Reason Writers on TV: Matt Welch Talks Iowa & Ron Paul on The Real News Network

On Wednesday, Jan. 4, Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch discussed the Iowa caucus and the significance of Ron Paul's challenge to the political establishment with Raw Story Executive Editor Megan Carpentier and host Paul Jay of The Real News Network. Around 20 minutes:

Comments

[Matt Tanous]

So.... uh. Turns out that the author of the racist sections of the Ron Paul newsletter was NOT Rockwell, but a guy named Powell. His name is even on the most offensive article! Any chance Reason is going to admit this or apologize to Rockwell for vague accusations? I wonder.

[smz]

where'd this come from?

[Mike]

SMZ it came from a reporter that in most peoples eyes is very not bias and ethically charged with the facts.

http://www.fox19.com/story/164.....ewsletters

[Tak Kak]

CNN ireport

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-726839

[Warty]

I like the big NOT VETTED BY CNN.

[Homad Raseem]

OK wow there is a dude tht is just totally rocking. WOw.

http://www.Privacy-Pros.tk

[MyklM]

That was a great interview by all. As a liberal and recovering "progressive," I hear most of my issues being discussed and I really like that the progressives are in a position to come around to Ron Paul by the time the election gets near. I especially like that Ron Paul is not presented as perfect, but a good start in changing the two parties. AND, that Gary Johnson is being talked about. Thanx everyone!

[KP]

I doubt the "progressives" would be as favorable to Johnson if he was actually in contention like Paul.

[jt]

don't wanna get gender into this, but have yet to see a grown man use these type of speech tactics. 'oh i like the other guy, why don't you bring him in' and as soon as you do 'oh well i don't like him either'

some women's shady personalities are disgusting.. to think libertarians treat people as individuals, johnson isn't about to enact some type of special right just for gay or women.. unless 'women's rights' strictly refers to abortion, which means she expanded the term on purpose--another disgraceful tactic--then there's no difference on that front. neither paul nor john would enact laws in collectivism.

she obviously was just throwing out all bullshit to smear paul.. i much prefer some men's way to just outright call paul and kook and call him unelectable, rather than some women who think they are smart to tantalize a serious candidate. ya, try to argue with me this isn't a trait more commonly found among women.

[Nike online]

See, thats exactly what I am talking about dude.