Ron Paul Presidential Exploratory Committee Gets Officially Announced Tomorrow

In Des Moines, so reports Weigel at Slate.

Paul told me in January 2007 when he launched his exploratory committe for the 2008 presidential campaign that committee did not necessarily equal campaign, but it's at least way more a done deal.

UPDATE: On the night after Paul is all over TV, including Colbert--probably worth a watch. And here he was today on America's home of everything, The View:

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.

  • Binky||

    His participation in the debates would be a very good thing.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I agree. No other Republican candidate has any worthwhile ideas/ideals, so Paul will make a huge splash at the debates.

  • Benson||

    Isn't Gary Johnson running?

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Forgive me. A Gary Johnson presence in the debates will also be a plus.

  • cynical||

    Plus, we can show that libertarian-leaning Republican candidates are up 100% from last election. Statistics suggest that within two or three decades, all Republican candidates will be libertarians.

  • prolefeed||

    I thought Tim Pawlenty was also considerably less of a douche than the usual Team Red and Team Blue partisans ...

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    If these trends continue...A-y-y-y

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Gary Johnson and ron Paul will split the 10 percent the pro-reefer candidate gets in every election for the past 30 years. Nothing to see here, move along. Palin 2012 drill baby drill! Gas $5 a gallon

  • SIV||

    Palin is "pro-reefer" too troll!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Watching him pwn Giuliani was the sole diversion in what was otherwise a pale and unamusing season.

  • ||

    From our perspective, he pwned Rudy. From Rudy's, and many other people's perspective, I don't think he did.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Oof. If that stuff wasn't real, how can I be sure anything is real? Is it not possible, nay probable, that my whole life is just a product of my or someone else's imagination?

  • Really?||

    THERE IS NO SPOON

  • prolefeed||

    The pwnage of Rudy occurred more when Guiliani got his sorry butt whooped in primary after primary.

  • ||

    The famous "Just Win Florida" strategy

  • ||

    These are all quotes from Radley Balko concering James O'Keefe from the last 6 months alone. I wonder why he encourages taping police, but not US Senate offices, or NPR?

    •James O’Keefe bars spectators from recording his speech.
    •James O’Keefe reaches new depths of despicableness. Worse, he’s spawning imitators.
    •James O’Keefe bars spectators from recording his speech.
    •There’s so much real investigative journalism conservatives could be doing on government waste, incompetence, accountability, and transparency. It’s pathetic that donors on the right keep handing over money for these moronic “stings”. The right needs 10 more Tim Carneys. Instead, they keep churning out James O’Keefes.
    •Holding Andrew Breitbart to the same standards he holds ACORN. It’s a fair point.
    Joining Me Now To Discuss What James O’Keefe’s Latest Video Means for Obama’s Plan for Libya, Are Democratic Strategist Bob Beckell, and Republican Advisor Dick Morris (Link has babies talking, really funny stuff.

  • ||

    I never understood why when Bernie Madoff was getting ready to go inside, there was so much talk about him getting beatdown in prison, or even getting killed. Bernie Madoff is a legend inside, prisons are filled with crooks, that's the deal and Bernie stole more than any of them. Bernie's fine in jail.

  • CE||

    His election to the presidency would be even better.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    He'll be the most qualified/likable candidate in the Republican field.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I'm sorry about forgetting about Gary Johnson.

  • Fluffy||

    Now it gets interesting.

  • Raining Icepicks||

    Debates?You mean the contrived sound bite/applause contests that skew against the actual exchange of ideas.

  • Banjos||

    What ideas?

  • Donald Trump||

    Where is his birth certificate?

  • Sudden||

    Admittedly, having just watched that little clip from the Vie, I gotta say that as much as I like Dr. Paul, he isn't the most eloquent speaker. He is certainly likeable, and he is certainly right on most issues. But when they start asking him about healthcare, he isn't very good at articulating his vision of a market-based delivery of medicine. He struggles with addressing the tough issues, an awkward balance of trying not to offend the sensibilities of people who cannot imagine a service rendered if not by the hand of the state and trying to wax-nostalgic about an era before the state's tentacles reached into every sector of economic activity.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Well, the American people have to grow up and understand that the best policies are not always the most easily understood.

  • Jim||

    Well, the American people have to grow up and understand that the best policies are not always the most easily understood.

    And that is why you fail.

    In all seriousness, that's never going to fly. The bulk of the American people are only capable of digesting single-sentence, monosyllabic, cursory logic soundbites, and tend to make their political decisions entirely based on this.

  • Really?||

    The bulk of the American people are only capable of digesting single-sentence, monosyllabic, cursory logic soundbites, and tend to make their political decisions entirely based on this.

    You forgot to add "except for me and anyone else I deem 'smart' enough to be an intellectual fellow-traveler".

    Simpler explanation: you're an ass.

  • Jim||

    I admire your belief that all the recent elections in this nation since FDR have shown how great the electorate is at parsing the minutiae of policy and only electing those who will make the hard decisions both politically and economically, and not repeatedly deceiving the American people with populist tripe. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 30 times...well fuck.

  • Really?||

    I, too, sir, am well-versed in the art of verbose and excessive vocabulary. Behold as I employ a common but witty rejoinder:

    "Sit and spin, fucko".

  • Really?||

    In all seriousness, and despite his actions that completely undermined his campaign rhetoric, do you believe that the "American people" were deceived by "populist tripe" when they elected Reagan?

    Well...no, not exactly.

  • prolefeed||

    do you believe that the "American people" were deceived by "populist tripe" when they elected Reagan?

    Dunno if what Reagan said was populist, but a startlingly high chunk of it was lies.

    So, yes, deceived ... and continued to be deceived decades later when the facts of what happened were available.

  • Really?||

    prolefeed - whether true or not, that is wholly irrelevant to the conversation. The election of Reagan showed that the American people were at least willing to choose the candidate who talked a good game on making tough economical and political choices.

    Did Reagan live up to it? Hell no. But his election acts as a counterpoint to the all-too-often refrain from libertarians that those who are not libertarians are, by that very fact, intellectually retarded.

  • yonemoto||

    I beg to differ. non-objectivist libertarians usally call people intellectually retarded on certain, specific points, not by the fact that they aren't libertarian, you retard.

  • Amakudari||

    Did Reagan live up to it? Hell no. But his election acts as a counterpoint to the all-too-often refrain from libertarians that those who are not libertarians are, by that very fact, intellectually retarded.

    I think there are plenty of well-informed, intelligent people who aren't libertarian. I disagree with their conclusions, often. But most people, and certainly the voting public, tend to make electoral decisions based on short-run motivations, feelings and marketing. The American people were only slightly different in 1975 than 1979, yet they managed to elect near-polar opposites (ideology, competence, etc.) in Carter and Reagan. If there's an ideological basis for that, it sounds pretty incoherent.

    Reagan was one of the better presidents we've have. That doesn't mean he was elected for the reasons I like him.

  • rather ||

    God, you bore me to death

  • ||

    His answer on how the poor would be able to get medical care after medicaid was abolished was something like "When I practiced medicine, I charged $3 an hour and no one got turned away."

    That is a nice story about days of yore, but it's not an actual answer to the question.

    Dr. Paul is strategic and wily, but he's not being straightforward, coherent, and concrete.

  • ||

    Its a better answer than the "pay with a live chicken" answer the Nevada GOP Senate candidate gave (the relatively sane one - not the batshit crazy Sharron Angle).

    Harry Reid is a blessed man to have those two as opponents.

  • ||

    At least he and Whoopi did not exchange conspiracy theories on the Federal Reserve.

    Wait - I might pay to see that dual lunacy.

  • yonemoto||

    shrike you are a fucking retard. You really should take the time to understand how the federal reserve works.

    Just take five goddamn minutes of your time. No conspiracy theories. I promise.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIxhsF6JLEA

  • ||

    A youtube? I am not a fucking 12 year old.

    Ron Paul is a fucking idiot who is wrong about the following Fed stuff.

    The Fed is audited by Deloitte every year.

    The Fed did not supply Saddam Hussein with weapons (as he says).

    The dollar has not lost 95% of its buying power since 1913.

    The Fed is part of the government - not a private bank.

    The Fed paid the taxpayer $79 billion this year - RP says they cost us money.

    RP is a fucking 1850's relic and no economist takes his quaint money theory seriously.

  • yonemoto||

    IIRC, the economy grew pretty nicely from 1850-1900 without the help of any central bank. Then again, my history teachers could have been wrong.

  • ||

    1850-1900 was pure misery with bank panic after bank panic.

    You would be wrong.

  • yonemoto||

    you're changing the goalposts. Is it growth you care about or bank panics? Because i'm counting just as many bank panics now. Also, technology has improved (including negatively reinforcing/dampening financial instruments, such as shorts, and options, hedging, etc.) so you're really comparing apples to oranges. Would you rather live in 1850s america or as a poverty-stricken Ivorian, if there were fractional reserve banking in cote d'ivoire?

  • zoltan||

    When Lincoln signed two acts, one in 1863 and the other in 1865, he nationalized the currency system. Banks could originally print their own money based on the amount of gold reserves they carried. When banks committed fraud and printed more money than their gold reserves, they could face collapse during a bank run. Bank panics were actually exacerbated by Lincoln's banking acts because they allowed banks to inflate their money (print more of it) when they actually didn't have the reserves to show for it.

    As for shrike, no bank panic compares to the Fed-engineered Depressions of '30 and '09.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    The Fed did not supply Saddam Hussein with weapons (as he says).
    It

    Allowing 5.5 billion to be sent to Saddam Hussein from a small Atlanta branch of a foreign bank--the result of faulty bank examination practices by the Fed

    isn't

    But there is another line of questioning officials might pursue -- one that depends less on the cooperation of Mr. Hussein than on the assistance of the United States Federal Reserve Bank. Among Mr. Hussein's possessions when he was captured was three-quarters of a million dollars in United States currency in crisp new bills. Whence came the gentleman's stash?
  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    a href="http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-25/news/mn-2628_1_foreign-policy">bizaare

    And the Agriculture Department loans, which ultimately went bad just as officials of the department and others had warned, were no aberration.

    Classified documents show that Bush, first as vice president and then as President, intervened repeatedly over a period of almost a decade to obtain special assistance for Saddam Hussein--financial aid as well as access to high-tech equipment that was critical to Iraq's quest for nuclear and chemical arms

    No, it isn't conclusive proof, but it isn't as far fetched as Shrike or Ben Bernanke would have you believe.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

  • ||

    I looked at your link Mr. Chartreuse - it says the US financed Saddam's gas which we all knew.

    But the Federal Reserve did not. It was the GOP boys.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    The dollar has not lost 95% of its buying power since 1913.
    Using this inflation calculator. Something in 1800 that cost $1 would be .58 in 1913. Something that cost $1 in 1913 would cost 21.78 in 2010. And yet shrikey doesn't think the dollar has lost all that much value.

  • prolefeed||

    The dollar has not lost 95% of its buying power since 1913.

    In 1913, you could buy a $20 Double Eagle coin from the U.S. mint that contained just under an ounce of gold for, well, $20.

    An ounce of gold now goes for about $1,500.

    So, you're technically right, the value of a dollar federal reserve note, relative to the amount of gold you could buy with it, hasn't dropped 95%.

    It has dropped more like 99%.

  • ||

    Things like homes, autos, and food cost less now (as a unit of monthly wages) than they did then.

    Real stuff people need.

  • yonemoto||

    Hm. My father was a homeowner at my age. And, I'm even more educated than he is. I am spending more of my income (80%) on non-disposables (shelter, food, fuel) than he was. My bank account sits squarely at zero. It's not like I'm failing to defer my pleasure or anything. Something must be wrong with your analysis.

  • Mr. Chartreuse||

    Things like homes, autos, and food cost less now (as a unit of monthly wages) than they did then.

    Real stuff people need.

    Given that the percentage down for a home has steadily slipped from 20% to 0%, even with two-income families, I'm doubting it's as good as you're sellin' shrike.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Given that the percentage down for a home has steadily slipped from 20% to 0%, even with two-income families, I'm doubting it's as good as you're sellin' shrike.

    Also LOL at his mention of automobiles, of which there were hardly any around in 1913.

    Food is relatively cheaper due to post-WW2 industrial farming techniques, not because of the Fed's monetary policies.

  • ||

    That is my point. People buy all kinds of luxuries now on a supposedly diminished dollar that they could not in 1900.

    Scrape by in 1900 or live with bandwidth, microprocessors, autos, and country club memberships - and maybe a little high-end pussy once in a while.

    1900 sucked ass.

  • yonemoto||

    your dumbassery is in asserting that these things would not have been made without the fed.

    They fucking invented the airplane without the fed, you know.

  • zoltan||

    People buy these things with credit.

  • yonemoto||

    yeah I forgot about the two income family thing. Two income families are almost certainly a result of a system of progressive, secular inflation over the course of 50 years. It's also a huge stress on the nuclear family, probably a major cause of divorce. Over history, divorce, infidelity, bastardry, drug use, and crime are all positively correlated with inflation.

  • ||

    The Fed is audited by Deloitte every year.

    Then why didn't Deloitte's audit report tell us about the US Fed bailing out foreign banks?

    You know like the FED bailing out Libya?

    http://www.newser.com/story/11.....-bank.html

    You are a liar Shrike. It is obvious that Ron Paul means something different then what you claim is an audit.

  • ||

    Don't be an idiot. Libya had a US chartered bank here and thus was no different than Wachovia (actually better in credit terms).

    RP's "audit" is to scrutinize monetary policy from Congress - he may as well "audit" Supreme Court decisions.

    He is an old fool.

  • ||

    he may as well "audit" Supreme Court decisions.

    Supreme Court decisions are published.

    Fed loans are not.

    Your only defense is to conflate and to lie.

    Also how is a bank that is over 50% owned by Kudaffi the same as Wachovia?

    Last I checked Wachovia share holders were not involved in a killing people.

  • rather ||

    Wachovia sounds suspicious ;-)

  • ||

    You may be right, Shrike. According to this official government inflation (CPI) calculator, the dollar has lost ninety-SIX percent of its purchasing power since 1913. http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cp.....year2=1913

    Put in $1 for 1913. When you adjust to 2011, what do YOU get? I got four cents. That's change I can believe in. (Well, not really -- we all know the government understates inflation.)

  • ||

    On second thought - I will watch your youtube just to chop it to shreds.

    Give me 10 minutes.

  • ||

    A youtube? I am not a fucking 12 year old.

    On second thought - I will watch your youtube just to chop it to shreds.

    No, not 12. 8 or 9 maybe.

  • Restoras||

    Definitely not 8 or 9, my nine-year old has more sense than shriek. However, a hopelessly naive, fresh-faced graduate from an over-priced school, yes, that I would believe.

  • ||

    Its the old "money is really debt because fractional reserve banking is a farce" bullshit.

    No, money is wealth - not debt. Wealth is accrued as reserves are created and borrowers are deemed credit-worthy to repay.

    The whole banking system depends on this risk analysis. When banks fuck up this responsibility - they DIE. They are confiscated as WaMu was in 2008 and $28 billion of their bonds go away.

    The only alternative is a full-reserve system - which is anathema to growth. (Growth = good thing - see 1941-2007.)

  • yonemoto||

    exactly how is a full-reserve system anathema to growth? there is still a multiplier effect, it's just that depositors accept the possibility that interest-bearing deposits, like all investments, could go titsup.

    Your assumption is that growth is necessarily good. You should watch the khan academy video. Keep in mind that the 'wealth created' by borrowing money is ONLY real wealth if the investments pan out, and the assets are not destroyed. As we saw in 2001 (dot com collapse) or 2008 (housing collapse) the investments might be foolish, and in incidents like Katrina or the Fukushima earthquake, loaned assets can and will be periodically destroyed by forces beyond anyone's control or beyond anyone's "risk analysis".

  • ||

    Because deposits in a full reserve system cannot be loaned out to finance other operations thus limiting growth.

    Full reserve is just a community safe deposit box.

    Sure, assets can be destroyed in extraordinary conditions - thus the backing of a central bank whose main responsibilities are stability, employment, and taming inflation.

    "Printing money" in severe deflation is tantamount to preserving capital in which there is no victim.

    Unless! You are the last vulture like Potter and want to buy all the towns assets for pennies on the dollar.

  • Really?||

    What exactly is the difference between a "full reserve" system and the current one with the FDIC in play?

  • ||

    Lots.

    I deposit $2 million in full-reserve it stays there and no one touches it thus no need for insurance.

    Frac reserve it goes out to someone else but the FDIC only insures $250,000 in case the bank goes belly up.

    Its night and day.

  • Really?||

    Frac reserve it goes out to someone else but the FDIC only insures $250,000 in case the bank goes belly up.

    For each individual depositor. At each individual bank.

    If the vast majority of a bank's liabilities are deposits (they are), and the FDIC insures almost all of that, then what, again, is the difference?

  • yonemoto||

    Really?:

    The only difference is that a full reserve bank calls a spade a spade. Any operation where you can make money off of money without producing any good is rightfully called an investment, because it naturally calls for some risk. FDIC, et al, mearly socializes this investment risk and helps prop up the illusion that a bank account is safe, attempting to remove responsibility from the individual to be vigilant of their money.

    Of course, TANSTAAFL (not the same thing as zero-sum, btw), all of that risk assimilation has a hidden cost.

  • ||

    You know deposits are accounted for as bank liabilities on a balance sheet so you know the answer already.

    The delta is the postive frac.

  • yonemoto||

    You have no clue as to what full reserve banking is, do you?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking

    "Alternatively, a saver could entrust their money with a bank for investment in the full-reserve equivalent of time deposits or savings accounts, which in a full reserve system would represent loans made to the bank rather than deposits"

    During severe asset destruction, centralizing risk only results in a travelling wave of defaults and the suffering of needless more people, whereas under a full reserve system the damage is contained to the people who were already hurt directly by the incident and their immediate (first-degree) creditors, who accepted the risk of default to begin with.

    Oh, so a central bank provides stability, employment, and tames inflation? How the hell is that working out for ya? Even with our central bank we've got double digit unemployment and gasoline at $5/gallon.

  • Old Mexican||

    Sorry, "Indirect deposit" is the vault-type deposit, whereas "Direct deposit" is the investment type. Got them mixed up.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    Because deposits in a full reserve system cannot be loaned out to finance other operations thus limiting growth.


    You're such an ignorant fool, shrike.

    A full reserve bank would still lend money, except not the money in indirect deposit accounts (savings) for which they charge rent (or what we know as "maintenance fees";) instead, it would lend money from direct deposit accounts, which the clients would open to invest in the bank, under full disclosure that the money would not be available for withdrawal or only by paying a penalty.

    http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking

    By the way, "limiting" growth, if it means no malinvestment, would not be a bad thing in itself. But what would I know, right? You're the financial genius.

    Full reserve is just a community safe deposit box.


    You're such an ignorant fool, shrike. Again.

  • yonemoto||

    OM:

    Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. There will still be malinvestment. There will just be less of it, and when it happens the damage will be relatively contained.

  • Tncm||

    It's also important to note that with full reserve banking the money rate of interest would be in sync with the market rate of interest, so the boom-bust cycle would effectively end.

  • Hey Skhreekie||

    This is all bullshit. We know your litmus test for a presidential candidate is "pro-war, military expansionist." Fuck everything else.

  • yonemoto||

    "When banks fuck up this responsibility - they DIE."

    Oh, sure, (some of) the irresponsible banks died - except the ones TBTF - or at least the piece of paper with the bank's name died. But who took responsibility?

    Henry Killinger took home a fat $15M USD severance check after fucking up his "risk analysis responsibility".

  • ||

    You mean Henry Paulson.

    You're mixing TARP, the Fed, maybe the FDIC and lots of this stuff together.

    SCAP was the best program ever (2009) and it fixed a lot of this bullshit.

  • yonemoto||

    No, I mean Kerry Killinger.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Killinger

  • ||

    A cartoon character?

    OK, I am finished. My lack of respect for Paultards just dropped again.

  • ||

    A cartoon character?

    OK, I am finished. My lack of respect for Paultards just dropped again.

    I don't know if i should be impressed that you know who Venture Bros' villain Harry Killinger is or disappointed that you did not click on the link before you responded.

    oh yeah and joe's law has again reared its ugly head.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    My lack of respect for Paultards just dropped again.


    Oh, so your respect for Paulians is increasing, or you obtained your grasp for grammar in the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Sistim.

  • ||

    you said HENRY - which is cartoon.

    KERRY belongs in court - fuck him.

  • yonemoto||

    glad to hear the system's working out for you.

  • ||

    We get all the lunacy we need watching your idiotic spoutings about finance, shriek.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    At least he and Whoopi did not exchange conspiracy theories on the Federal Reserve.


    Thus spoketh the financial genius.

  • archaic pedant||

    Spake. Thus spaketh the financial genius.

  • sounds real good||

    I agree. He didn't give a coherent answer to an extremely direct question: "Why are you opposed to Planned Parenthood?" He started to answer and immediately went off into some digression and never brought it back around to an answer.

  • sounds real good||

    alright, i take it back.

  • Jan||

    Thanks4Sharing

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    He told the gals and Mario Cantone on The View this morning he would be announcing soon, but didn't declare.

    He said he wasn't sure it would be legal to offer Jesse Ventura the veep job before he's running.

    When Joy Behar asked about possibility that he would be running against his own son, he said, "I don't think that's gonna happen. There's a little bit of discipline in the family."

    Whoopi Goldberg asked about his plan to get out of the war and he said since the president just marched in without a formal declaration, he would just "march right out."

    Whoopi also asked about Planned Parenthood, which he parried nicely by ridiculing the GOP vote on NPR, and said he doesn't support PP because he doesn't support most programs. Elizabeth Hasselbeck asked, "What's unconstitutional about Planned Parenthood?" He said "I look in Article 1 Section 8 and I look for my authority, and if it's not there I don't do it. That's why I have to vote no a lot."

    Long discussion of medical care/Ron's belief that it's not a right. He did well by spinning tales of his own days as a low-paid doctor at a Catholic hospital.

    Dismissed all the Trump/birther questions by saying Trump was just looking for publicity.

    Went OK. The gals all seemed intrigued. Next time, don't hide your light under a bushel, Mario Cantone!

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    All of which I typed before Brian added the embedded video. Disregard and watch for yourselves.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Also, Hayden Panetierre has a tattoo in Italian somewhere on her body, but it's misspelled.

  • Hugh Akston||

    You try spellchecking from that angle.

  • ||

    What's the word?

  • Atanarjuat||

    pic here (SFW)

  • ||

    HAHA!!

    You were totally going to post this as an article weren't you?

  • ||

    *sounds of scuffling, things being broken, a few pained grunts*

  • rather ||

    don't worry, they will be having make-up sex before midnight

  • Otto||

    If you ever want to watch The View so we don't have to, I for one, will appreciate it.

  • Tman||

    As much as I hate the view, the Sisterhood gave Paul a fair shake. They didn't attack Paul intellectually at all or even challenge his notion that planned parenthood wasn't constitutional.

    Of course, YMMV for what you consider being "challenged intellectually" via Behar and co.

    I don't think Paul has a flammable feathers chance in hell in the nomination, but every time he gets media attention it benefits those of us would like to hear a politician say "hey, is this Constitutional?" every now and then.

  • Otto||

    Yes - to be fair, it sounded like they were actually willing to listen to him and give him a fair hearing, which is something in this "ambush TV" day and age.

    I should have made my comment more about an aversion to daytime talk shows in general than making it seem like I have a specific hatred of that particular show.

  • Tman||

    No that's ok. I really hate that fucking show specifically, for several reasons, but they were pleasingly dumbfounded when he talked about whether or not something was constitutional.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    As much as I hate the view, the Sisterhood gave Paul a fair shake. They didn't attack Paul intellectually at all or even challenge his notion that planned parenthood wasn't constitutional.

    That's because he's not taken seriously as a candidate. If there was even a hint that he'd have a serious shot of taking over, Behar and Goldberg would have spent the whole interview doing "gotcha" nonsense.

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I have a friend that regards Ron Paul as "selfish."

    Let the lack of intellectual honesty in that belief soak in for a minute.

  • ||

    This makes sense if you think spending other peoples money is being generous.

  • Greg Cosmos||

    That was Mario Cantone? I couldn't figure out who that was. I thought he looked different.

    At the end I think I think Hasselbeck said "Your son Rand is a racist."

  • ||

    I went back and listened and Holy Shit! That's exactly what it sounds like Hasselbeck said. Cunt! (No Sexist.)

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    I don't want to watch the entire clip of Yakking Bitches Drinking Coffee with Ron Paul, so would you mind give me the timecode for when the accusation of racism is stated?

  • ||

    It's like the last 3 seconds of the clip, AFTER Hasselbeck thanks the Congressman for showing up and announces that every studio audience member is getting a copy of Rep. Paul's book...

  • ||

    Okay, I take it back. I went back and listened to it again and I think she said something that started with "Your son's a courageous [cut off]"

  • Jim||

    Perhaps she was saying he's a courageous racist, since that's not a popular position to take in modern society?

  • Courageous Racist||

    .....


    There has to be a joke here somewhere.

    I did find this article:

    http://www.firstpersonobserver.....us-racist/

    but it is pretty meta.

  • Sudden||

    That is a must read article. It should be required coursework for every third grader and up.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Only if you're a WASP--it's okay for everyone else, though.

  • ||

    Agreed. It's clearly "courageous" NOT "a racist".

  • Ron Paul||

    GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!

  • ||

    Roads!

    Bernanke knows what he's doing!

  • ||

    At the end I think I think Hasselbeck said "Your son Rand is a racist."

    Sounded more like "your suns the raisin"

    I did not hear her say "Rand"

  • Greg Cosmos||

    You are correct. I added the "rand" part. It was just "Your son is a raisin."

    Aqua Buddha has that effect.

  • ||

    So who is going to tell the dingbat in the video that there was no presidential election in 1998.

    "but the card says 1998"

  • ||

    2008...1998, it's every ten years, right?

  • Otto||

    The Daily Paul website has a link stating that tomorrow there will be an "important announcement." I wonder what it could be.

  • ||

    "I spent the last Money Bomb on blow and hookers bitches!!!"

    "YeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa!!"

    Then he jumps out the van al la Charlie the wildcard.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYtjpIwamos

  • Robert||

    Why can't the lady do the math and see there was no presidential election in 1998?

  • ||

    Math...

    Why can't she simply remember?

    The weird pause I think was Ron Paul not pointing this out.

    He really is a nice guy. I would have totally been a dick about it.

  • Really?||

    Yeah, wow, confusing "1996" with "1998" is definitely something worth being a dick over. Especially in the context of a verbal conversation, where you do not necessarily have the luxury of thinking through every word you ever say.

    JOY BEHAR: Oops, there seems to be a typo here...

    CORNING: YOU RETARDED WHORE! OMG!

  • ||

    She confused it with 1988 not 1996 you retarded whore!!!!

  • Really?||

    joe looms large.

  • ||

    Wait. Rather = Really? right?

    I thought Rather was post-joe era.

  • Really?||

    Dude. Not cool. Do you see me blogwhoring every other second?

  • ||

    Oh in that case by being a dick I meant that i would have said "There was no presidential election in 1998"

    It looked like to me Ron held his tongue from saying that.

    Sorry for calling you a retarded whore.

  • Really?||

    Sorry for calling you a retarded whore.

    Truth is an absolute defense to libel.

  • ||

    JOY BEHAR: Oops, there seems to be a typo here...

    CORNING: YOU RETARDED WHORE! OMG!

    Yes, next question. (Ok, no, but cmon, admit that there's still a decent way to get that corrected on the fly. I think everyone is just sick of the complete loss of accuracy from the media lately.)

  • ||

    Your quite right. Libertarians need to start getting just as dickish as progressives on air.

    SARAH PALIN USED THE TERM BLOOD LIBEL! THAT RETARDED WHORE! OMG!!!

  • Warty||

    Goddammit. I'm about to be infected with horrible, horrible optimism again, aren't I?

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    The hope! It burns!

  • Otto||

    It's gonna be worse. Now we have Paul and Johnson.

    I remember last election, right after I voted for Paul, I went home to see an TV interview with some idiot dowager who said she was voting for Romney because he "looked Presidential." (No, I'm not making that up.) I like to think that I canceled her vote, and not the other way around.

  • sasob||

    Dude, look at it this way: If it really mattered that much who gets to be president, they wouldn't let just everyone vote on it.

  • ||

    The longer Whoopi Goldberg spends on that show, the dumber she gets. I'm really bloody tired of the "how can you solve this (government created) problem without government?" nonsense.

    -jcr

  • ||

    Actually I was pretty impressed that she wanted to end all the wars and ask sincerely how it could be done.

    She even clapped when he was introduced.

  • Greg Cosmos||

    Well, that's what people care about, and I doubt most have any inkling that government created the problem. It's good to get dumb questions because that's who you have to persuade to make it in politics.

  • cls||

    Ron Paul is a conservative who isn't serious about a race. He uses it to raise funds that sit in the bank. Someone really should check his FEC reports to see how he spends the money he raises. I'm going with Gary Johnson who actually is libertarian on social issues, unlike old Ron.

  • Paulnut Allergy||

    +100 moneybombs

  • SIV||

    Don't you have a gay wedding to go to?

  • Bob Black||

    He is serious about a race ;)

  • Underzog||

    Ron Paul 1488
    The 'Final Solution' for America.

    (the 88 means the eigth letter of the alphabet -- H, and since there are two of them that means heil Hitler. The number 14 means those important words that every white supremacist knows: "we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children").

    A President Ron Paul will help Iran nuke that Zionist entity.

    All you Rhoemites should get behind him (Oops! Bad choice of words).

    "There's plenty reason to fear. Ron Paul is running for President."

  • 9/11 Truther||

    Where was Ron Paul on 9/11?

  • ||

    I've heard he was supposed to be the 20th hijacker.

  • Really?||

    No...fucking...way...

    Underzog? Really?

  • Restoras||

    Too soon.

  • Colin||

    Run, Ron, Run.

  • The Truth||

    Ron Paul will brings us all into a new GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLDEN age, right guys?

  • ||

    I think we would just be happy to have the plug to the mint's printing press pulled for 4 years.

    But yeah we know....that idea is !!!!CRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZY!!!

  • ||

    The only real currency is backed by GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD!

    And I don't want any of that free silver at a 10:1 ratio bullshit William Jennings Bryan is selling, either! GOOOOOOOOLD or nothing!

  • ||

    YOU want REAL *CRAZY*?

    Abolish child labor laws! Abolish safety standards! Abolish the minimum wage! Abolish unemployment benefits!

    And GOOOOOOOOOOOLD!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:Idiot,

    Abolish the minimum wage!


    "Ron Paul wants young blacks to be employed! He must be stopped!"

  • ||

    Employed for 7 cents an hour, 14 hours a day, with no lunch break!

    But the 7 cents are backed by GOOOOLD!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Idiot (and he replies!)

    But the 7 cents are backed by GOOOOLD!


    7 cents backed by gold is like $10 worth of FNRs, idiot.

  • yonemoto||

    I don't know about you, but I want my money backed by SOMALIAAAA!!!!

  • ||

    I want mine backed by roooooaaaaadddddsssss!!!!!

  • The Twoof||

    ALL HAIL CHINA! MAY THE GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC LAST A THOUSAND YEARS!

  • Ron Paul||

    Let's restore the gold standard, abolish child labor laws, go back to the good 'ol days of back alley abortions, take away grandma's medicare, withdraw from every international treaty we've entered into, and sell heroin over the counter!

    Ron Paul: Building a Bridge to the Nineteenth Century!

  • 9/11 Truther||

    What's your position on the Jews?

  • 9/11 Truther||

    Are you seriously considering Jesse Ventura as your running-mate?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Idiot,

    and sell heroin over the counter!


    And alcohol! Oh, my God!

  • ||

    Crack cocaine at 7-11!

    LSD at Wallgreens!

    Meth at hot dog stands!

  • Old Mexican||

    And alcohol!!! Oh my God, he wants alcohol to be sold over the counter! The humanity!

  • ||

    Alcohol?

    Pussy. In the new GOOOOOOLDEN age we'll be selling Laudanum again! And "soothing syrup" for babies made of morphine! Because it worked so well the last time we tied totally unregulated drugs!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Idiot,

    In the new GOOOOOOLDEN age we'll be selling Laudanum again!


    So?

    Because it worked so well the last time we tied totally unregulated drugs!


    Yeah, regulations are working wonders today, idiot.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/n.....-use_N.htm

  • Banjos||

    Other than the back alley abortions, I say bring the mother fucking 19th century back. Modern technology plus none of the statist bullshit! My panties are wet just thinking about it.

  • ||

    YES!

    You can work for 7 cents an hour,backed by GOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD, at least until the periodic bank panics come! Then it's begging on the street for bread because guess what? NO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS! FREE MARKET!

    And don't think about asking for better wages or I'll fire you without any benefits at all. And if you try to unionize, we'll send out the Pinkertons!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Idiot (The 'Truth,' actually),

    You can work for 7 cents an hour,backed by GOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD,


    7 cents backed by gold is like today's 10 dollars, idiot.

  • Banjos||

    A currency with value? No unemployment insurance (something I twice refused)? No unions? Stop it troll, my nipples are now getting hard.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Gee, how on earth did our country manage to survive without a minimum wage and endless welfare programs?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You can work for 7 cents an hour,backed by GOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD, at least until the periodic bank panics come!

    Right, because we haven't had ANY recessions since 1913, correct?

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, how on Earth did the US become the greatest economic power in history during the Gilded Age when we didn't have any of the bear neccessities like price and wage fixing?

  • ||

    Ron Paul for President
    What he says is what he means
    Ron Paul for President
    He'll sweep this country clean!

    He'll kick out the old UN
    And keep us out of wars
    The income tax will see an end
    And we'll legalize drugs and whores!

    Which I completely supppporttt!

  • ||

    I prefer Johnson. Paul doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election.

    I'm not 100% sure that Paul should drop out and endorse Johnson though. It might be interesting seeing them compete against eachother, and it might counterintuitively improve Johnson's chances - by bringing more light and credibility to libertarian ideas within the Republican party.

    of course, if he actually starts stealing votes from Johnson, he should drop out and endorse him.

  • Really?||

    Drop out and be his VP.

  • Ron Paul||

    He has to endorse the GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD standard first!

    Also, we must do something about the Spaniards in Cuba! Remember the Maine!

  • cynical||

    What? I'm pretty sure Paul would have been opposed to the Spanish American war if he lived back then. Is this some kinda of avant garde absurdist trolling?

  • Old Mexican||

    Not avant garde, no... More like sideways coward.

  • ||

    In polite society you usually wait at least a month after dropping out before taking the VP slot. Less is bad form.

  • RyanXXX||

    "Stealing votes" from Johnson? If anything, it would be the other way around

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I prefer Johnson. Paul doesn't stand a chance of winning the general election.

    Maybe not. But Johnson stands even less of a chance than Paul of getting the nomination.

  • yonemoto||

    Disagree. 1) Except for trump, the paleo field is pretty crowded. 2) The dems will be easier to get to cross over to register republican and vote for a libertarian candidate since they won't be obsessed with getting their messiah in. Being on the ground for Paul last time around this was a HUGE deal.

  • yonemoto||

    wow that 1) was awful. I meant to say the paleos field is crowded and the only other consmopolitan republican is Trump, who is an embarassment.

  • ||

    Joy Behar thought there was a Presidential election in 1998? She's right on top of this political shit alright...

  • jacob||

    I see no future in Ron Paul and Gary Johnson trying to compete against each other. I'm OK with either one taking the role of VP for the other.

  • ||

    You guys don't need a two-term Governor, you need a senile and KOOKY Congressman from a redneck district with a fetish for GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD and racist newsletters!

    I'm 75 years old, come on guys!

  • 9/11 Truther||

    Congressman Paul, this site is run by Jewish thugs. I'd suggest you end all transmissions to this site before they are able to trace your location.

    Godspeed, RP.

  • ||

    As long as there aren't any fleet-footed blacks.

  • 9/11 Truther||

    Congratulations on picking Jesse Ventura as a running-mate. He's one of us.

  • 9/11 Truther||

    Congratulations on picking Jesse Ventura as a running-mate. He's one of us.

  • Old Mexican||

    Ron Paul announced today in Hannity that he will announce tomorrow, in Iowa, that he will launch an exploratory committee for a possible run for the presidency.

    Hannity asked Ron Paul to tell his supporters not to throw snowballs at 'little ol' me.' The wuss...

  • ||

    A dismantling of the Fed and return of the dollar to GOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD followed by an immediate balancing of the budget next year at all costs!

    Of course this will start a deflationary spiral that destroys the world economy, but it's worth it cause your dollars will be backed by GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD! GOLD I TELLS YA!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Idiot,
    You're getting tiresome, idiot.

    Of course this will start a deflationary spiral that destroys the world economy[...]


    Which tells anybody with a modicum of knowledge of economics that you're an economics ignoramus, not worth the skin you're wearing.

  • jacob||

    Don't feed the trolls

  • 9/11 Truther||

  • The Apple Dumpling Gang||

    Where was Prince William on 9/11?

  • The Apple Dumpling Gang||

    This lack of Royal Wedding coverage is disturbing.

  • Gary Busey||

    Real
    Old
    National

    Person
    Attemping
    US
    Leadership

  • ||

    Thank God. Finally. If I see or hear one more thing out of Donald Trump I'm going to vomit.

  • Donald Trump||

    I will infest your nightmares.

  • Heathcliff||

  • PantsFan||

    just saw Ron Paul on Colbert. Colbert was being sarcastic when he agreed with him. Paul either played along perfectly or was duped perfectly.

  • Sasha Baron Cohen||

    Why is everybody looking at me?

  • Donald Trump||

    Bill Maher making fun of my hair?

  • Achtung Coma Baby||

    Watching that Colbert Report interview, I have to say that I'd rather have Johnson over Paul. Gary Johnson has what I want out of a libertarian, plus he doesn't look like a federal reserve conspiracy theorist.

  • zoltan||

    What exactly is the conspiracy theory?

  • Wayne Gretzky||

    I can go in right now and put up 5 goals against these San Joseians.

  • Russell Westbrook||

    Well, you can score five goals, but I can take about thirty shots. As your point guard. With Kevin Durant just sitting there, waiting for the ball. Top that, Great One.

  • Michael Vick||

    I like dogs.

  • Charlie Simmer||

    Not in that terrible black and silver scheme you couldn't, we need purple and GOOOOLLLLLLDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!

  • Brandon||

    Just had to say it, that shrike character was an idiot.

  • Max||

    Ron Paul is a lying racist scum who has about as much chance of being elected Prresident as Nick Gillespie has of ever getting all the shit off that copy of Atlas Shrugged he has shoved up his ass.

  • rather ||

    Maybe he likes the color ;-)

  • yonemoto||

    You don't really read the articles, do you? Nick Gillespie has Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy shoved up his ass, not Atlas Shrugged. Nick != Tim Cavanaugh.

  • yonemoto||

    fuck, I meant brian doherty.

  • Max||

    I'm sorry, but Schumpeter would never cause the look of anal agony that Ayn Rand causes, and you can plainly see that look on Nick Gillespie's face. The gurus here all strive for intellectual respectavility (well, maybe not Welch), but they are garden-variety right-wing assholes at heart, excuse the mixed metaphore. So fuck you.

  • yonemoto||

    what the fuck? Welch is the one that has a broom up his butt. The rest of them are lollygaggers in the vein of Matt and Trey. Well, except for KMW, who tries too hard.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    Ron Paul is a lying racist scum


    Not like these real lying racist scumbags who actually said something racist - let's watch:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edbqajD8IWU

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgIFV7jXBFQ

  • Max||

    Go suck Ron Paul's cock.

  • Old Mexican||

    Nice comeback, pet yorkie.

  • ||

    “It might even be a conspiracy.”

    *bangs head against table

  • ||

    I think it would be a very worthwhile exercise for all the Republican candidates to do a joint publicity event where they release their birth certificates, their college transcripts, etc. All the stuff that candidates shouldn't be hiding, but Obama is.

    I personally am dying of curiousity to see his birth certificate. I think the odds that he wasn't born in Hawaii are low, but I just wonder what he is so embarrassed about on that birth certificate.

  • 0x90||

    It's not going to happen -- it's a no-win (or a win, in terms of its value as diversionary static) for him, because by now, I think you may agree that there's only one unalterable fact: he could not produce a document which, regardless of its il/legitimacy, would be accepted as authentic. The claim would become that it had been cooked up by the CIA, or whatever, guaranteed. Just ask the Truthers.

  • ||

    lol, OK now thats a very scary thought.

    www.complete-privacy.edu.tc

  • ||

    Don't get me wrong, Ox90 - I'm in this mostly for the entertainment value. I'm hoping the stunt would provoke some questioning by the White House press corp: Hey, why haven't we seen his transcripts? Why won't he release his birth certificate? Why is he the only candidate who won't?

    Watching that idiotic, thin-skinned, pencil-necked new press secretary get all red and shouty - that's entertainment.

  • V. Turkgaloo||

    With the brief exception of Tony Snow, nobody has been able to play that game since the '90s. And WTF is so hard about it? Except, you know, the truth would ruin your boss and that will put you out of a job.

  • Tncm||

    This is what I learned today about people who are against Ron Paul:

    1.) They think that wage rates only rise because of government decrees and not due to increases in the marginal productivity of labor.

    2.) They completely misunderstand why child labor existed in the first place, and why it wouldn't exist regardless of laws now. (Hint: A century ago labor was so unproductive that children had to work so the family could produce enough to feed itself. This is not so in America today, where one American farmer today can produce hundreds of times more than a Kenyan farmer)

    3.) They think that Ron Paul wants to immediately peg the dollar to gold, which is almost impossible at this point without massive deflation, when instead he said that he wants to denationalize currency completely.

    4.) Full-reserve banking is as nuanced as a warehouse.

    5.) Somalia.

  • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi||

    The criminals fear Dr Ron for good reason.

  • Cure ear infection||

    Your post is really good providing good information. Garlic health benefits I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Sinus headache

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