Ron Paul

New Ron Paul Ad Focuses on His Crazy Ability to Have Consistent Beliefs about Bailouts


Definitely an improvement over the immigrants are scary series. 

What's intriguing is that Texas Rep. Ron Paul is clearly becoming a better politician—he has fewer stammers, higher budget ads, and he's reaching out to potentially sympathetic Occupy Wall Street protesters, particularly in the Las Vegas debate– but he still crams lectures on Austrian economics and blowback into 20 second soundbites.

And the media is still generally more excited that somebody finally switched Texas Gov. Rick Perry's downers for uppers.

Reason on TARP and on Ron Paul. And be sure to check out our GOP candidate quiz. Ron Paul could be your dream date.

NEXT: Health Lobbyists Hope For a Yet Another Deal On Medicare Cuts

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why court the slavers? Nothing good can come of that.

  2. Is he still blaming America for 9/11? A flip-flop there would be nice.

    1. Suki, how are the moooooooozlimzzzzz? Found any under your bed lately?
      Necon sock puppet!

  3. Lucy, am I free to gambol across thread and post?

    1. No, because servers are imaginary lines that restrict gamboling electronically, because of bread, or something.

    2. Gamboling is illegal at Bushwood sir, and I never slice.

    3. No, because gamboling is fun, and fun is COUP

  4. I just read an article this morning about how Paul can be ignored by the media because his policies won’t change to “fit changing political realities.” I’m guessing it was written by a Romney voter.

    1. And exactly what “changing political realities” did the writer have in mind?

    2. “fit changing political realities.”

      Translation: We say whatever it takes to con you rubes into voting for us in November.

      I can get my ” fit changing political realities” fix from the current nitwit holding the job.

      1. I can get my ” fit changing political realities” fix from the current nitwit holding the job.

        See, fish gets it: Vote Incumbent!


  5. Is Red State freaking out over how well Paul is doing this time around?

    1. Red State is borderline reasonable. They like his son. If you want to really get depressed about the state of the GOP go over the Free Republic. It’s the raging musings of Santorum, Perry and Bachmann supporters.

  6. Still whining about his immigration policy views?

    If you want libertarian purity, you shouldn’t be interested in electoral politics, period.
    And if you *are* interested in electoral politics, and insist on purity on all issues, you’re not going to get anyone better than Ron Paul anyway. If he’s better than Ron Paul, he’s an anarcho-capitalist.

    1. Libertarian purity would eliminate ancaps from consideration.

    2. Libertarian purity would eliminate minarchists from consideration.

      1. And we would institute strict speech codes.

      2. “Libertarian purity” would eliminate everyone except everyone except undead Rothbard and his necromancer Hans Hermann Hoppe. Decrepit monocles and top hats would be in abundant supply.

          1. You argued well. Not just because I agree with you, but it doesn’t hurt.

      3. No, libertarianism is minarchy.

        1. No, libertarianism is simply a philosophy that elevates individual liberty as the highest good, first principle, idea of greatest utility.

          How one arrives at that, how extreme, how property rights are assigned, if rights are natural, the solutions on how to get there, etc, are often highly contentious. It’s why we fight amongst ourselves and why LvMI and LR are often times at odds with Reason and Cato.

          There is no such thing as libertarian purity.

          1. Shh. You’ll derail the endless petty squabbling about who is/isn’t/more/less libertarian.

          2. Are you saying that there’s no true Scotsman?

        2. nu-uhh

    3. If he’s an anarcho-capitalist, he’s not better than Ron Paul.

    4. It is perfectly possible to support a candidate and still mention that you disagree with him on some issues. Why is this so difficult for some people to grasp? There is no point pretending that any candidate is perfect.

  7. I know Rick Perry’s secret. There was a shot from behind the candidates in the early part of the debate and he looked like he was grabbing the podium like a sheep and doing a pelvic thrust on it. Gave him kindof a sheep-fucker swagger.

  8. somebody finally switched Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s downers for uppers.

    His staffers finally quit giving him extra-drowsy formula cough syrup, huh?

  9. Fun fact: today’s money bomb is closing in on a million dollars already.

    1. Hit that mark already. I think I’ll go over and add a few dollars myself.

  10. When is Gary Johnson going to pack it in and seek the Libertarian nomination?
    I like Ron Paul but I get the idea that this time around the effort is to simply build the “money bomb” list so he can have a cushy retirement income when he leaves office in 2013.

    1. ???

      I think that argument could have been made 4 years ago (and was), but this time around? Paul seems to be seriously going for it in 2012.

    2. I’d be shocked if GJ tried to go for the LP nod… it would seem he’s libertarian via pragmatism and not as a core ideology (if you can separate the two). That said, would the LP take someone who doesn’t fit exactly the mold of their “issues” page on their website?

      1. Johnson seems more in line with them than Paul. Unless their “issues” is being so ideologically impractical as to never actually attract real voters. That’s been their MO for the last 30 years. I was hoping that maybe changed with Bob Barr. Are the pagans still being represented over there?

      2. They had fucking Bob Barr last time. Johnson seems like a much better fit than Barr.

  11. they called H Ross Perot crazy too re NAFTA
    much time & money was spent smearing him

  12. “but he still crams lectures on Austrian economics and blowback into 20 second soundbites”

    Given that central banking and war are the two biggest reasons our economy is in shambles, I think he ought to keep cramming “lectures on Austrian economics and blowback into 20 second soundbites.” And you call yourselves libertarians.

    1. err I think you’re making the wrong conclusions. Lucy obviously meant that as a compliment

  13. What is wrong with being right? Or right and consistent?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.