Ron Paul was right!"

|9.24.08 @ 5:29PM|#

if you look at his interviews from 20 years ago, he's talking about all the same stuff.

The man has a keen grasp of the obvious, and he's had it for quite some time.

-jcr

jtuf|9.24.08 @ 5:48PM|#

It's all part of the mystery: how did Ron Paul become a cult figure? He didn't follow the textbook of L. Ron Hubbard or Sun Myung Moon or early '70s David Bowie, who worked to stoke up a following. Paul's following grew up by accident.

There's a large overlap between people who read the constitution and people who keep track of a candidate's voting record. Ron Paul gets followers by voting the way they like.

|9.24.08 @ 5:55PM|#

A recession or even a depression is better than the alternatives. Some creative destruction might even be a healthy thing and force the Government to contract. I would never choose an economic collapse, but lets face it, we all knew that the good times were not going to last unless we took action to downsize the government.

We elected Bush to downsize the Government and he stabbed us in the back by doubling the size of the Government. You reap what you sow, and we are all going take a bite of this turd sandwich.

Ron Paul has been right all along, so the republican party nominated John McCain who has never been right. Figures.

St. V|9.24.08 @ 6:11PM|#

I disagree vehemently about going back to a gold standard, I will be writing the Doc in. He seems to be the only (former) candidate worth voting for...

St. V|9.24.08 @ 6:12PM|#

Insert "although" at the beginning of my previous statement.

|9.24.08 @ 9:30PM|#

The thing about the Austrians, they predicted the great depression as well. Ron Paul predicted (and this is recorded on tape) the recession of 87 (in 1983) and predicted the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac debacle in 2003. All because he's very familiar with Austrian economic theories. He's a scholar. His opponents don't know a thing about economics.

|9.24.08 @ 9:31PM|#

Hell with Ron Paul

Give me a beautiful woman in red high heels and sexy glasses!!!!!

Just imagine her naked!!!!!

|9.24.08 @ 9:40PM|#

We are going to see massive inflation regardless of whether they bail out or not..the thing is, if they dont' bail out we'll see things getting better sooner than if they do bail out wall street..printing more money will raise groceries etc due to inflation tax..credit will become extremely hard to get especially for the people..not so much for corporations tho'.

RP is my president.

|9.24.08 @ 10:09PM|#

I would vote for somebody but there is nobody else to vote for. Barr didn't make the DC ballot and his shitty staff seems like they don't want me to vote for him anyway. If I am forced to write Barr's name in, I might as well just write Ron's, both have the same effect. There is nobody any time soon running that is worth voting for. I don't think its much of a cult problem as it is a scarcity problem. Most politicians are either corrupt scum or just plain ignorant. Reason supposedly takes views that are not generally accepted by the mainstream so they should understand the feeling. Plato's Socrates had a premise that knowledge is not in numbers and Ron is a testament to that. It's not a cult, its a consequence of scarcity and enthusiasm at the sight that the ideas are not extinct in Congress, just a very endangered species. Compromising with the consequence of ignorance is ignorant in and of itself.

ktc2|9.24.08 @ 11:30PM|#

Paul lost all respect I had for him when he endorsed the theocrat party candidate.

Tom deSabla|9.24.08 @ 11:32PM|#

Reason sucks again.

By the way, since when does a sound money system destroy the economy?

It never has before.

History seems to show that it's when you abandon the gold standard that bad things happen. Let's see...Rome? check. British Empire? check. It looks like it's happening again here, but by all means, go on with your denial.

You have no credibility anyway, so why not just keep sniping at Ron Paul? If all he has is a "keen grasp of the obvious" then why didn't you Reasontards have it too?

Denial runs unReasonably deep, doesn't it?

Fools.

Like I said, you suck.

Griz|9.24.08 @ 11:45PM|#

Yeah, who is the genius who said Paul would destroy the economy? It's our dumbass regulations that got us into this mess.

Mitch|9.25.08 @ 12:14AM|#

For anyone using "Reason", it should throw up a red flag when a "libertarian" mag and most of its readers support a bailout that 90% of the sheep in this country are against...

Just a thought though, Weigel has probably spent enough time talking to those smart politicians around DC that he understands the issue much better than a simple midwesterner like me.

By the way, I totally agree about those crazy Ron Paul supporters. When we have a sensible, small-government candidate like McCain on the ballot I'm not sure why all the Paul supporters didn't just move on?

JMR|9.25.08 @ 2:43AM|#

Is it just me, or do those who hysterically hate "the gold standard" (actually, just gold as competition, since the government never actually did a gold standard right, but let's ignore that aspect of it) sound a lot like opiate addicts begging for another fix? I don't have any "glee" at what happens to heroin addicts, or what will happen to our heroin addict economy, but if I've been saying this shit for two goddamn decades, I DO get to say "I told you so," even if it annoys those who are now suffering from withdrawals. Life's tough. Don't do stupid shit if you dislike pain.

VM|9.25.08 @ 7:58AM|#

"But then again, Austrians were pretty much spot on about the current economic crisis, but are they like broken analog clocks or high-tech digital super-nuclear clocks?"

meh.

saying that the massive budget problems, overextension on credit etc would cause problems isn't really that tough of a guess.

giving them too much credit. ask about how well they "predicted" the problems of the late 70s.

|9.25.08 @ 11:39AM|#

"Just a thought though, Weigel has probably spent enough time talking to those smart politicians around DC that he understands the issue much better than a simple midwesterner like me.

By the way, I totally agree about those crazy Ron Paul supporters. When we have a sensible, small-government candidate like McCain on the ballot I'm not sure why all the Paul supporters didn't just move on?"

Man, you almost had me there when you said Weigel probably understands this better than you do. Well played there, sir.

|9.25.08 @ 12:52PM|#

[G]iving them too much credit. [A]sk about how well they "predicted" the problems of the late 70s.

Ok, so, how well did they?

|9.25.08 @ 12:58PM|#

Paul lost all respect I had for him when he endorsed the theocrat[ic] party candidate.

Look, even if Baldwin is a terribly religious guy, as President he would not be able to create a theocratic state. He would, however, follow the Constitution more closely than the two clowns running for president. I could perfectly live with that. Even so, I would place my vote on Barr rather than Baldwin, if Barr hadn't shunned Paul. I could even consider Nader as president, for the same reasons for Baldwin: he would not be able to do much damage, compared to McBama.

Paul B.|9.25.08 @ 11:02PM|#

"Even so, I would place my vote on Barr rather than Baldwin, if Barr hadn't shunned Paul."

I'm surprised how many Paul supporters are saying this. Barr did act like a jerk, but is that really enough for you to change your vote? Some of Baldwin's beliefs oppose basic libertarian principles. I just don't understand how a petty squabble could completely alter your vote.

|9.27.08 @ 4:20PM|#

Baldwin is a theocrat. Of course, so is Ron Paul.

|9.28.08 @ 12:55AM|#

The Libertarian Party lost a chance to engage Ron Paul's supporters when they didn't put Mary Ruwart on the ballot.

Too bad for them.