Reason Writers on Stossel: Watch Matt Welch Talk With Ron Paul and Others About the Midterm Elections

On Thursday, Nov. 4, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch went on Fox Business Channel's Stossel program to talk with host John Stossel, the Wall Street Journal's Kimberly Strassel, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) about the midterms, Tea Parties, Rand Paul, and Prop. 19:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Joe||

    Why is Stossel stuck on some background business channel? Why is he not on broadcast TV? Why is he not out front?

    Why is he not syndicated on national talk radio?

    WTF?

  • Suki||

    Because *you* have not donated enough for his spot on Reason.tv

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Mr. Welch was very chivalrous letting Kimberley answer first.

    Stossel was on ABC, and had a remarkable run considering what fuckwads network news organizations are. He's better served on FoxBiz, but we would be better served if he could get a bigger venue.

  • Joe||

    yeah, he was on 2020, but he didn't have his own show. Why does george stephanopolous (its spelling is greek to me!) get a weekend show and Stossel doesn't?

  • Suki||

    Clinton conspiracy, getting their people in place before 2012.*

    *You didn't hear this from me.

  • Corey S.||

    Stossel should be on Fox News at the very least.

  • ||

    IMO, Stossel isn't exactly the brightest libertarian bulb in the box.

  • Suki||

    At least he is incandescent.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Banned in a couple of years?

  • Suki||

    If they ban our bulbs above ground we can illuminate the underground.

  • Tman||

    Actually Stossel is pretty damn smart (BA from Princeton), but he tries to speak in more easily understandable terms so that more people will understand of what exactly libertarianism and free market principles consist. After watching the beginning montage you can see that we have a LOOONNNNNNNNNGGGGGG way to go.

    RALPH FUCKING NADER?????

    (whimpers quietly).

  • ||

    He might be a smart person, but his grasp of the philosophy of libertarianism is weak. He has trouble answering critiques that the more hardcore libertarians would be able to answer in a second. (See his appearances for drug-legalization advocacy on FOX). Yeah he did a consumer news show and is used to dumbing down for the lowest common denominator, but come on, no stupid person is going to be convinced to become a libertarian by Stossel.

  • Tman||

    his grasp of the philosophy of libertarianism is weak.

    This is based on, what exactly?

    He has trouble answering critiques that the more hardcore libertarians would be able to answer in a second.

    An example of said trouble would be helpful in determining what you mean by this point. For instance, you said he wasn't "the brightest libertarian", and I countered by saying he has a BA from Princeton thus he isn't a dim bulb. For lack of a better term, CITATION NEEDED.

    (See his appearances for drug-legalization advocacy on FOX)

    He supports legalizing drugs, and pretty much brags about it. What's your point?

    no stupid person is going to be convinced to become a libertarian by Stossel.

    Please give me an example of someone else who has a closet full of emmy's that might convince more people of the merits of libertarianism.

    Your critique is seriously lacking in evidence.

  • ||

    "This is based on, what exactly?

    The articles he has written for Reason, what he says on his own show and the shows of others, etc...

    An example of said trouble would be helpful in determining what you mean by this point. For instance, you said he wasn't "the brightest libertarian", and I countered by saying he has a BA from Princeton thus he isn't a dim bulb. For lack of a better term, CITATION NEEDED.

    Are you always this dense Tman, or are you just having a bad day? I didn't say he wasn't a smart person, I said he wasn't a smart libertarian. Going to Princeton doesn't make you knowledgeable and adept at arguing for libertarianism. And I already gave you an example. Look up some of his appearances on other shows on FOX where he argues for total drug legalization. He gets shot down by simple-minded conservatives because he uses simple-minded arguments.

    He supports legalizing drugs, and pretty much brags about it. What's your point?

    My point is that he brags about it without being able to defend it. Is this that hard for you to get?

    Please give me an example of someone else who has a closet full of emmy's that might convince more people of the merits of libertarianism.

    Your critique is seriously lacking in evidence.

    WTF do Stossel's education and awards have to do with how well he promotes libertarianism? Your defense is seriously lacking in evidence AND logic.

  • ||

    No stupid person is going to be convinced to become a libertarian by ANYONE. Ask Chonymax.

  • ||

    ^^ this ^^

  • Yup||

    He is on a business channel to discuss free markets? Mygawd he will never get anywhere with that.

  • Max||

    Fuck, who needs sleeping pills?

  • Suki||

    Assassins of blonde stars.

  • Binky||

    Let me know if Fuck gets back to you about that, Maxward.

    (Props to Jesse Walker.)

  • Jeffersonian||

    You do. About 75 of them ought to do the trick.

  • mattrue||

    The Nevada eminent domain proposition was a watering down of the popular '06 & '08 ballot measures that did away with eminent domain abuse. I believe the state legislature proposed it.

    http://jurist.org/paperchase/2.....easure.php

    I don't know how voters smart enough to vote against this proposition didn't vote against Harry Reid. About a 100k more voted against this than voted for Angle!

  • ||

    I don't know how voters smart enough to vote against this proposition didn't vote against Harry Reid.

    The same reason in Washington state where they turned down a new income tax and repealed candy and pop tax through initiatives yet voted in Patty Murry.

  • ||

    Yeah, WTF???

  • ||

    It is impossible to dislike Ron Paul. How did this guy get less than 300% of the presidential vote in 2008?

  • Not Tony||

    Ron Paul does not support the military (or at least, it's very easy to pin that on him).

    For most voters, that's all they need to hear to stop listening and move on to an establishment candidate.

  • Appauled||

    It was nice of Ron Paul not to bring up Matt Welch's betrayal of him during the allegedly racist newsletter issue.

  • Matt Welch||

    Well, this was the *edited* version, mind you....

  • Sudden||

    Max is wondering if you fellated him in the unedited version. Apparaently Max has these rather bizarre fantasies about such acts.

  • Spazmo||

    Hey, blame Wiegal.

  • Attorney||

    Matt added the most value. That chick was trying too hard to be Entertaining.

  • Xenocles||

    Technically, isn't there a Reason writer on every episode of Stossel?

  • ||

    Re: California Prop 25,

    Won't the votes on taxes retain the 2/3rds majority requirement?

    It's the voting on the budget that will change to a simple majority. Or not? Can somebody clarify?

  • ||

    My name, Borat!

    I once told Stossel he looked like Borat. His wife thought it was funny (and true) but he didn't.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement