Politics

Ron Paul's Unusual Path

The Texas congressman challenges the GOP status quo.

|

Davenport, Iowa—No one in this year's race has spent more time running for president than Ron Paul, who before entering the Republican primaries in 2008 and 2012 was the 1988 nominee of the Libertarian Party. And no one runs for president quite the way Paul does.

His town hall meeting is in an auditorium at the Figge Art Museum, which an audience of some 100 people has filled on a sunny fall afternoon. Other candidates may arrive to thumping music, but Paul gets a simple introduction as "the Thomas Jefferson of our day."

Others may affect shirtsleeves or cowboy boots to show their connection to ordinary folks, but the 76-year-old Paul wears a business suit. He doesn't tell jokes or pay homage to local politicians. When he is done, he leaves without stopping to shake hands or pose for photos.

Paul is the only Republican contender who can speak for more than an hour without attacking President Barack Obama by name or invoking Ronald Reagan. His rivals are running political campaigns. Paul has bigger fish to fry.

"I've had a strong message for a long time, and I've been talking about it for many, many years if not decades, but it seems like the message of liberty is more appropriate now than it has been in a long, long time," he says.

Style is the least of the ways in which the candidate departs from convention. Paul delights in two principal habits: taking un-conservative positions that are anathema to the other candidates, and taking conservative positions further than the other candidates would dare.

Today, he is intent more on the latter, criticizing the federal government for bailing out financial institutions, running up debt, and meddling in the economy. "It's time to change policies and quit spending so much money," he says, to hearty applause.

Paul has unassailable credibility on the issue, having earned an "A" from the National Taxpayers Union every year he's been in Congress going back to 1997. While other Republican members of Congress were approving swollen budgets under President George W. Bush, the retired obstetrician was validating his nickname: "Doctor No."

He has released a plan to slash federal spending by $1 trillion—not over four years or 10 years, but in one year. He would reach that goal by, among other steps, abolishing five Cabinet departments. Total number of departments abolished by the past two Republican presidents? Zero.

Rick Perry may utter ominous warnings to Ben Bernanke, but no one is more critical of the Federal Reserve than Paul. He objects not just to its recent conduct but to its existence.

Central banks, in his view, are shadowy institutions that exist to enrich the powerful and debase the currency. He said earlier this year, "We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery."

That's the sort of alarmism that causes many people philosophically compatible with Paul to roll their eyes. His fetish for the gold standard finds few allies even among economists who favor free markets and low inflation.

But his views on monetary matters don't evoke fierce disagreement from his fellow GOP candidates. What makes them recoil is his rejection of military intervention in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, which he blames for squandering money and provoking anti-American terrorism.

But again, Paul laces useful insights with irrational paranoia. In Libya, President Obama might get points for insisting that NATO take the lead role. Not from Paul, who denounces the multilateral approach as "a victory for one world government"—one of his curious obsessions. He has previously accused both Obama and George W. Bush of favoring one world government.

Paul often makes such detours into the strange or indefensible. The newsletters he put out in the 1980s and 1990s showed a penchant for crude bigotry against blacks ("animals") and gays. Paul disavowed the offending passages, claiming he never saw or approved most of them—an implausible excuse for a publication carrying his name.

But his appeal in this campaign lies elsewhere, in his longstanding opposition to inflation, excessive spending, and endless war. On those issues, Paul has not moved toward the Republican mainstream since 2008; the Republican mainstream has moved toward him. As he hurries off to his next event, he leaves the crowd behind him, but he seems to be pulling the party in his wake.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

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.

111 responses to “Ron Paul's Unusual Path

  1. He is running again?

    1. On those issues, Paul has not moved toward the Republican mainstream since 2008; the Republican mainstream has moved toward him. As he hurries off to his next event, he leaves the crowd behind him, but he seems to be pulling the party in his wake.

      This is exactly why it is important to vote for Paul. Even if he will never win (lousy lifespan, maybe if he lived to 125 years old), him winning votes will bring his policies to other candidates’ platforms.

  2. If there are any Dems out there who are tired of Obama: http://www.bluerepublican.org/

  3. Who’s Ron Paul?

    1. February 2007 called and wondered where you’ve been since then.

  4. We’re still talking about the newsletters?

    1. Ya, didn’t you know it’s implausible that he isn’t a closet bigot? I know because Steve Chapman told me so. It’s weird how he is totally open about all his other quixotic, gadflyish ideas like his fetish for gold, but that one thing he has managed to keep quiet except for a slip via ghost writer proxy 15 years ago.

      1. All he needs to do is say something like “I don’t agree with that stuff but I support free exchange of ideas”.

  5. Central banks, in his view, are shadowy institutions that exist to enrich the powerful and debase the currency. He said earlier this year, “We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery.”

    That’s the sort of alarmism that causes many people philosophically compatible with Paul to roll their eyes.

    See, if Paul is going to be mocked on that statement here, of all places, what chance does he have?

    1. No chance, but it is still worth voting for him, as long as it is in the primaries and not as a third party in the general. Red is still better than blue and a vote for independent/libertarian is a vote against team red, in a general election.

      1. vote for independent/libertarian is a vote against team red, in a general election.

        Its also a vote against team blue.

        Red is still better than blue

        [citation needed]

        1. Well, don’t get me wrong, they both suck, but blue tends to buy votes more with entitlement programs that never go away. It also keeps the poor where they are rather than help them, ensuring the next generation of voters.

          Reds spend a lot of money too, but I am ok with spending on defense since at least some innovation and manufacturing comes out of that deal.

          Their common spending and growing is the reason they both suck.

          1. TEAM RED RAH RAH RAH derp

          2. Look at the wars the U.S. is fighting now. The Taliban didn’t attack the U.S. Iraq didn’t attack the U.S. Libya didn’t attack the U.S. How can you look at these countries the U.S. is bombing and claim military spending is on defense? It’s overwhelmingly spent on militarism that makes us less safe by causing blowback.

            But you’re okay with all that because some innovation and manufacturing comes out of the deal? You’re kidding, right? It’s okay that the government taxes and spends on the military in mind-boggingly wasteful ways, killing people and making us less safe, diverting resources away from private companies who might manufacture things that people want, because occasionally a small fraction of the technology is adapted for use in personal goods? You seriously think that the government is advancing technology in ways private industry wouldn’t have?

            I suppose if the airplane had been developed by government instead of private businesses, you’d think that we wouldn’t have airplanes without government, too?

            Quick lesson: just because the government happens to do something doesn’t mean that the private sector couldn’t have done it, and likely have advanced technology further if so many resources hadn’t been diverted to the military-industrial-congressional complex.

            1. In Joe’s defense (no pun intended), it’s not military spending (as unwarranted and unconstitutional as it may be) that will bankrupt this country, it’s entitlement spending. And while Team Red has had it’s share of fun (Part D anyone?), entitlement programs are generally seen as the dominion of Team Blue.

              1. Thanks JohnG.

                I was speaking more generally, not specifically. Whether we are involved in wars or not, the defense budget, which is most guarded by Reps, will be huge and a major talking/spending point.

                But if I had a dollar that I could either hand out to a welfare recipient or a soldier, it would go to a soldier every time. Just like it would go to Boeing or Northrup rather than the bloated medical establishment. Are they both a waste of money? Arguably. But at least one produces disciplined citizens where the other produces poverty. One produces airplanes where the other produces inflation in medical costs. Would airplanes exist anyway? Sure, but if the gov’t is going to be blowing money at least it can go to people that work and innovate or serve and protect, rather than deadbeats.

              2. Also, national defense is actually a Federal matter, while all the domestic stuff needs to be left alone, or to the states if the people of that state decide so.

            2. The space program is valuable because they developed the cassette tape. You didn’t know that?

        1. We have always been at war with TEAM BLUE.

      2. I thought that the idea was to vote for who you think is best. Way too many people already vote instead for the lesser of two evils, R or D.

        CB.

    2. That exact same idea got Andrew Jackson elected. And Thomas Jefferson (although TJ had some other things going for him).

    3. Remember this is long-time Obama supporter Steve Chapman. Who voted for Obama in 2008 because he showed “an intelligence and temperament that suggest he will govern more pragmatically than ideologically.”

  6. This kind of garbage is exactly why I cancelled my subscription to Reason. Ron Paul is a hero, and you people should be worshiping him for everything he has done to promote liberty in America.

    1. Constitution’s best friend, you forgot to add that in there.

    2. parody or real?

  7. RuPaul is a man?!? I feel dirty now.

    1. Double irony, because RuPaul is a man.

    2. Triple irony, because Ron Paul is better known than Ru Paul now, unlike four and a half years ago when I first heard this joke.

      1. No Irony here…

        Alexa Website Ranking (lower # is better)

        RonPaul2012.com 9,413

        Rupaul.com 2,162,638

  8. The newsletters he put out in the 1980s and 1990s showed a penchant for crude bigotry against blacks (“animals”) and gays.

    Wait – “penchant”? As in “prevalent”, “continuous”, “ubiquitous”?

    I believe you’re lying through your teeth, sir.

    Paul disavowed the offending passages, claiming he never saw or approved most of them?an implausible excuse for a publication carrying his name.

    That’s an idiotic assertion. I can start a Steve Chapman newsletter and publish essays with some vile language. Would you then believe that your disavowment of it would not be enough?

    No, I didn’t think so.

    1. Great article detailing how grossly out of context those offending statements are: http://takimag.com/article/why…..z1YjP32pGw

      1. Re: one percent,

        I read that article by Rainmondo and became convinced of the sloppyness (at best) of Reason’s research on the issue of the famous “newsletters.” After reading one of the “offending” pasages regarding the LA riots, it was clear to me that the rehashing of the newsletters by The New Republic and Reason was nothing short of a hatchet job against Paul.

  9. His fetish for the gold standard finds few allies even among economists who favor free markets and low inflation.

    Sound money = gold standard fetish according to Chapman’s Strawman Machine.

    Thank you, Reason, for allowing me to see the light! Thank Chapman from my part – he’s so dreamy.

    1. He has specifically said he doesnt think we can go back to the gold standard, hence his support for competing currencies instead.

      Chapman, was, is and will always be a hack.

      1. Yup. This is probably the most common misunderstanding of Paul, followed closely by the arguably more irksome and certainly more discussed ‘isolationist’ label.

    2. If more people realized that the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value since ending the Bretton Woods gold standard in 1971, there would be a lot more gold standard fetishists out there.

      1. Re: CE,

        If more people realized that the dollar has lost 82 percent of its value since ending the Bretton Woods gold standard in 1971, there would be a lot more gold standard fetishists out there.

        The most interesting thing about the “gold fetish” denotation is that it was coined by Marx.

    3. The thumper, warmongers on Fox were trying to trash Paul last night.

  10. Another Reason hit piece against Ron Paul. Fucking typical. Walter Block was right, Reason Magazine is a joke.

    1. Who the fuck is Walter Block?

      1. The Internet…how does it work?

    2. I know.
      Why isn’t Reason jumping at the chance to support Ron Paul?

      I was expecting to see way more supportive articles here on Reason to support Ron Paul but instead we get articles like this with backhanded compliments.

  11. War is good! Banks are good! Bailouts are good! Inflation is good! That’s all I heard. Oh and Steve NATO ~is~ a one world military.

  12. But again, Paul laces useful insights with irrational paranoia. In Libya, President Obama might get points for insisting that NATO take the lead role. Not from Paul, who denounces the multilateral approach as “a victory for one world government”?one of his curious obsessions.

    Insisting on obeying the Constitution and not go to war unless a clear declaration from Congress = irrational paranoia, according to Chapman’s Strawman Machine.

    Thank you, Reason, for allowing me to see the light! Thank Chapman from my part – he’s so dreamy.

    1. AMEN.

    2. Why should the government have to obey the law?

  13. Thanks for helping me decide whether I should get a subscription to Reason…it’s a firm “No Thanks” with foolish hit pieces like these.

  14. Just out of curiosity, suppose the “impossible” happened and Ron Paul won the GOP nomination. Are there any libertarians here who wouldn’t vote for him in the general election? That is, refuse to vote at all or vote for the LP candidate.

    1. Hopefully not, but I’m sure there are some super hardcore “purists” out there who wouldn’t.

      1. Re: Joe M,

        Hopefully not, but I’m sure there are some super hardcore “purists” out there who wouldn’t.

        Depends on what you mean by “purists”. If you mean the “beltwayrians,” then I would agree some of them would probably not vote for him.

        1. The Libertarian party is fairly active in Texas. They run candidates for nearly all major offices. But they specifically declined to run against Ron Paul for congress because he was close enough to their views that it did not seem necessary. They would likely not run a presidential candidate if he got the GOP nod.

    2. I may vote for him anyway since I can’t stand Romney and refuse to endorse a national sales tax.

    3. Probably not but those guys over at LRC don’t vote at all.

      (I’m generalize but so are all the trolls above who think Chapman saying something is the whole of Reason saying something.)

    4. Just out of curiosity, suppose the “impossible” happened and Ron Paul won the GOP nomination.

      If Ron Paul does win the Republican nomination, all those mainstream commentators who repeatedly warn us that a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for Obama will draft Rudy Giuliani as a neocon independent candidate faster than Obama can spend a billion dollars. Then the media will inundate us with stories of Giuliani’s unprecedented grassroots support, even though it will pale in comparison to the actual grassroots support for Ron Paul that they have ignored for five years.

  15. “His fetish for the gold standard finds few allies even among economists who favor free markets and low inflation support for the concept of competitive currencies is often outright ignored by intellectually-bankrupt commentators, who apparently find it more useful to inaccurately cast him in the role of simple-minded goldbug.”

    1. nicely done

    2. Apparently Steve Chapman struggles with such fine distinctions. And simple fact-checking.

      1. @”What you meant to write”:

        How can you call yourself a libertarian and not be in favor of a government-favored currency that’s handled by a largely unaccountable private-public institution in the Federal Reserve?

  16. Guys, go easy. Getting validation from inside the beltway is damn near impossible for real libertarians. Compromise, not libertarian principle, is the ultimate political virtue, because the goal is not to achieve maximum freedom, but to be the “cute, interesting” libertarian-ish voice at the establishment party. “Aww, look at our token libertarian! Isn’t he so cute and harmless? And aren’t we so inclusive?”

    1. How come I never get invited to those parties?

      1. Let me know if you do. You can borrow my Uzi.

      2. Maybe it’s because you’ve got balls and a soul.

  17. Right or wrong, Ron Paul doesn’t talk to the mainstream, which doesn’t understand the fed, costs of war, etc. He talks to those who have invested alot of time understanding the issues and they either agree with him or they don’t, but those that understand the issues make up a small proportion of the electorate. The majority of the electorate wants someone up there that tells them something that they and their friends think sounds right, even if its complete foolishness. Paul could talk to these people and get more on board with his policies, but that would require giving in to their uninformed concerns. Its the price you pay for seeking a position where your bosses are completely bewildered and confused about what they want from you and why Romney, who says alot without revealing anything, gets so much support. He only has to look assured and calm and say a few platitudes for the electorate to agree that he’d be ok. And also why Ron will never get to that point of support.

    He’s not wrong, but people feel he must be.

    1. Well said. The task of educating millions of ignorant or foolish or just stupid people who are also ego attached to their views is more than Herculean, and thus we are continually stuck with shallow, non-thinking obstinate people who swallow sound bites or whatever comes forth the smoothest (Romney is a slick one)without really applying critical thinking, economic truths and historical reality to what they are looking or listening to.

      1. I think the current crop of politicians (except for Paul) have given into the idea that educating voters is a waste of time. In large part they’re right, but its not about educating everyone, its about educating enough of the right kind of people to effect change…and they don’t necessarily have to be voters.

        The new left have “educated” enough people over the past 50+ years to produce our current political and economic collapse. That’s been their goal, and its succeeding. They’ve been exploiting a philosophical support base that stretches back hundreds of years. I think we’re getting close to the end of it, though…the end for the left/progressive movement is near.

        Paul is swimming against a strong current of (bad) ideas, his opponents are swimming with it. I don’t expect RP to get much media exposure and certainly don’t expect him to get the Republican nomination. He is educating people and building an intellectual support base. The payoff will be some time in the future…probably long after he’s dead.

  18. Damn, Chapman… Ron Paul is the closest thing you will get to your ideal candidate in your lifetime, but you want to pick bones?!

    Is it any wonder why we never achieve liberty? Even it’s proponents disparage the others that would aid in its fruition.

    1. Re: Mike in PA,

      Damn, Chapman… Ron Paul is the closest thing you will get to your ideal candidate in your lifetime, but you want to pick bones?!

      You’re being too kind. This sounds more like a hatchet job than an honest critique. For instance:

      He said earlier this year, “We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery.”

      That’s the sort of alarmism that causes many people philosophically compatible with Paul to roll their eyes.

      Is Champan insinuating that Paul’s reasoning or assessment is crazy? Because he is clearly not saying it is wrong, as he does not offer a counterargument. He simply assumes that the “eye rolling” means something to seemingly informed people.

      The fact is that the banking system is effectively cartelized through the existence of the Federal Reserve, and there’s no question as to the role monetary policy and fiscal policy plays in creating a nation of debtors.

      Paul […] denounces the multilateral approach as “a victory for one world government” ? one of his curious obsessions.

      Again, the author assumes one should agree with his assessment without question, not even hinting at the possibility that Paul may be on to something. However, Chapman is doing nothing more than arguing from a clumsy Strawman, as Paul has legitimate Constitutionally-based objections to pursuing military action with only the UN’s say-so. Chapman simply limits himself to insinuating that Paul is a kook.

      1. Yeah, Chapman is really doing some dirty disingenuous writing here. It’s quite aggravating.

    2. “Damn, Chapman… Ron Paul is the closest thing you will get to your ideal candidate in your lifetime, but you want to pick bones?!”

      Chapman supported Obama probably more enthusiastically in 2008 than any other regular Reason member. What you makes you think Paul is closer to his ideal than Obama?

  19. IF Ron Paul can get second in NH -it seems plausible as Cain’s overhype dwindles and the notromney social con vote gets split 6 ways…IF Ron can leverage that into some good results in the dirrrty South. IF Ron becomes the only plausible notromney left around. Could he win? Heads to heads with Romneys? I’m not a fan of Ron as a person, but romney is an animated (full) enema-sack. No different from the current leader of TEAM BLUE in any way.

    Still hoping Gary Johnson can get his turn at the flavor of the week bullshit that TEAM RED loves to pull these days…Maybe instead of spending all his time climbing rocks he should go antagonize the media and the other candidates with incendiary rhetoric. He’s acting like a noob.

  20. Chapman is such a hack. I’m embarrassed for Reason.

    “That’s the sort of alarmism that causes many people philosophically compatible with Paul to roll their eyes. His fetish for the gold standard finds few allies even among economists who favor free markets and low inflation.”

    Chapman, how can you favor Free Markets and support our current Federal Reserve system. It is nothing more than Monetary Socialism. Central planning. Whereas with a gold standard even with a Central Bank people are in charge of money. Not the bankers or politicians.

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-….._id=158146

  21. I would do anything to have Ron Paul win. Any other win absolutely terrifies me. We need freedom, liberty, straight-talk, less government and we need to honor our constitution. We need to take the politics out of politics.

    I sincerely believe he can change the world.

    1. I could put in good word for him if you’re up to a little quid pro quo. If you know what I mean… (wear that little blue dress)

  22. I don’t think his ‘fetish’ for the gold standard is bad. If you look at what has happened to our dollar value since the FED’s existence then you’ll see they have only caused problems in the economic sector.

    Get educated:
    http://youtu.be/1FiaUpeJxcA
    http://youtu.be/FbyQB8e-rQg

  23. “When he is done, he leaves without stopping to shake hands or pose for photos.”

    Ha, thats funny, that must be why I totally shook his hand and got a picture with him.

    WTF Reason?

  24. Same old thing, make ron paul look crazy even though he is only going by what the constitution says. He acknowledges going back to the gold standard is unrealistic and favors free markets, but the way you put it here doesn’t really paint that picture. While I don’t think a One-World Government is coming any time soon, I don’t think his critique of NATO is as wildly off-base as you make it seem. My question is, why is the republican mainstream moving toward Paul a bad thing? Anything is better than the Rick Perry and Herman Cains of the world.

  25. “Fire them ALL!..and Hire Ron Paul!”

  26. What is Reason’s goal by this? Reason better believe that I will never donate or subscribe to their magazine again.

    1. Woohoo!
      It’s back!
      Cancel my subscription!

      1. I like intelligent sarcasm. Your vapid sneer doesn’t do it for me.

  27. Ron Paul never called blacks “animals”. that’s a lie. Given that Libertarian ideas are all about equal rights, it would be a bit nutty to suggest Paul loves equal rights except for blacks. Complete nonsense. Ron Paul is the only one in the field who is against the drug war that is destroying the lives of minorities.

    Furthermore, this is called “Reason”. Reasonable people know that someone who has openly advocated for a “New World Order” and then had it printed on his handgun certainly does advocate for world government. Duh. That isn’t paranoia that is blanket fact. Both George Bush and Bush Jr. advocated that. It isn’t that Ron Paul is paranoid. Its that the author of this article is either delusional and ignorant of the facts. Perhaps the author should pay attention to the title of the website: reason. Lets get some more of that in future articles please.

    1. Perhaps the author should pay attention to the title of the website: reason.
      Judges?

  28. I hate Alex Jones as much as the next guy who prefers to think for himself, but at this point, to deny that policy is gradually trending further toward global governance (and that we have an easily-verifiable history of policymakers publicly supporting the notion) is kookier than anything I’ve seen from Ron Paul.

    God forbid a so-called libertarian journalist hold up Ron Paul’s Free Competition in Currency Act as a fantastic example of libertarian solutions to our monetary woes. Let’s instead use faulty logic (or more appropriately, no logic) to further the mainstream notion that Paul is a kook. Much more productive for the cause of liberty.

    Steve Chapman disavows Ron Paul in order to save face in the establishment lounge, and those of us who actually value liberty roll our eyes.

  29. Puff, puff, give, Mittens.

  30. Man, I’m gettin’ pretty drunk reading through this thread.

    Just one more for the road – for a magazine called Reason…

      1. Shut the fuck up Citizen. You’re as pathetic as Suki.

  31. Steve Chapman
    Frank Luntz

    Brothers in Arms

    Nice hatchet job, Steve. Hope you sleep well at night after the whole house of cards falls down. What candidate supports “Free Minds and Free Markets” better than Dr. Paul?

    Reason, shame on you for employing this [redacted to be nice].

  32. Thanks for this article, it has encouraged me to not further spend my money on a subscription to your magazine.

    Anyone who believes sound money, a constitutional government, and a humble foreign policy are bad, has no backbone in politics, and shifts with the political winds.

  33. Neocons are easy to spot these days … even the stealth ones

  34. I only have one thing to say.

    BOOOO!

    BOOOOO!
    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    Even the mainstream media won’t drag out the race card on Ron Paul, yet Steve Chapman does while writing for a libertarian Reason magazine? Shame on you.

  35. Ron Paul is using his run for president to make a case that is much bigger than who gets to sleep in the White House. He is trying to change the mindset of the whole human species.

    It probably can not be done in the lifetime of one man. But the future will see him like Moses.

  36. Canceling subscription in 3…2…1…

  37. Alarmism? Fetish?

    It seems to me that it is Reason itself that is alarmed.

    Silly beltway libertarians.

  38. beltway and willfully ignorant…

    http://takimag.com/article/why…..z1c1dj3Afq

  39. I am deeply disappointed in you, Reason Magazine. When my Austrian-economist friend first found you in my college library, I was amazed to find that there were people in the world who thought like me! (i.e. valued rational discussion about liberty)

    Alas, what has happened? This article is worthy of the New York Times.

  40. Man, I love Reason magazine, and the fun and irreverant culture of the comment section, and the generally lively writing…

    And then they trot out that asshole Steve Chapman to do another one of his hit pieces on Paul.

    Why? Why the fuck would a “libertarian” magazine publish such an amaturish smear job on a heroic libertarian?

    Fuck you Reason and fuck you Steve Chapman.

  41. Intervention with Libya was an unconstitutional, undeclared, immoral war, and in fact did relinquish national sovereignty to an International Organization, another step towards One World Government. How is it that to point out the obvious is “paranoia”? And to think I once read Reason Magazine religiously as a source of information for the cause of Liberty! And spoke personally with Robert Poole when he visited here in Hawaii and worked with him – I was Chairman of the Libertarian Party of Hawaii – when he got interviewed by Perry and Price on the most listened to radio station in the state. What has happened to REASON?

  42. I believe that the good Dr. Ron Paul would agree with me in the diagnosis of Reason Magazine and Steve Chapman that they suffer from craniorectal inversion. Actually, Stevo is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, and judging by some of his other articles has a pretty bad case of CRI… MY VOTE GOES TO RON PAUL 2012.

  43. Whatsamatter, Steve?

    Did you get a little nudge from Koch? Was it time to tear down that Mises-influenced guy again because he believes in principles instead of currying favor with the establishment by selling out?

    Did he think it was high time to remind people of those infamous newsletters just to try to keep the false stink alive in the minds of libertarians?
    That it was time to ‘remind’ people how “irrational” and “paranoid” it is to think some establishment politicians support the concept of a one-world government when they ask permission from NATO and the UN instead of congress, and in the face of growing “integration” of sovereing countries into the EU?

    That there is no contradiction between a free market and a central bank that prints money?

    This is why many libertarians think Reason is a joke.
    America has the closest thing to a credible libertarian candidate that they’re probably ever likely to have, and Reason keeps propping up ad hominems about “paranoia” and canards like the newsletters, probably just because Ron Paul belongs to a group of Austrianists that has exposed pro-intervention neo-‘libertarian’ sell out frauds like the Koch brothers and Cato’s Ed Crane in the 80s, and by extention virtually everything else they pump money into, such as the Libertarian Party.

    Of course Ron Paul is “racist” or at least “suspect”, and “irrational” and “paranoid” and maybe even an “isolationist”.
    After all, what would the establishment like to hear more than a bunch of “libertarian” footstools agree with them that in some ways Paul really is a nutjob, just to show how “reasonable” people at Reason really are?

  44. I’m surprised he didn’t trot out the usual line about being an anti-science creationist loon, as though what one believes about the origin of life is crucial to making sound political decisions about things that rightly pertain to the federal government.

  45. Fact is, even if Ron Paul is a little eccentric he is more sane and fair-minded than any or all of the other candidates save Gary Johnson.

    Let us be clear, excepting Paul and Johnson, all the candidates are nucking futs. They may appear sane because they’re conformist, but that’s what makes them so dangerous.

  46. The prob;lem with Ron Paul is that he’s not particularly bright. Compare his speech against Gingrich’s at the recent Iowa get together. It’s no contest, Gingrich would make Paul look the complete fool in any debate, as he did
    at the podium in Iowa. Paul is a timid
    and not very bright egomaniac who has zero chance of winning the nomination
    and less than zero chance of ever getting elected President. I don’t even know why he’s still running, except that this seems to be his hobby as a
    more or less retired guy. Nobody takes him seriously, even on those rare occasions when he says something intelligent. Those running to satisfy their ego, like Paul, Bachamnn, Perry and Romney, should go home. None can win.

    1. Gingrich may be a better debater, but he’s far too timid on the policy front. When someone asked him about Ron Paul’s plan to cut one trillion in federal spending in Year One of his presidency, Gingrich equated it to a doctor telling you you’re 30 pounds overweight, then offering to cut off your arm.

      The analogy was ridiculous. Federal government spending was one trillion dollars lower in FY2007. A trillion should be lopped off as a starting point, and could be done without ending any vital functions of government, just by returning spending to pre-bailout levels.

  47. Steve, you do not have a clue about Ron Paul. You are looking for a new boss that is the same as the old boss.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.