Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 6, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

RON PAUL, FRUITCAKE....Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it.

But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise. Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate. In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand. Next time I expect to see some straight talk about how we should return to the gold standard and get rid of the Fed. This should be followed by a question about whether he supports the free coinage of silver at 16:1. Then some questions about the tin trust.

Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?

Kevin Drum 2:31 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (420)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

booooooo!!!

keep your cold water to yourself! playing WhatIf is all some of us have, this week!

Posted by: cleek on November 6, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Que swarm of lunatic Paulites/Ronbots in 3... 2... 1...

Posted by: F. Frederson on November 6, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

a lot of republicans want out of iraq, no war with iran, and a return to the constitution. paul gets their support as no one else on the GOP side even pays such positions lip service.

and if you think paul is crazier than giuliani, you really haven't been paying attention.

Posted by: benjoya on November 6, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

But being infantile is fun!

Posted by: Chocolate Thunder on November 6, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

and it's "Cue" not "Que." unless you were speaking spanish: ¡Que Swarm!"

and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for Paul. (Not being a Republican, I most likely won't have the opportunity.)

Posted by: benjoya on November 6, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing. They don't reflect either well or badly on him. They're meaningless

That's some strange argument you got there.

I'd maintain that:

1) uncompromising positions are not meaningless, and, in any case
2) meaningless positions do indeed reflect badly on the one taking them.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul does not always sound as good as he does in his latest YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA), but I have to object to the characterization of Paul's consitutional objections to much of what our government does as being somehow childish or infantile. Call him unrealistic for hoping there is any chance that government will be reduced to match the apparent restrictions of the Constitution if you want, but either the Constitutional arguments are correct or they are not, and if they are right then we need, at minimum, to make some amendments to our founding document.

Greenwald put it well this morning -- adherence to the law and the Constitution is an important standard whether we're talking about FISA and the Geneva Convention or Federal spending and programs that have little to do with "regulating interstate commerce".

Posted by: Dave Marshall on November 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, it's a war protest vote, and notable for that.

Posted by: Don on November 6, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

as a famous ronbot put it:

There are, relatively speaking, very few people who agree with most of Paul's policy positions. In fact, a large portion of Americans -- perhaps most -- will find something in his litany of beliefs with which they not only disagree, but vehemently so. Paul has a coherent political world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates.

Paul, of course, is not only in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but also emphatically opposes the crux of America's bipartisan foreign policy consensus. He reserves his greatest scorn for America's hegemonic rule of the world through superior military force, i.e., its acting as an empire in order to prop up its entangling alliances and enduring conflicts -- what George Washington lamented as "permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others."

Me, I don't see how a libertarian is so opposed to abortion rights, but there you go.

Posted by: benjoya on November 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, so Ron Paul has "no actual chance" of winning the Republican nomination, huh? Why then does Intrade put that chance at 8.7%? If you want to tell me that's a negligible chance and means that Paul is a fringe candidate, go ahead. So long as you concede that Thompson and McCain (both at 7.1%) are even fringier (to say nothing of Gail Collins' heartthrob Huckabee). Or if you want to say Intrade is wrong, why don't you put your money where your mouth is?

Posted by: Crust on November 6, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday.

Exactly how much is a buttload? Is it like tonnage where there are imperial and metric? Is the measurement situational? For example, I would think that a buttload for, say, Nell Carter would be different than a butt load for Kate Moss.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

I am surprised by the amount of money. Children's allowances must be higher than they used to be.

Posted by: ex-liberal on November 6, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Crust,

I read that as Ron Paul has a 91.3% chance of not winning the Republican nomination.

Posted by: uri on November 6, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Of course party Republicans loathe Paul. Nothing like having a family member pointing out that the family is dysfunctional and raking in money while he is doing it.

Too bad the party doesn't get Paul and why he is drawing the money and the interest. If they did maybe they would not have the "choice" picks they have settled on.

Posted by: ET on November 6, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

I'd maintain that:

1) uncompromising positions are not meaningless, and, in any case
2) meaningless positions do indeed reflect badly on the one taking them. Posted by: Disputo

I think the point is as Ron Paul's campaign is meaningless (i.e. proverbial snowball's chance in Hell), anything and everything he says is meaningless in the greater scheme of the presidential election.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Ditto for his "record breaking" fundraising day, which is just a function of (a) the growth of the internet as a political money machine and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian.

I think the primary reason why Paul is getting so much money is because moonbats at Kos and Atrios are giving him lots of it in order to embarass the Republican Party. They want to make it look like he's popular when he's really just a Bush hating extremist out of touch of mainstream America. Of course, it's not working.

Posted by: Al on November 6, 2007 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

a lot of republicans want out of iraq, no war with iran, and a return to the constitution. paul gets their support as no one else on the GOP side even pays such positions lip service. Posted by: benjoya

I wish he was running a third party campaign so that he'd be around in the general to take votes away from whichever loser gets the Rethug nomination.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Uri:
I read that as Ron Paul has a 91.3% chance of not winning the Republican nomination.

If you want to ignore Paul as a fringe candidate on those grounds, fair enough. Just so long as you also ignore Thompson (92.9% chance of not winning) and McCain (also 92.9%).

Posted by: Crust on November 6, 2007 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kev -

Most Americans don't have any idea what the gold standard is. However, if Paul suggests getting rid of the Fed, my guess is that he raises another $10 Mil overnight.

Posted by: ashj on November 6, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"and (b) the curious but well-known fact that technophiles are disproportionately libertarian."

And "politically and socially" infantile, while we're at it.

But similar to above, a Ron Paul vote is kinda of a war protest vote - probably more of a isolationist, "America for Americans" vote, a la Buchanan a few years ago. The Paulies just think they're hipper.

They're still cranks. Kinda smart cranks with Asperger's. Don't know if that's an improvement over belligerent dumb-asses who normally vote Republican.

Posted by: luci on November 6, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Me, I don't see how a libertarian is so opposed to abortion rights, but there you go.

Or opposed to the free exchange of labor...

Or in favor of gvmt distortion of certain currency and precious metals markets....

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

luci nails it.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

If you want to ignore Paul as a fringe candidate on those grounds, fair enough. Just so long as you also ignore Thompson (92.9% chance of not winning) and McCain (also 92.9%).

I'm sorry, have we not been ignoring Fred and John enough for you?

Here's your homework assignment: go back over the last 6 months and count Kev's posts on McCain, Thompson and RonPaul.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

How to Whip This Ron Paul Character and All His Whacky Followers.

Ron Paul can be defeated by ignorance. Ignore him if you can.
By lies. Misrepresent his positions whenever possible.
By word gaming. As Lenin advised, First, confuse the vocabulary.
By contempt. Dismiss him as amusing and pathetic.
By smearing his supporters. Find the worst and spotlight them. Call them a cult.
By consensus. Dismiss him with peer-pressure ridicule.
By false accusations. Spread them quickly and far.
By never discussing his policies. Change the subject to his person.
By the polls. Ask the right people the right questions and get the answer you want.
By reporting his most unpopular votes. But dont report his reasoning.
By rudeness. Wreck any debate where his ideas are winning.
With all these tools, he can be easily defeated. Use them generously.

But Ron Paul cannot be defeated by refuting him in an honest and courteous technical debate. Avoid that.

- Moderno Machiavelli

Posted by: disinter on November 6, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

"Why then does Intrade put that chance at 8.7%?"

Bet dollars to doughnuts that the demographic of intratrade traders is heavily libertarian -- and they're not putting their money where their mouth is.

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

I met RP when he was Libertarian candidate in 1998. He had no answer to the environmental problems cause along the lines of Tragedy of the Commons.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on November 6, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Paul is getting so much money [because] moonbats at Kos and Atrios are giving him lots of it in order to embarass the Republican Party


!!!!!!! [speechless]

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Libertarian rule is good when we are all equal. It really really sucks when there is inequality, or when corporations are filled with greedy pigs who sell adulterated meat and bad drugs.

We are not all equal. Corporations are venal and corrupt. Liberatarians are idiots.

Posted by: POed Lib on November 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

PS -- I really don't understand why the gold standard is utterly laughable. The US did pretty well on it for a long time.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on November 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'll have the last laugh yet.

Posted by: Ross Perot on November 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Fruitcakes everywhere are insulted by the comparison.

'Everyone on Wall Street loves Bernanke. He brings them candy and sweets and lets the American worker pay the bill.' - Mike Whitney

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

I think Kevin ought to do a post on the gold standard, pros and cons, to see if he really understands the issue. Judging by the reference to "free coinage of silver" he has no idea what the gold standard is, or how it would work.

Posted by: Homer on November 6, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Crust, no one thinks McCain or Thompson will get the Republican nomination.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

He had no answer to the environmental problems cause along the lines of Tragedy of the Commons.

That's because there is no libertarian answer to such problems. Eg, the libertarian answer to global warming is to deny that it exists.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

PS -- I really don't understand why the gold standard is utterly laughable. The US did pretty well on it for a long time. Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08

True. But then in the immediate post-WWII world economy there was the U.S., ah, the U.S. and I think the U.S. as major players. Floating currencies based on something considerably more sophisticated than a "precious" metal with very little practical use ("It's pretty" - imagine Patrick or Homer drooling this) didn't much matter.

As a current example of an artificially pegged/fixed currency I offer China's yuan as Exhibit A. Our trade deficit with and China's remarkable growth would both be a lot less significant if the yuan was freely traded.

Foreign currency reserves make a lot more sense than pushing pallets of gold bricks around the vault at Fort Knox. Furthermore, it is the very existence of these gold bricks that help artificially inflate it's "value." Think DeBeers and diamonds.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Judging by the reference to "free coinage of silver" he has no idea what the gold standard is, or how it would work."

Yes. he does: it's a barbarous relic, and you need to bone up on the bimetallic standard.

Posted by: Sock puppet of the Great Satan on November 6, 2007 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

In previous years, I have repeatedly warned my friends and colleagues in the Republican Party about the likes of Rep. Paul and his ilk. They do not bode well for the future health of the party that I care so dearly about.

What we need to do is make people think Paul is a Democrat. Perhaps sending out identifying literature that clearly labels him a Democrat from Missouri as opposed to a Republican from Texas. Perhaps I will call into the C-SPAN programs and repeatedly say, "I have a question about Democrat Ron Paul" or "isn't it true that Ron Paul, the Democrat is saying that" and I will pretend not to hear when the host corrects me, if he or she is quick enough to catch the error. If you do that often enough, once in a while, you can get one or two to slip through.

In any even, Ron Paul has a seat at the table that wasn't reserved for him. He is nuttier than a fruitcake and he is not a part of my beloved party.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

We are not all equal. Corporations are venal and corrupt. Libertarians are idiots.

Posted by: POed Lib on November 6, 2007 at 3:18 PM

That may be true. But since you are mostly likely to have a choice of differing corporations do business with as a consumer for goods and services, they do have some self interest in being able to attract customers better than their competitors or they will cease to exist. No such choice is available when dealing with a venial and corrupt government, which is why it should be kept as small and be given as few tasks as possible.

Posted by: Chicounsel on November 6, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

bet you he raised more money yesterday than you have made in your entire life blogging. Te - He!

Posted by: jack on November 6, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

One of the reasons I admire Jackson's presidency is because he helped to disolve the Second Bank of the US (National Bank.) The National Bank did not have the same reason for existence as the Federal Reserve, but the Federal Reserve has devolved to exist for the same reasons the National Bank did - protect the wealth of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the economy. Perhaps the Federal Reserve should be replaced with something better, but not if Paul becomes president. We need lots of financial institution regulation, and that is not a job for a Hobbesian.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Homer's insistence that Kev is ignorant of the "gold standard" and needs to post on it is pretty hilarious given that RonPaul has as yet to articulate anything in the way of specifics as to what his "gold standard" would look like except to insist that he would avoid all the problems that led to us jettisoning it in the first place.

Arguing against Ron Paul's "gold standard" is a suckers game precisely because there isn't any coherent policy to argue against.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

"The US did pretty well on it [the Gold Standard] for a long time."

Apart from, umm, the Great Depression and stuff, and the wrenching recessions in the late nineteenth century.

Fiat money and automatic economic stabilizers like unemployment benefit and progressive taxes - as great a contribution to human welfare as the invention of penicillin.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 6, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

You just called a grown man a "fruitcake", as some child would.

Who are you asking to "grow up" again?

Posted by: disinter on November 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

And we've sent Paul another $250,000 today (it's about 3:45 PM EST, so still a lot of time).

And we have another million-dollar money bomb set for Sunday.

Does it matter what Kevin Drum says? Not to me.

Posted by: FZappa on November 6, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

bet you he raised more money yesterday than you have made in your entire life blogging. Te - He!

In 1993, I made 26 million dollars.

Top that, freak show.

You just called a grown man a "fruitcake", as some child would.

You're right. He's a blithering idiot.

Is that better, nutjob?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

I find it ironic that someone would conclude an article by stating that we should all "grow up" when he has started the same article with juvenile name-calling the man a "fruitcake".

I suggest that the author "grow up" and stop name-calling and ad hominem attacks before hypocritically asking others to do so.

Posted by: Steve on November 6, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

And Kevin -- Ron Paul's polling nationally at 5% in the latest USA Today/Gallup and the latest CNN.

And he's just now starting to run ads.

Stand aside, kids! This Revolution will not be stopped.

Posted by: FZappa on November 6, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Likewise, it is thoroughly infantile and childish to argue that most of the Federal Government is unconstitutional. That's ridiculous & not worth responding to. The commerce clause clearly permits the Federal government's regulatory activities. You have to be an insincere hack & idiot, like Clarence Thomas, to think otherwise. Thomas, hilariously, maintains that there is a valid distinction between regulating "manufacturing" and regulating "commerce." Thomas, like Paul, is a lunatic & an embarrassment to our country. And while we have to pay *some* attention to Thomas b/c of his lifetime gig turning out idiotic opinions, we do *not* have to give Paul's moronic ramblings any attention.

Posted by: Constitution on November 6, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you made $26 million? Can I have some? I need to buy the ingredients so I can toss a Ron Paul salad.

Posted by: lambert strether on November 6, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

I suggest that the author "grow up" and stop name-calling and ad hominem attacks before hypocritically asking others to do so. Posted by: Steve

Steve's a big poopy head, and his candidate is a fruitcake!

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Those who say Paul has not articulated any "coherent" policy in favor of the gold standard (something I am convinced few of you even understand), Paul has been arguing for a transition back to gold for roughly thirty years and has written extensively on the issue:

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Peace-Prosperity-Ron-Paul/dp/B000XG6SAM/ref=sr_1_2/105-1412064-9123649?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194381798&sr=1-2

His position for a transition to a gold-backed standard involves removing legal tender laws that penalize competing currencies, and to put a stop to the rabid spending that is made possible through inflationary Federal Reserve policy. Allowing the free exhange of gold-backed currency will allow Americans to protect their savings.

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum I look in the dictionary under Hack and you name is right there.

Neocons and you ilk are pathetic and treasonous. If you support the wars and destruction of our dollar so much please go enlist at the local recruiting office so that you may be sent to the IRAQ quagmire.

It amazes how duped base Republicans are. You will learn one way or another that you you wrong and Ron Paul will shine through the heaps of manure your types spew incoherently.

http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/

Posted by: Karl on November 6, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?"

A long, hard economic depression might help.

America is a spoiled rotten brat.

Posted by: Joey Giraud on November 6, 2007 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

I tell you want, if Ron Paul is against Waterboarding than he's got my vote.

I saw him stand up against Mike Wallace's stupid questions Fax news BS in a the way Dems fear too.

And I sit here and watch two Democrats embrace torture and make it their own, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles E. Schumer of New York. Bush saw nothing wrong in violating his oath of office, Senator's Feinstein, and Schumer saw nothing wrong and helping Bush do it, and violating their own oath of office to support his act of waterboarding.

I don't think I ever want heard Kevin talk about torture again since it was no big deal that Sen. Feinstein did this, because it didn't bother those at the Political Animal, it didn't bother Josh Marshall over at TMP, it didn't bothter Duncan over at Atrios enough to make any serious comment about it? How partisan can the blogs be, Bush does it, bad, Dems do it, it's fine, not even worth an short entry.

Two Dem senators just signed onto torture. If Ron Paul puts back this vital Piece of US Constitution than I will certainly vote for Ron Paul. Dems don't just make voters mad, they make the country sick at heart.

I’m sick and tired of watching Dems do this time again. And these supposedly left wings bloggers pretending it’s no big deal that Feinstein and Schumer have gone and okay for Bush to torture.

There has to be some accountablity, and if Dems can't and simply will not hold Bush accountable, then I see no reason to vote for them at all.


Posted by: Me_again on November 6, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?"

I don't know Mr. Drum, can you grow up? If so, please do.

Posted by: Paul on November 6, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm.... it appears that the level of coherency of the RonLocusts has decreased drastically since the last swarmstorm we had here.

Doesn't bode well for his candidacy.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Neocons and you ilk are pathetic and treasonous. If you support the wars and destruction of our dollar so much please go enlist at the local recruiting office so that you may be sent to the IRAQ quagmire. Posted by: Karl

Karl, you must be new here, as none of us (except the trolls) support the war in Iraq or the Bush administration's disastrous economic policies that have led to the dollar's decline. We also aren't going to support your idiot candidate.

Now go away and learn something.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogders commenting on Ron Paul.

The nexus of lunacy is accomplished.

Posted by: Matt on November 6, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Uh shortstop, Disputo: You seem to be under the impression you're disagreeing with me. But like I said twice already, if you don't think Thompson and McCain are serious candidates I'm fine with you also not taking Paul seriously. My point is just if people like JeffII really think Paul has a "snowball's chance in hell", they should sell him on Intrade.

And, no, I would never vote for Ron Paul. I just don't understand why the MSM (and MSB apparently) are so anxious to ignore him. Yes, some of his policies are batty. Same is true for the rest of the right field (e.g. their continuing support for the Iraq War already projecting by the CBO to cost trillions).

Posted by: Crust on November 6, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

How can you write an infantile article, full of misinformation and baseless insults, and then tell us to grow up at the same time? This person is crazy.

Posted by: brody on November 6, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII wins this thread!

Posted by: optical weenie on November 6, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

"But I will say this: if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate, then I expect him to start getting some pointed questions at the next debate."

Frankly, I would love it Paul got some opportunities to answer such questions...it would get more people on board and get the naysayers off his back.

Of course that would mean they would have to give more time to Paul during the debates, and we can't have THAT!

Posted by: Jeffrey Bubb on November 6, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, gang -- I hat to interrupt, but I want to turn people on to a truly amazing event that's currently taking place on the floor of the U.S. House, even as we speak. Check out C-SPAN right now.

This afternoon, Dennis Kucinich introduced HR 333, calling for the impeachment of vice President Cheney. As expected, Democratic Majority Leader made a motion to table (i.e., "kill") the measure.

What Hoyer, et al., were not expecting is an overwhelming majority of Republicans crossing the aisle and supporting Kucinich's effort to keep his resolution alive.

What was supposed to be a 15-minute vote on the motion has now stretched over an hour, with the current tally being 172 Ayes, and 242 Nays - meaning that as it stands, Steney Hoyer just got his political head slapped, and Dennis Kucinich's impeachment measure goes forward.

As it stands, the public's outcry against the rush to war with Iran is apparently being heard, loud and clear.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 6, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, that is right. Ron Pauls message appeals to a very wide audience. Get over it. It is not Ron Pauls fault that the hateful, war-mongering Neocon message is about as desirable as being served a big turd for breakfast.

Posted by: disinter on November 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ben Schroeder, have you even bothered to read that? It's all a bunch of handwaving.

Now, your homework assignment is to provide us with a link to a Ron Paul "gold standard" whitepaper, preferably one more recent than 1981, that actually explains the details of what his policy prescription is.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

NOTE TO RON PAUL: Get off Kevin Drum's lawn right now you punk kid!

Posted by: cazart on November 6, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Free coinage of silver, hell. What about 16:1 free printing of yuans?

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on November 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Regardless of what some polls or prognistications say, the fact is that McCain and Thompson have a credible chance at the nomination if the front runners implode. Paul does not. If we were to threaten enough that his wackiness became general knowledge, the Republican establishment and their media allies would put him down pronto.

Posted by: Virginia on November 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, that is right. Ron Paul�s message appeals to a very wide audience. Get over it. It is not Ron Paul�s fault that the hateful, war-mongering Neocon message is about as desirable as being served a big turd for breakfast. Posted by: disinter

Christ almighty! If you drive-bys represent Paul's net roots, his candidacy is even less meaningful than previously thought.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Greenwald's take is, as usual, well worth reading. Unsurprisingly, WaPo didn't think Ron Paul's raising $4 million in a day worthy of reporting, the media's usual obsession with fund raising numbers notwithstanding.

Posted by: Crust on November 6, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, Kevin -- if you think getting rid of the Fed and getting off fiat money are crazy ideas, check out Alan Greenspan lauding both of them on Fox Business Channel a few weeks ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caIgP3Mnb6g

Posted by: FZappa on November 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

The vote has concluded, Kucinich's resolution stays alive because Hoyer's motion to table has failed. The House has now begun to vote as to whether or not to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee for its due consideration.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 6, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Name-calling is all that's left when you have no rational arguments. How childish.

Posted by: Jordan on November 6, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Incidentally, Kevin -- if you think getting rid of the Fed and getting off fiat money are crazy ideas, check out Alan Greenspan lauding both of them on Fox Business Channel a few weeks ago: Posted by: FZappa

Next are you guys going to bring in OJ to tell us who the killer really is?

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Crust, no one thinks McCain or Thompson will get the Republican nomination.

Why just this morning I saw my first "Fred '08" sticker. 'Course, I was thinking Flintstone.

Posted by: ckelly on November 6, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

And just who the hell do you think you are? What gives you or anyone the right to say who has a chance and who doesn't. That's the problem with mainstream media and political snobs. You think you know so much but you're absolutely detached from the realities of the world around you. You've been in bed with the government for so long it's like your locked in some pornographic bedroom, broadcasting just how much you in the media and those in the government need each other.

Why don't you grow up?

Posted by: Joe on November 6, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yea! Ron Paul is a poopy-head too!!

Anyone that doesn't think so should grow up!!

Posted by: disinter on November 6, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII -- yes, I understand the benefits of floating a currency, but I don't see that the gold standards is *totally laughable* such that it disqualifies any candidate who endorses it. China does pretty well w/o floating -- not so bad that it is absurd...

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on November 6, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

The first person who needs to grow up is you Kevin.

"Quit talking about Ron Paul WAAYHHHHHH!"
"Quit talking about Ron Paul WAHYYYHHHHH!"

Instead of whining like three-year old, ask yourself why 2,500 college students at University of Michigan would turn out to listen to a man talk about the gold standard and abolishing the Fed? Are they all crazy? Ask yourself why other candidates cannot generate the kind of fundraising on the internet nor the amount of grassroots support he has? Ask yourself what would be the political impact of significant antiwar wing of the GOP on Iraq and foreign policy in general?

Of course you wanty to do so after the time out in the corner I would assume.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on November 6, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

He is nuttier than a fruitcake and he is not a part of my beloved party.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Pot, meet kettle.

Posted by: DJ on November 6, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

LOL -- yeah, let's scoff Ron Paul out of the race, cuz the last thing America needs the Republican Party to have is a principled candidate who says what he means hanging around until people cast actual votes.

I'd never vote for him (I remember him from the early 1980s when there was an actual commission that examined the Gold Standard), but I like Ron Paul -- and more than that, I like the IDEA of Ron Paul.

Political campaigns, especially Presidential campaigns, ought to have a loooong phase where folks who are even marginally qualified with barely possible shots at winning, get taken seriously DESPITE having ideas of which Wise People disapprove.

Besides, how can you dis a guy who has delivered thousands of babies running for President?

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 6, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

"You think you know so much but you're absolutely detached from the realities of the world around you."

LOL... I love this comment, particularly when "the realities of the world around [me]" clearly show that Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination, much less the Presidency, not to mention that Ron Paul is an incoherent nutcase, many of whose policies are simply nonsensical. That's reality; deal with it.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Kevin Drum is calling Glenn Greenwald childish and a big baby.

It's on now!

Posted by: MNPundit on November 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, I wonder how many $100 dollar bills Rockefeller shoved up your ... to be such a child, and for you to be so rude and stupid, but really Mr Drum, or should I say Mr Dumb, you see, you just prove some more that you people are biased and you help the Ron Paul campaign with your bias, we have woken up thousands, and now many more will wake up, all thanks to you.

Posted by: Rob on November 6, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

What was supposed to be a 15-minute vote on the motion has now stretched over an hour, with the current tally being 172 Ayes, and 242 Nays - meaning that as it stands, Steney Hoyer just got his political head slapped, and Dennis Kucinich's impeachment measure goes forward.

As it stands, the public's outcry against the rush to war with Iran is apparently being heard, loud and clear.

While it would be great to think that the GOP has woken up to the will of the American people and the sheer insanity of attacking Iran, it would appear that the GOP caucus' motive was forcing immediate debate in order to embarrass the Democrats. Let's see if the Democratic caucus is up to it.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Adults need to grow up because their thinking outside of the box? Wishing the federal reserve was ridden of has gone from being a controversial issue in America, to being brushed off and the supporters of its annihilation are told to grow up. If grown up means conforming to what some journalist who will never make it anywhere in life has said, then I think i'd be one of many proud Americans to say that as an adult, I'm not yet 'grown up'.

Posted by: mike on November 6, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Are Paul's policy ideas wackier or more cynical than other politicians?

The GOP hopefuls have a fair bit of wackiness and cynicism.

New Hampshire should be friendly territory for Ron Paul. If he places top three in Iowa, it's certainly possible Paul could win NH.

And then the GOP would really freak out.

BTW, how far can Paul go in the GOP primary and switch to running as an independent or minor party candidate in the general?

I think most states have laws that prevent candidates from running in the primaries and then switching party affiliation.

John Anderson did this in 1980 and I expect both Dems and Republicans agreed that allowing this is bad for the two-party system.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on November 6, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

Besides, how can you dis a guy who has delivered thousands of babies running for President?

Who are these thousands of Paul-delivered babies all running for prez, and why weren't they at the last debate? Oh, prolly there weren't enough podiums.

Posted by: express written consent on November 6, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

. . . but I like Ron Paul -- and more than that, I like the IDEA of Ron Paul. Posted by: theAmericanist

Why doesn't this surprise me?

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a long way from being a Ron Paul supporter, but Kevin Drum is not the man who should be telling anyone to "grow up."

It isn't Ron Paul's supporters who believe that the essential qualification of the next Democratic President is that she be married to the last one. Ron Paul's supporters aren't out there arguing that two years of being a part-time Senator and writing books about oneself is fine preparation for being the leader of the Free World, nor are they touting a lifetime of ambulance-chasing as it if were some kind of holy calling.

And it isn't Ron Paul's fans who write off candidates who've spent more time thinking about being President than they have running for President as "not serious." I give Rep. Paul credit for believing what he says, and if not everything he says seems to make sense we still ought to ask, compared to what?

Posted by: Zathras on November 6, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo-

Interesting...nothing short of a whitepaper will satisfy your curiosity about repealing legal tender laws and ending taxes on gold/silver transactions? Does he have to write a treatise about ending torture, too?

It sounds like you are uninformed and want Ron Paul to educate you. If you truly understood the arguments against a fiat currency (which, although digestable to the average person, are too involved to explain in a 1-2 time allotment), then there would be no need for a whitepaper.

Why not educate yourself with the same economic principles that have guided Ron Paul? Then you can tell all your friends precisely why his position is wrong instead of resorting to ad homonims like "nutty" or "fruitcake." Your arguments might be more persuasive.

http://www.mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Contents.aspx

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

New Hampshire should be friendly territory for Ron Paul.

Depends on how well the Free State Project is going....

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul's campaign is not meaningless because it adds new dimensions to the political debate. He has gotten attention for viewpoints which would otherwise not otherwise be heard, which last time I heard was one of the raison d'etre's of democracy.

Although he has no shot at winning the Republican nomination, I fully expect that he will run in the general election either as a Libertarian or on the Unity08 ticket. This will greatly change the dynamic of the general election, much as Perot did in 1992 even though he had no shot at winning either.

Posted by: mfw13 on November 6, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Virginia:
[T]he fact is that McCain and Thompson have a credible chance at the nomination if the front runners implode. Paul does not.

You offered your opinion as pretty much pure assertion, unsullied by supporting argument. Why should anyone care what your opinion is? If you really believe this why don't you sell Paul on Intrade. The market there reflects a consensus of people willing to put their money where their mouth is.

In fairness, you did have a hint of supporting argument, that wacky stuff would eventually come out about Paul. I agree that some of Paul's positions are wacky -- e.g. going on the gold standard would remove our ability to smooth the business cycle for no good reason IMHO. But there's plenty of stuff about the other candidates that have gotten little play, e.g. Thompson's lobbying for the deregulation that -- predictably -- caused the S&L crisis or his bizarro-world views on global warming (see his piece in NRO in which he literally compared himself to Galileo).

Posted by: Crust on November 6, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

You don't speak for those of us who have served, chief... Since when does a Presidential candidate who has been re-elected ten times deserve the lip service you offer as journalism ? Go back to your
rate-quotes and low fat yogurt and worming watch sonny..and leave the driving to us.

So you see the President as a maker of financial fortunes. Perhaps you should have doubled up on the political science courses..and laid off the roofies.
Since the grand ol days, I have buried countless
lost friends who fought the last meaningless war fot politics..unless you're willing to go get some mud on you, stay out of the discussion.

Posted by: USAF vet on November 6, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Let the wingnuts fight.

I'm tired of watching the Dems defeat themselves.

When's the show gonna start?

Posted by: Horatio Parker on November 6, 2007 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Zathras: "It isn't Ron Paul's supporters who believe that the essential qualification of the next Democratic President is that she be married to the last one. Ron Paul's supporters aren't out there arguing that two years of being a part-time Senator and writing books about oneself is fine preparation for being the leader of the Free World, nor are they touting a lifetime of ambulance-chasing as it if were some kind of holy calling."

What a coincidence! Neither are any Democrats. So see, perhaps we DO have some common ground, after all.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 6, 2007 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Gore/Edwards 08: I understand the benefits of floating a currency, but I don't see that the gold standards is *totally laughable* such that it disqualifies any candidate who endorses it. China does pretty well w/o floating -- not so bad that it is absurd...

China doesn't float its currency, but they don't have a gold standard either. It's not an either/or situation. Having a gold standard means not floating your currency, but not having a gold standard doesn't necessarily mean floating your currency.

There are, in fact, many arguments against freely floating currencies, but they're not arguments for a gold standard.

Posted by: Goldmember on November 6, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

I just donated another 200 bucks to Ron Paul for you Kevin..next week I start on the neighbors..

Posted by: USAF vet on November 6, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul will shine through the heaps of manure your types spew incoherently.

Posted by: Karl

Now, that's a bumper sticker!

Posted by: Econobuzz on November 6, 2007 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

*swarms*

"this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand"

I like how you admit to not understanding things, Kevin. unless you're somehow not part of the audience?

Yes, we all get called fruitcakes for advocating that we follow the constitution. Try using the word 'radical' too, because I didn't see it in your post.

Maybe you shold grow up and understand that we don't want a government that will pamper us like children and take care of us from cradle to grave? I want to run my own life, and I belive I can make a lot better decisions about my life than the government can. In your case, I will concede you need some sort of help to be taken care of, but it doesn't apply to the majority.

Posted by: Daniel on November 6, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

I think the great lengths people go to marginalize Ron Paul to be indicative of the fact that he's hit a nerve.

The popular thing is to point out that his policies don't matter because he can't win, instead of pointing out that his policies are drawing some serious support. Of course technophiles are disproportionately libertarian, which is of course why all libertarian candidates for president break records for online fundraising... oh wait they don't.

I personally find this kind of smarmy attack without any real merit to be disgusting. I mean lets face it, I think Kevin is completely aware that Ron Paul is the most searched for candidate on the web, and that if he berates him he will get more hits, which means more money through ads.

Bravo Kevin.

Posted by: Kevin L. Kane on November 6, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

The whole Paul is wacky and therefore doesn't stand a chance in the Republican primary is just silly, IMHO. The current Republican frontrunner is wacky. The whole idea that the Iraq War could be justified based on a connection to 9/11 is wacky. Current prominent Republicans are wacky. Period.

Posted by: Crust on November 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Its going to be sad when the primary is over, and we can't tease the Paultards anymore.

PS. Do any of you flat earthers even know if there is enough gold in the world to back the US Currency?

Posted by: jimmy on November 6, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Truly pathetic. I am not a bot, I am an educated member of a society with marginalizes its own constitution and I refuse to let that happen without a fight.

Posted by: Christ Tindall on November 6, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Ya see, Ben every time I ask one of you RonBots a simple question, like, for example, what would Paul's "gold standard" policy be, I always get the same ridiculous non-response:

It sounds like you are uninformed and want Ron Paul to educate you. If you truly understood the arguments against a fiat currency ... then there would be no need for a whitepaper.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Every. Fucking. Time.

Look, dumbass, I don't need a tutorial. I already understand the issues. What I want is to know, What does Ron Paul plan on doing? It's a very simple question. What does Ron Paul plan on doing? One that should be very simple for someone who actually knows what he is going to do to answer. What does Ron Paul plan on doing?

But all you f-ing RonBots act like it is some kind of received wisdom that you'll only gain once you sufficiently believe that RonPaul is the second coming.

You'll have to excuse us sane people when we treat you nutballs as belonging to an ignorance cult.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

odd, isn't it, that the Paulites keep insisting that people should break US law to make a political statement? I assume they are aware that intrade is an offshore (in this case Ireland) gambling site, and it is therefore a violation of US Federal Law to place money on the site from the United States? oh, and if it were, in fact, legal, I would place everything I own selling Paul as the GOP nominee.

go ahead, try and use a US-billed credit card to place a deposit.

Posted by: northzax on November 6, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

odd, isn't it, that the Paulites keep insisting that people should break US law to make a political statement? I assume they are aware that intrade is an offshore (in this case Ireland) gambling site, and it is therefore a violation of US Federal Law to place money on the site from the United States? oh, and if it were, in fact, legal, I would place everything I own selling Paul as the GOP nominee.

go ahead, try and use a US-billed credit card to place a deposit.

Posted by: northzax on November 6, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Oddly, now that I think of it, I like Ron Paul; I just dont like people who like him.

Posted by: Jimmy on November 6, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe you shold grow up and understand that we don't want a government that will pamper us like children and take care of us from cradle to grave? I want to run my own life, and I belive I can make a lot better decisions about my life than the government can. In your case, I will concede you need some sort of help to be taken care of, but it doesn't apply to the majority. Posted by: Daniel

Boy oh boy did you just give the corpse of Ayn Rand a clitoral boner or what? That's got to be one of the most impassioned out-of-the-bunker speeches I've read (in the last eleven minutes).

To the barricades, fellow egoists! Down with the average, the sentimental. Down with humanity and civilization!

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

jimmy-

When the term "gold standard" is applied in libertarian/economic circles is does not necessarily mean that we must back all paper currency with gold at a fixed rate. It means a return to commodity-based, market valuated currency. In the absence of legal tender laws, Federal reserve money printing, anc confiscatory taxation on gold and silver transactions, consumers will naturally gravitate towards a currency with a stable value. History demonstrates that this will most likely be gold and silver.

"Gold standard" is a term that has been applied generically to commodity-based market money, and doesn't necessarily mean a return to a fixed paper/gold ratio.

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Why just this morning I saw my first "Fred '08" sticker. 'Course, I was thinking Flintstone.
Posted by: ckelly '

Priceless.

'For some time now, the U.S. economy has been hopelessly finance-driven, and the greater and more protracted the Credit excesses the greater the "transformation" of the economic structure. And it is the underlying real economy that today cannot "pay its bills" and is therefore hooked on ever increasing Credit inflation. This should by now be recognized as the Road to Ruin. Contemporary finance and its operators should be held accountable. ' -
Road to ruin By Doug Noland
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/
IK06Dj01.html

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is the only clearly anti-war candidate. Not just anti-war, but anti-machine politics candidate.

You are correct that it is a luxury of those with little chance of success to be able to speak truth clearly. However, I would look at two important notions...

- The public is craving clear opposition to the policies of this current administration.

- The Democratic party is not and has not provided meaningful opposition to the behavior of the administration, in fact, one must call them complicit.

If Democrats took seriously that congress' popularity is in the dumps and responded with real opposition; I feel they could tap in to Paul's popularity. I wish they would, though I'm not confident.

When Krugman says:
"I sometimes hear people say that there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans; that’s foolish." (yesterday's column in the nyt)

Foolish or no, that people cannot clearly differentiate between parties during tenure of the most far-right GOP administration does not speak well of Democrats ability to voice opposition. It's not clear from Democrats' behavior that they actually are in opposition to the administration.

And so, one finds a protest voice in the voice of protest: unfortunately, at this point that's only Ron Paul.

I hope, rather than prompting ridicule, his appeal prompts clear speech and clear action from Democrats. The country needs it.

Posted by: Jackifus on November 6, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo-

I'll quote my original post since you apparently missed it in your outrage:

"repealing legal tender laws and ending taxes on gold/silver transactions?"

How long should the whitepaper be in order to explain this?

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe you shold grow up and understand that we don't want a government that will pamper us like children and take care of us from cradle to grave? I want to run my own life, and I belive I can make a lot better decisions about my life than the government can. In your case, I will concede you need some sort of help to be taken care of, but it doesn't apply to the majority. Posted by: Daniel

Hey chump. If our government is too oppressive for you, why aren't you living in Mogadishu, or Darfur, or say, Baghdad? very little government to stand in the way of your decision making ability there, kiddo! or is it that you are making the decision to live in a place where the government does, in fact, do something?

Posted by: northzax on November 6, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

In any even, Ron Paul has a seat at the table that wasn't reserved for him. He is nuttier than a fruitcake and he is not a part of my beloved party.

In that case, he's got my vote!

Posted by: Vicente Fox on November 6, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop: "... it would appear that the GOP caucus' motive was forcing immediate debate in order to embarrass the Democrats. Let's see if the Democratic caucus is up to it."

That's exactly what a spokesmen for Minority Leader John Boehner said. Unfortunately for them, the Republican machinations merely helped Kucinich's genie to excape from Steney Hoyer's bottle, thanks in no small part to their own House GOP Leadership's rank stupidity, or inexplicable inability to understand Mason's rules regarding parliamentary procedure. The measure was instead referred to House Judiciary Committee -- specifically to its Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by Congressman Jerrold Nadler.
-- over the objections of those very same Republicans.

Concerned Americans now need to call Chairman John Conyers, Rep. Nadler and members of the Judiciary Committee, and urge them to take up the debate on H.Res. 333 ASAP.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 6, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

The bots must have money to have raised 4 million dollars.

Posted by: Bharat on November 6, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

I think, Mr. Drum, that Ron Paul scares the hell out of you. He scares the hell out of anyone who is in the established system because he represents a direct threat to the satus quo. And what scares you even more is that thousands of people are starting to back him even with the mainstream media practiacally ignoring him. He argues a position which dates back to the start of our country based on the ideals and principals that our country was founded on. And people can recognize truth when they hear it.

Unlike most of the candidates on either side of the aisle, he is not spouting off a string of party lines regurgitated time and time again. He speaks from his heart, directly. Almost unheard of in politics these days.

You can't argue with him, so you call him names.

You can't understand what happened yesterday, so you dismiss it.

Wake up Mr. Drum or you might be left behind by a movement which has been building in this country for many many years now. Bringing together people from all sides of the political spectrum. We are fed up with our government! We want change, god damn it! And we want it Now! If it's not Ron Paul, then it will be someone else. This movement can not be stopped.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry Kevin - exactly WHAT is wrong with a return to the Gold Standard and fiscal responsibility? What's that? It doesn't allow for rabid consumerism, which leads to the manufacture of cheap plastic crap, export of American jobs, increased use of natural resources and pollution world-wide? What's that? It doesn't lead to stagflation, banks hiding sub-prime mortgage losses behind the black curtain? The Fed is a fraud - plain and simple. It is there to protect the profits of the mega-rich. Nothing else. Oh, and it's completely illegal - fyi. I suggest you do a little research before spewing your "boo-hoo" rhetoric about how we should all just TOE THE CORPORATE CANDIDATE LINE and accept business as usual. Tis you who is the fool, fool.

Posted by: matt on November 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

I think most states have laws that prevent candidates from running in the primaries and then switching party affiliation.

I guess Connecticut isn't one of them...

Posted by: Jenna's Bush on November 6, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Foolish or no, that people cannot clearly differentiate between parties during tenure of the most far-right GOP administration does not speak well of Democrats ability to voice opposition. It's not clear from Democrats' behavior that they actually are in opposition to the administration.

Point well-taken, and I don't think you'd get any argument from most of the faithful who post here. However, how does this open the door for someone as disconnected from reality as Ron Paul, if that's what you are suggesting?

I hope, rather than prompting ridicule, his appeal prompts clear speech and clear action from Democrats. The country needs it. Posted by: Jackifus

However, Ron Paul is no John Anderson. I'm not sure he's even Ross Perot.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

As far as flat earthers and gold standard and the like. I don't see why a standard where the currency is backed by a commodity is so far fetched. It could be very simple as it has been in the fast by turning paper currency into certificates that entitle you to a given amount of a commodity.

This is something that I think alot less about, it matters less to me since we have traded constant inflation for never having deflation. Which has its advantages and disadvantages but ultimately as I am not a PhD economist i have little thought on other than I don't like the rate at which my money becomes devalued.

Its easy to just dismiss an idea as stupid without providing an argument as to why its stupid. I think both sides RonBots and Haters do themselves injustice by a) not understanding the issue and b) dismissing the issue immediately because they can.

Posted by: Kevin L. Kane on November 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

I personally find this kind of smarmy attack without any real merit to be disgusting. I mean lets face it, I think Kevin is completely aware that Ron Paul is the most searched for candidate on the web, and that if he berates him he will get more hits, which means more money through ads.

The downside is the site becomes infested with Paulines, and they aren't interested in any advertisers who don't sell role playing games, anime porn or Leonard Peikoff-shaped marital aids. They're LaRouchites with computers.

Posted by: Ro Paul on November 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

"repealing legal tender laws and ending taxes on gold/silver transactions?" How long should the whitepaper be in order to explain this?

Well, if you think that that is sufficient detail to explain Paul's proposed "gold standard" policy, then you really have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt that you even understand what the quoted text means.

Sorry, buddy. When you admitted that you hadn't even read the monograph you originally referred me to, I should have realized that you are an idiot trolling way out of your depth and not worth bothering with.

Still, if any sane RonBot out there can answer my question, I'm all ears/eyes.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ben,

Why would I care about confiscatory taxation on gold and silver transactions? I dont have any silver or gold, nor do I trade with them. More to the point, perhaps, does any country in the whole world have a commodity-based, market valuated currency? I mean, all these countries, if it is such a good idea, one of them must have adopted it?

Doesnt it seem like we have progress passed beyond the principles of barter? The bank doesnt have the money you lend it, the government doesnt have the gold or silver or magnesium to exchange for dollars.

Might as have a candidate who wants to return to the Telegraph.

I know it seems unfair, Ron Paul is a good man, (and who knows he might make a good President?) but crazy beliefs disqualify you from becoming president.

Posted by: jimmy on November 6, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

What wonderful benefits will the Gold Standard bring us? Fairy dust on everyone? As near as I can tell, it's supposed to stop inflation, but I think that would probably be worse than allowing a little more inflation. Right now America is a nation of debtors, and a little bit of inflation would be great for them.

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

This movement can not be stopped.
Posted by: Sinclair Lewis

That's not an earthquake. That's Sinclair Lewis making like a dynamo from his grave.

How fuckin' dare you?

Pathetic.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Ben Schroeder: When the term "gold standard" is applied in libertarian/economic circles is does not necessarily mean that we must back all paper currency with gold at a fixed rate. It means a return to commodity-based, market valuated currency.

Oh, I get it. Silly me - I thought the word "gold" meant "gold". So when the William Jennings Bryan and the populists advocated a bi-metal standard, they really meant a gold standard (except not).

And his opponent advocated a gold standard too. In fact there was no difference in their positions. What a shame you weren't around to explain that to them.

It's a good thing that Ron Paul doesn't say he advocates a commodities based currency, because then people would understand that he's really a Keynesian! (which, to be consistent, you should define to be the same thing as Austrian school).

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

You are in absolute denial that Ron Paul now has a fair shot to win this thing. If you do the math Ron Paul has more "Cash On Hand" than Rudy. Ron can win New Hampshire because it has a more independent/libertarian streak and Paul plans on spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in that state alone.

Wake up my friend. Your comments may have been valid 8 months ago, but now no longer. Ron Paul is in this thing to win it, even though he still has a way to go.

Posted by: Corey on November 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

The downside is the site becomes infested with Paulines, and they aren't interested in any advertisers who don't sell role playing games, anime porn or Leonard Peikoff-shaped marital aids. They're LaRouchites with computers.

Doesn't matter when Mr. Drum can negotiate deals based on raw traffic numbers and when the traffic goes up he gets better advertising deals.

Also, why the ad hominem? Do you really have no objections to the man besides the makeup of his following or is it because people who play role playing games are invariably evil and wrong about public policy?

Posted by: Kevin L. Kane on November 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Heh. Ross Perot had a lot better chance than Paul does, though I do hope that he decides to make a third-party run like Perot. Make campaign season a whole lot more interesting, and probably cement a Democratic win.

Posted by: idlemind on November 6, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

The powers that manage the Republican Party contracted with Karl Rove to put **GEORGE W. "Have a Beer" BUSH** into the White House. And Kevin is asking if _Ron Paul_ is nuts?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on November 6, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin complains that Paul's $4 million fundraising day is getting mention as news -- because Paul is not a "serious" candidate.

Seems to me that the less "serious" a candidate is, the more his/her ability to raise $4 million in a day (or in any number of days) is newsworthy.

As for who is "serious" in the political scene-- is the implication that people like McCain, Thompson, or Cheney and Bush, are "serious" because of their ideas? Or because they are, somehow, taken seriously by the press? Or is Kevin's position that none of these people are "serious"? (I personally wouldn't have a problem with that, but I don't think that's what he's saying).

Kevin is correct on this: now that Paul is raising some serious cash, the press should ask him tougher questions. That's always a good idea.

Posted by: JS on November 6, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

When the term "gold standard" is applied in libertarian/economic circles is does not necessarily mean that we must back all paper currency with gold at a fixed rate. It means a return to commodity-based, market valuated currency. Posted by: Ben Schroeder

That's what we have now, numbnuts. It's called the world economy. See, X hours of labor at job A is worth X dollars, and X dollars is worth X amount of wheat, and, right, right, X amount of wheat is equal to X dollars.

Try and remember this next time you go to the drug store and try to pay for (your third) bottle of cough syrup that day with a bag of corn.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Look, we know all you Paulines are devoted to him. But none of you has so much as suggested what returning to the gold standard would actuall be or do. Nor, so far as I can tell, has Mr. Paul. In an age of electronic money, just how's that all going to work? We can only have as much money as there is Gold? Or soybeans? Or whatever? That would be nuts.

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

"Gold standard" is a term that has been applied generically to commodity-based market money, and doesn't necessarily mean a return to a fixed paper/gold ratio.

Accept that the latter is what Ron Paul is advocating.

Funny how the RonBots don't have even the first idea of what RonPaul's positions are. No wonder they can't answer a single one of my questions.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum asked: "Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?"

Libertarians unanimously answer: NEVER!

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 6, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

should be "except"

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Check back with us when YOU win the Nobel. Asshole!

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.

Lewis, Sinclair


1885–1951, American novelist, b. Sauk Centre, Minn., grad. Yale Univ., 1908. Probably the greatest satirist of his era, Lewis wrote novels that present a devastating picture of middle-class American life in the 1920s. Although he ridiculed the values, the lifestyles, and even the speech of his characters, there is affection behind the irony. Lewis began his career as a journalist, editor, and hack writer. With the publication of Main Street (1920), a merciless satire on life in a Midwestern small town, Lewis immediately became an important literary figure. His next novel, Babbitt (1922), considered by many critics to be his greatest work, is a scathing portrait of an average American businessman, a Republican and a Rotarian, whose individuality has been erased by conformist values. 1
Arrowsmith (1925; Pulitzer Prize, refused by Lewis) satirizes the medical profession, and Elmer Gantry (1927) attacks hypocritical religious revivalism. Dodsworth (1929), a more mellow work, is a sympathetic picture of a wealthy American businessman in Europe; it was successfully dramatized by Lewis and Sidney Howard in 1934. In 1930, Lewis became the first American to win the Nobel Prize in Literature. During his lifetime he published 22 novels, and it is generally agreed that his later novels are far less successful than his early fiction. Among his later works are It Can’t Happen Here (1935), Cass Timberlane (1945), Kingsblood Royal (1947), and World So Wide (1951). From 1928 to 1942 Lewis was married to Dorothy Thompson, 1894–1961, a distinguished newspaperwoman and foreign correspondent.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

jimmy-

It is illogical to assume that countries of the world have commodity-based money not because it is more honest or economically sound. In fact, fiat currencies and central banking make it far more easier for governments to obtain purchasing power without having to resort to high levels of taxation. This erodes the value of the currency over time, and its potential to multiply government spending makes it appealing.

Commodity money is not barter. The very idea of money is differentiated from barter. Believe it or not, paper will still likely be issued by banks in exchange for hard currency under a gold "standard", so transactions would be similar to what you are used to right now. This transition would certainly not take us back to the stone age.

The reason Ron Paul would like to repeal taxes on gold and silver transactions is that such taxes discourage commodity exchange and would pose a penalty for a consumers wishing to move towards commodity-backed currency.

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo: "Still, if any sane RonBot out there can answer my question, I'm all ears/eyes."

And hopefully, with the patience and fortitude of Diogenes, who walked the streets of ancient Athens in his quest to find one honest man.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on November 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

alex-

It's truly amazing if you think we have a commodity money system right now. This is something that is defined quite clearly in the average economics textbook.

http://www.mises.org/books/Theory_Money_Credit/Part1_Ch3.aspx#_sec3


Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

>The reason Ron Paul would like to repeal taxes on gold and silver transactions is that such taxes discourage commodity exchange and would pose a penalty for a consumers wishing to move towards commodity-backed currency.
Posted by: Ben Schroeder

He's batshit crazy. And so, obviously, are you.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, so Ben wants to go back to the era where banks issued their own paper currency. Excellent....

Is this part of Ron Paul's "gold standard" policy position too?

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

We are fed up with our government! We want change, god damn it! And we want it Now!

And we don't even care if the cure is worse than the disease! W00T! Revolution! Give us change and don't fucking bother us with the details!

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Ben Schroeder: It's truly amazing if you think we have a commodity money system right now.

It's truly amazing that you think I said we have a commodity money system.

Oh, hold it, maybe I'm making another simplistic assumption that the word "commodity" means "commodity". After all, you corrected me and said that the word "gold" doesn't mean "gold".

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

What is this gold standard mess, the dollar is just fine as it is. It's worth almost as much as the canadian dollar!

Posted by: joe on November 6, 2007 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

To the extent that the RonPaul people drive the mainstream Republican Party crazy, I say:

GO RON GO!

But the reality is that he's straightforwardly Looney Tunes. Which is also six kinds of awesome.

GO RON GO!

Fun can be had in spades by going and posting pro-RonPaul nonsense to little rightard blogs. They get so angry!

GO RON GO!

Posted by: salto ethan on November 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

-Sinclair Lewis

Wow, MsNThrope. I have seemed to piss you off a bit. Yes, Sinclair Lewis was a satirist and political comentator. He had some interesting warnings about facism, which I think would be worthwhile to take a look at considering the blatent moves by our government towards more governmental controll with less individual rights - aka fascism.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

>Wow, MsNThrope. I have seemed to piss you off a bit.

Ya think?

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

The real Sinclair Lewis could spell, too.

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

hehe

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

In fact, fiat currencies and central banking make it far more easier for governments to obtain purchasing power without having to resort to high levels of taxation. This erodes the value of the currency over time, and its potential to multiply government spending makes it appealing.

Yes, MsNThrope, I think "batshit crazy" does it.

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

It may not happen in my lifetime (hope not, anyway), but society will return to a commodity money someday. No debt-backed money (which is what we have today) has ever lasted forever- they always come crashing down, and always because the lack of value behind them eventually becomes generally known and undeniable. It is only a matter of time. Now, this is something not to be wished for since such monetary collapses often bring the civilizations down as well.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on November 6, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, douchebag

http://tastybooze.com/2007/05/douche-bag-definition/

Posted by: million on November 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

moves by our government towards more governmental controll with less individual rights - aka fascism.

Good gawd, these folks don't even know what fascism is.

Here's some more homework, folks. Look up the terms:

a) fascism
b) totalitarianism
c) authoritarianism

Compare and contrast.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

>The real Sinclair Lewis could spell, too.

Classic straw man attack. Why don't you make an argument rather then attacking my spelling?

Thoughts and ideas are what is important, which can be conveyed in many languages with various different spellings. You understood what I was trying to convey, so I got my point across. Beyond that spelling is pointless.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Beyond that spelling is pointless.

Spoken like a guy whose spelling is hopeless.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Wishing the federal reserve was ridden of

Welcome to America. Now learn English.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Classic straw man attack. Why don't you make an argument rather then attacking my spelling?

LMAO.

More homework for ya buddy: look up "strawman".

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Jeff,

>>However, how does this open the door for someone as disconnected from reality as Ron Paul, if that's what you are suggesting?

I formed my impression speaking to friends of mine who find Paul appealing.

They don't drill down in to his economic policy or other implications of his libertarian thought... Bush's success certainly teaches us that people don't drill-down too far when making a decision.

They focus on his antiwar and anti-imperial message that stands in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton's rhetoric per se. When Hillary Clinton echoed Bush's saber-rattling about Iran, refusing to rule out nukes etc ... ( quite a while ago - prior to the Lieberman/Revolutionary Guards bill ) she painted a picture of herself and Democrats as war-mongers similar to Bush. Because Democratic opposition has thus far been hollow, or equivocating at best, these folks don't see Democrats as a voice of change.

So, Jeff, I'd say that they aren't so much for Paul's whole agendum as for his clearly stated anti-imperial message. It's for that reason that I feel Democrats *could* tap-in to that support if they really were in opposition to the current administration.


Posted by: jackifus on November 6, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo-

Your ignorance of money and banking is so pervasive that your attempts to appear high-minded and derogatory make you look ever more the fool. Let me try one more time since you would never pick up a book about monetary theory on your own:

Under the independent treasury system, or free banking era, there was no central bank. Banks were largely free to inflate on their own if they chose. However, such a policy was dangerous, as bank runs would likely occur whenever a large firm attempted to inflate. When this happened, the result would be a bank run, and customers would demand specie payment.

It was typically larger banking firms that attempted to inflate, but people would generally gravitate towards smaller banks that did not inflate (a reflection of Gresham's Law). In this way competition restricted the ability of individual banks to inflate and erode their customers' savings and encouraged sound lending policy (generally speaking - there were some states that had financial institutions serving as a lender-of-last resort).

But banks (and governments) have an incentive to inflate. Yet they cannot do this when market competition prevents it. As was typical for firms to do back then, they sought government regulation as a means to allow inflation, lending policy, and monetary supply. A central bank provides that possibility. With centralized control over the issuance of money, smaller, sounder banking operations could not undercut the larger firms by not inflating.

Think of it as a failed cartel. If one firm refuses to raise its price then the cartel breaks down. However, if you can get the government to enforce the conditions of collusion through a central agency, then there will be no possibility of a breakdown. Thus, when the Federal Reserve Act was conceived, it was done so as a creation of the banking industry itself. Representatives of the major banking institutions (wealthy and powerful) collaborated to create a system of regulations for the banking industry - a conflict of interest of epic proportions.

Under this system, banking establishments enjoy the benefits of centralized inflation without the worry of competition. While there is competition between banks in other forms, sound lending policies have been discouraged through centralized control of interest rates.

Going back to a system where "banks issue their own paper" would not be the "wildcat" disaster those ignorant of history would predict. It would mean allowing consumers to have their choice in a banking free market where banks must compete through solvency, since there would be no lender of last resort.

Allowing full competition to government issued fiat currency would be the first step to combating the inflationary policy of the Federal Reserve.

http://www.mises.org/money.asp
http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=216 (this book used to be available online but I cannot find it anymore)

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

David in NY: What wonderful benefits will the Gold Standard bring us? Fairy dust on everyone?

So the goldbugs believe. An economic nirvana where we can all stuff shiny coins under the mattress.

As near as I can tell, it's supposed to stop inflation, but I think that would probably be worse than allowing a little more inflation.

If you're not aware of the history, then you don't know how right you are. Throughout the 19th century we had persistent deflation, which hurt debtors (then, as now, most people). That's why William Jennings Bryan and the populists wanted a bi-metal (gold and silver) standard. The US had lots of silver, so it would ease deflation. Only bankers loved the gold standard.

What amazes me is people who fawn over the populist appeal of a candidate who advocates a return to the gold standard - the anathema of populists throughout our history. Maybe the education in this country really is lacking - at least amongst RonBots.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

"...with the patience and fortitude of Diogenes..." a sarcastic, cynical, sneering fault-finder.

Perfect!

Posted by: majarosh on November 6, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, MsNThrope, I think "batshit crazy" does it.
Posted by: David in NY

Thanks, babe. Try the veal and don't forget to tip your server.

'It is a mystery how a people, whose economic policy is turning them into a third world country with its university graduates working as waitresses, bartenders, and driving cabs, can regard themselves as a hegemonic power even as they build up war debts that are further undermining their ability to pay their import bills.'

Greenspan and the Economy of Greed
As the Empire Slips
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts09202007.html

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

>Here's some more homework, folks. Look up the terms:

a) fascism
b) totalitarianism
c) authoritarianism

Fine. Hide behind your terms and words. Make the argument into something that the normal American can not participate in. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

I don't care what you call the move in our country for greater governmental control while tramping all over the constitution and it's protections for individual rights. The simple fact is that it is happening. Just like it happened to the people of Germany, and Italy. It's happening right here and right now in our country.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

We can be whoever we want to be...on the internet!

Posted by: Abraham Lincoln (the poster formerly known as uri) on November 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

>More homework for ya buddy: look up "strawman".

My mistake. I meant Ad hominem. So many fallacies, hard to keep track of them all.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, hope springs eternal in the libertarian breast. How many crushing electoral defeats must they absorb before they realize they don't have all the answers?

Posted by: demisod on November 6, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Going back to a system where "banks issue their own paper" would not be the "wildcat" disaster those ignorant of history would predict. It would mean allowing consumers to have their choice in a banking free market where banks must compete through solvency, since there would be no lender of last resort. Posted by: Ben Schroeder

What sort of closed system do you live in? There are more independent banks in the state of California now than there were in the entire country for the period of history you are a talking about. Furthermore, the consumer choice you hypothesize assumes that the millions of independent merchants in California (or wherever) would be willing to deal in a variety of currencies. Hardly.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Ben, I see alot of hogwash, but not yet one word about Ron Paul's "gold standard" policy proposal.

Really, dude, give it up. The harder you flail your arms, the more foolish you look.

(Btw, you continue to make the classic libernuttian mistake of ignoring "transaction costs" -- look it up.)

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hide behind your terms and words. Make the argument into something that the normal American can not participate in.

LOL--you used the word fascism and you won't even back it up now?

Don't fucking bother us with the details! We want a revolution, we're entitled to one and we're going to get one!

It is raining dumb in here.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Did someone pay you to actually write this?

Posted by: Mike on November 6, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

GREAT article! next time you get a hankerin' to write some drivel like this, spare us the agony of having to read through several paragraphs of your droll prose and just bottom-line it like this:

"ok folks, bend over and continue taking it from our pseudo two-party system! don't try to change anything and be a good little sheep like me!"

Posted by: bob on November 6, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ben Schroeder: Under the independent treasury system, or free banking era, there was no central bank.

Ah, the financial stability of our free banking era. The average bank lasted five years. There were hundreds of banks issuing their own paper. Many banks failed leaving people holding completely worthless (not just inflated) paper. Wildly inflationary and deflationary swings. The good old days.

Ok, if that's what Ron Paul wants, them I'm all for it! Sure beats having to put my money in something that yields more than the inflation rate.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo-

I have answered your question about what Ron Paul would do to transition to stable money. I gave it to you when you first asked.

With respect to transaction costs...you actually have a good point. I have ignored them. There will be a transitory inconvenience to those gravitating towards a competing currency. Yet, by removing restrictions against competing currencies, consumers may calculate these costs for themselves and act accordingly. This actually works in the favor of commodity-backed currency, as it would lessen any shock to the monetary system by going off fiat cold turkey. In the long run, the stable purchasing power will outweigh transaction costs as consumers and firms adapt to the more stable money. I assert there will be a demand for a more stable currency. By offering to cater to competing currencies, firms will be doing nothing much more complicated than when credit cards were introduced, and it will likely be more profitable, if my assertion is correct about the demand for stable money.

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

>LOL--you used the word fascism and you won't even back it up now?

Fascism: A system of government marked by CENTRALIZATION OF AUTHORITY under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through TERROR and CENSORSHIP, and typically a policy of belligerent NATIONALISM and racism. [Emphasis added]
-American Heritage Dictionary

I didn't say we were there, I said we were moving in this direction. And yes, it fits the definition. But, like I said, I don't care what you call it, its happening.

>Don't fucking bother us with the details! We want a revolution, we're entitled to one and we're going to get one!

When the American Colonists began to fight the revolution, they didn't have the constitution drafted. They didn't know what they were going to do after they won the war. They were just extreemly pissed off and knew they didn't want to be ruled by King George any more. Sound familiar?

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

... but crazy beliefs disqualify you from becoming president. -- jimmy, 4:53 p.m.

Are you new to our country?

Posted by: junebug on November 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Drilling down into what Paul actually believes and proposes misses the value in his candidacy, not to mention the Paul-bearers: just the fact of his viability at the moment is good for the country.

One of the depressing things about the state of the art representative democracy we got is how it homogenizes everything. Almost everybody in Congress is a lawyer, most are men, and if you stopped thinking about 'em as Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, they are alarmingly alike.

The people we choose for public office should be more like US, and less like each other.

So why shouldn't there be a libertarian goldbug obstretician running for President with millions in the bank and a whole lot of supporters who may never have VOTED before, never mind have a clue what the job of President means?

If ya wanna be cynical about it, the longer Paul stays in the race, the better it is for Democrats in general, and the Democratic nominee in particular.

But I don't wanna be cynical about it: this is a country where one state elected a pro-wrestler as governor, and another's governor was an action hero movie star body builder whose father had, shall we say, a problematic history in WW2 to be THEIR governor -- and he married into the other party's ranking family, no less.

It's a GOOD thing, not a bad thing, when the public actually gets a choice for an election, whether it's a primary or a general, when the difference isn't nuance or gimmicks or fake issues.

Maybe there are millions of folks who want to return to the gold standard. Seems sorta unlikely, but I don't object to testing it. I am SURE there are a lot of Republicans who want to get the hell out of Iraq: aren't you? Why shouldn't they have a candidate? Don't have to agree on everything -- hell, maybe on nothing else... for awhile.

I'd LOVE it if Paul placed in Iowa and, what the hell, outright WON New Hampshire. Who wouldn't want to see him square off with McCain (much more fun than Giuliani, much less Romney) in, say, South Carolina?

And remember -- he's unequivocally and reliably pro-life, which indicates a lot of voters who don't have any other obvious place to go.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

"I think the great lengths people go to marginalize Ron Paul to be indicative of the fact that he's hit a nerve."

LOL... I'm sure that comforts you. Meanwhile, out here in the real world, we don't need to "marginalize" Ron Paul; he did that all by himself.

Posted by: PaulB on November 6, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is also detached from reality as a global warming denier.

Posted by: jefff on November 6, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, alex, for the Bryan explication. I studied history once, but never US economic history before 1920, and the "Cross of Gold" metaphor has always eluded me as a practical matter. But if deflation was common, then debtors, which all farmers tended to be, just kept getting worse and worse off, especially if their commodities, which would theoretically repay the debts, kept declining in value. If that's the gold standard, why would anyone want it?

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

His principled opinions are far from meaningless - as long as he's able to raise money and continue to appear in debates, any mainstream candidate may choose to coopt one or more of his positions to try and horn in on his enthusiastic supporters. In that way, he could change national policy.

Even a small chance of that possible future probably makes the exercise meaningful for he and his supporters.

Posted by: Miguel on November 6, 2007 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Currently the big mining interests like Freeport-MacMoran are excavating 30 tons of 'ore' to process 1 ounce of gold. They do this by pouring a toxic stew of composed mainly of arsenic onto the product of their mining.

The run-off has poisoned hundreds of square miles and sickened hundreds of thousands.

Batshit crazy is charitable.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

The people we choose for public office should be more like US...

So why shouldn't there be a libertarian goldbug obstretician running for President with millions in the bank...

And the really funny thing is, these two sentences were right next to each other.

Posted by: express written consent on November 6, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

“The primary function of the government is - and here I am quoting directly from the U.S. Constitution - "to spew out paper."” - Dave Barry

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

David in NY: If that's the gold standard, why would anyone want it?

That's my question too, but I'll be damned if I can get anything other than links to von Mises out of the RonBots.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is the classic broken clock that is right twice a day.

The problem is that so many people are eager to hear about those two moments he's right, because they happen to be the only things important to them, that they can't take in anything else.

On balance, I don't know who turns out dumber, him or them.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 6, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

theAmericanist: why shouldn't there be a libertarian goldbug obstretician running for President with millions in the bank and a whole lot of supporters who may never have VOTED before, never mind have a clue what the job of President means?

Fine by me. As far as I can tell nobody here has said that he shouldn't be able to run. Similarly, I can't think of any reason we shouldn't be able to make fun of him and his supporters.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

I don't agree with Ron Paul that we should return to the gold standard. But, it would help to stem this recent tide of inflation and devaluation of the dollar.

What he is dead on about is his policy to abolish the Federal Reserve, which is really a decieving title. It's not federal and they definitely don't have any reserves. The Federal Reserve is a monopoly of control over the United States' economic system granted by Congress in 1913. This private bank should be abolished, and the power to print and coin money should be returned to our government as it was origonally intended in the constitution.

Watch The Money Masters (a version is posted for free viewing on google video). It goes into great detail about the history of money control in the U.S.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

Currently the big mining interests like Freeport-MacMoran are excavating 30 tons of 'ore' to process 1 ounce of gold. They do this by pouring a toxic stew of composed mainly of arsenic onto the product of their mining.

The run-off has poisoned hundreds of square miles and sickened hundreds of thousands.


lotsa' emotion, precious little in facts. good job. now run along and vote for hillary.

Posted by: simpson on November 6, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

In 1993, I made 26 million dollars.

Top that, freak show.

Posted by: Norman Rogers


normie, was that with or without securities fraud and before or after you went to jail?

your pal,
blake

Posted by: blake on November 6, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum buggers little boys.

Posted by: alphonso on November 6, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I favor a currency backed by golden golems.

Posted by: Emma Anne on November 6, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK
Going back to a system where "banks issue their own paper" would not be the "wildcat" disaster those ignorant of history would predict. It would mean allowing consumers to have their choice in a banking free market where banks must compete through solvency, since there would be no lender of last resort.

And this would be better than the situation now where depositors can take solvency essentially as a given and banks instead compete on services how?

You seem to be suggesting that a scenario in which "This bank is not as likely to fail and lose all your money" was a major selling point (i.e., where bank failure was a real and substantial concern for most depositors) would be better than the status quo. I don't think most people would agree with that.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 6, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK

It's not federal and they definitely don't have any reserves.
Well, they don't actually own it, but the Fed reserve bank in NYC has a fair bit (about 5000 metric tons according to Wikipedia, FWIW) of gold in a big vault in the basement, featured in "Die Hard : With a Vengeance".
According to a colleague, you can visit it, though you need to sign up and then they inform you when you can visit.

Posted by: Bill Arnold on November 6, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Sinclair Lewis: The Federal Reserve is a monopoly of control over the United States' economic system granted by Congress in 1913.

Yes, that was the intention.

This private bank should be abolished, and the power to print and coin money should be returned to our government as it was origonally intended in the constitution.

Isn't it odd that this private bank has a board of governors appointed by the president, and that they determine the policies?

You may object to the Fed or its policies, but conspiracy theories about it are barely half a notch above black helicopter theories.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

According to a colleague, you can visit it, though you need to sign up and then they inform you when you can visit. Posted by: Bill Arnold

But then you have to agree to have that part of your memory "erased" as they deny it really exists ("God damn you Bruce Willis!").

Most of it was sold to Swiss watch makers years ago when it was about $525/oz.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

"In fact, fiat currencies and central banking make it far more easier for governments to obtain purchasing power without having to resort to high levels of taxation."

Is this it? The goldbugs' whole argument against fiat money is because of seignorage?

Never mind that seignorage is a miniscule amount compared to the GDP?

Do these guys seriously believe that we're gonna junk 70 years of monetary experience to follow Bolivia and Weimar Germany?

Are they ever going to crack a text on macroeconomics that was written after 1950?

"But, it [the gold standard] would help to stem this recent tide of inflation and devaluation of the dollar."

Lessee...since the introduction of the Fed inflation has averaged 1.7% p.a. Crazy, eh?

Devaluation of the dollar is *because we're not saving sufficiently*, and hence need to sell assets to pay for the imbalance between imports and exports. The only way that the gold standard would change that is by the resultant run-up in interest rates caused by the straitjacket of the gold standard causing consumption and investment to tank.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 6, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

We want change, god damn it! And we want it Now! If it's not Ron Paul, then it will be someone else. This movement can not be stopped.

You won't get change supporting a man who can't win with ideas that won't work in an age where his ideas have been left in the dust by those of us who can think rationally.

It's hilarious to watch the moonbats howl and the "Paultards" think they have the answer. The only people who actually do have the answer have been keeping this country safe for seven years now. If America wants the terrorists to win, they'll vote for a Democrat. If America wants the terrorists to win AND for a loonybin nutjob to hasten their victory by sticking his chicken neck in the sand and squawking about the gold standard (good God, where's Father to explain this to you?) then vote for Ron Paul.

He's a Democrat you know. Yes. Ron Paul is a D E M O C R A T.

He's not a Republican. That's why he and Kucinich are two peas in a nutty pod.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: Yes. Ron Paul is a D E M O C R A T.

Wouldn't surprise me - Hillary Clinton is a Republican.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

>now run along and vote for hillary.
Posted by: simpson

Not in this or any other life time, bub.

Pssst: screw you and the idiot you rode in on.


“The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
—Voltaire

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

"If that's the gold standard, why would anyone want it?"

I'm neither a gold bug nor an expert, but IIRC the basic idea is that the government shouldn't control the means of exchange any more than it should control the production of wealth.

After that it gets sorta complex and people start arguing about stuff that I'm more then half-convinced folks don't actually understand, cuz I sure as hell don't. But not everybody who advocates for a version of the gold standard is actually nuts, I don't think. (Curmudgeonly, probably.)

The idea seems to be that there is only so much wealth in the world at any given time, and only so much more gets created. Since the supply of gold doesn't actually go up very fast (much less quickly than the amount of wealth, in fact), a means of exchange that directly translates into gold would more accurately reflect the GROWTH in wealth. The "gold standard" is only about gold cuz it is valuable, easily exchanged, and there is a relatively fixed supply. In Yap, they used to have this huge stone wheels for the same purpose.

The idea is that governments and QUANGOs like the Fed shouldn't (in fact CAN'T, in theory) create wealth, so libertarians object that they do create 'money' -- literally printing it or, as the Fed does, allowing more to be lent and borrowed.

The pessimistic rap has always been that democracies begin to collapse when the people fall for the delusion that they can vote themselves more wealth than they actually create, printing money until hyperinflation swallows value.

The idea is that the gold standard in some form will keep people honest -- if you print more money backed by the same amount of gold, the money is worth less: if it costs $100 to buy an ounce of gold, or $500 to buy an ounce of gold, it's still just an ounce of gold. So you know that it is ONLY the money that is worth less -- which ain't nothing, as insights go.

So when you produce more wealth, but there is only the same amount of gold against which to measure it, the money that is the tool to exchange all that wealth will buy more of IT, but still be worth only the same amout of the underlying standard: gold. That is, if gold was worth $100 an ounce in 1965, when oil was $12 a barrel, it'd still be $100 an ounce for gold in 2007 -- but a barrel of oil might cost $1,000. (And a computer that cost a million in 1965 would cost a buck and a quarter.) That way, you'd know that the changes in price reflected real changes in value, and not just inflation. (Am I right about this?)

I've never been sold on it, but I THINK I understand the idea -- it's that inflation and various other economic factors tend to mask the real costs of stuff over time, when money is created by governments and QUANGOs: maybe oil really DOES cost ten times its nominal price these days, I dunno.

The gold standard always struck me as weirdly abstract for something that is supposed to be so concrete you can drop it on your foot.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 6, 2007 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

When the American Colonists began to fight the revolution, they didn't have the constitution drafted. They didn't know what they were going to do after they won the war. They were just extreemly pissed off and knew they didn't want to be ruled by King George any more. Sound familiar?

You BLITHERING IDIOT! Are you Ron Paul? You're as stupid as the day is long!

Not one single COLONIST rose up against the British until the educated, wealthy class in this country (that's me, kids!) told them it was the right thing to do. Not one commoner made it his or her cause to fight for liberty until it became apparent that the monied interests and the business class were threatened by the outrageous taxation of a runaway Parliament in Britain that couldn't figure out how to pay for yet another war against France.

As I was saying, Ron Paul has NO seat at the table. Those of us who are part of the investor class, the wealthy class, the EDUCATED class decide what's what and who's who so that this country has the best possible leaders and respects our fine traditions. There is such a thing as noblesse oblige, as I am obliged to tell you.

Ron Paul should hold his tongue and wait for someone to tell him what to do. That's all a Congressman is good for anyway.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

But then you have to agree to have that part of your memory "erased" as they deny it really exists ("God damn you Bruce Willis!").

Most of it was sold to Swiss watch makers years ago when it was about $525/oz.
LOL. Well, regardless, the link http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/ny_tours.html looks interesting. No cameras allowed.

Posted by: Bill Arnold on November 6, 2007 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm neither a gold bug nor an expert, but IIRC the basic idea is that the government shouldn't control the means of exchange any more than it should control the production of wealth.

After that it gets sorta complex . . . Posted by: theAmericanist

Right. So you ought to toddle off and play with your GameCube, read a graphic novel, masturbate, whatever boneheads like you do in your matchless free time in your mother's basement, and leave discussions like this to much better educated adults with real world experiences. Instead, you launch into a long monologue on something you already admitted you didn't know anything about. Is this what immigration lawyers do all day or do you have another pretend job this week?

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Amazing! Not one of you "Paultards" has even come close to laying a glove on me!

Mr. Kevin Drum, you may begin paying me for straightening these idiots out. I shall call Charles in the morning and we'll set up a way to dock your meager pay.

I'll use the money to donate money to Rudy Guiliani in the names of my various employees here on the property.

In the meantime, please little "Paultards." Your amateur hour hysterics have left you scrambling for another crack at this whole "gold standard" thing.

We left the gold standard because it made good sense in the early 1970s. Had we not left it then, we would have left it eventually. Hello, quit being stupid and shut the ever loving hell up, people.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

>GROWTH in wealth.

Ah. A clearly defined patholohy: Growthism.

"A growing nation is the greatest ponzi game ever contrived."
- Paul Samuelson

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
- Edward Abbey

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

(snort) Jeff, get a clue.

I still have someplace the multi-volume report of the Commission on the Gold Standard issued in the early Reagan years, which included as one member, my boss at the time, and as another, Ron Paul his own self.

Oddly enough, now and again, I know what I don't know: I commend the practice to you.

(and if anybody else can do a better job explicating the case for a gold standard, let 'em try)

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 6, 2007 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

You may object to the Fed or its policies, but conspiracy theories about it are barely half a notch above black helicopter theories.
Posted by: alex

But integrity in a central banker is like honesty in a politician or chastity in a prostitute – the quality is completely at odds with his profession.' - Bill Bonner

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'd ask the Paulists why they want to return the American economy back to the 1850's, but I'd probably just get more links to von Mises.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on November 6, 2007 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

I still have someplace the multi-volume report of the Commission on the Gold Standard issued in the early Reagan years, which included as one member, my boss at the time, . . . Posted by: theAmericanist

Why in the world would they have the night manager of a Jack-In-The-Box on such a committee? Yes, it was the Reagan administration, but I doubt Volker would have tolerated it.

Posted by: JeffII on November 6, 2007 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Everything you need to know about RP's economics can be found in the "Wizard of Oz". It even has a strawman!
Hint: Baum made Dorothy's slippers silver, thus - "the free and unlimited coinage of silver".
Extra points for anyone who can identify the Lion!

Posted by: jay boilswater on November 6, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

a toxic stew of composed mainly of arsenic onto the product of their mining.

I'm pretty sure it's cyanide which bonds with gold. The arsenic shows up after the gold is extracted.

Posted by: Tjm on November 6, 2007 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK
No debt-backed money (which is what we have today) has ever lasted forever

Neither has any commodity-backed money. Since, after all, both money and human society have, themselves, existed only for a finite time.

The closest any kind of money could get to lasting forever is lasting from its inception to the present day, and lots of fiat currencies have done that quite well. Far fewer (if any) commodity-backed currencies have.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

[sigh]

Do any of you understand anything?

Here, a little dose of reality:

Which definition we choose, then, depends on what kind of gold standard we would like to attain. At the very least, it must be a genuine gold standard, that is, the dollar must be tied to gold permanently at a fixed weight, and must be redeemable in gold coin at that weight. That rules out all forms of pseudo gold standards such as the 1933-1971 monetary system of the United States, or its subset, the Bretton Woods system of 1945-1971. It rules out, similarly, the pseudo gold standard advocated by the supply-side economists, who would go back to something like Bretton Woods. There would then be no gold coin redemption, and, even worse than Bretton Woods, which at least kept a fixed dollar weight in gold, the Federal Reserve would be able to manipulate the dollar definition at will, in attempting to fine tune the economy to achieve such macroeconomic goals as full employment or price level stability.

We could in fact return to the classical gold standard such as all major nations were on before World War I and the United States from the 1850s to 1933. The major advantages would be a return to fixity of weight and to genuine redeemability in gold coin. A classical gold standard would be infinitely superior to either the current or the Bretton Woods system. In this case the particular definition chosen would not matter very much, except that it should be much higher than $35 so as not to tempt an unnecessary and massive deflationary contraction that would, at the very least, turn public opinion away from the gold standard for decades to come. More important, the classical gold standard would return to the very same system that created boom-and-bust cycles and brought us 1929 and at least the first four years of the Great Depression. It would, in short, retain the Federal Reserve System, and its system of cartelized banking, special privilege, and virtually inevitable generation of inflation and contraction. Finally, while the ultimate monetary com- modity, gold, would be supplied by the free market, the dollar would not be truly denationalized, and it would still be a creature of the federal government.

So, if I understand this correctly--and I know that I certainly do--we were not really on a "gold standard" in 1971 when President Nixon took us off from it--we were on Bretton Woods and that wasn't exactly great shakes.

But when we go to the next level--we see the "Paultards" have infected this article:

We can do much better, and there seems little point in going to the trouble of advocating and working for fundamental reform while neglecting to hold up the standard of the best we can achieve. If in our disillusionment with central banking, we call for abolition of the Federal Reserve and a return to some form of free banking, what route could we then take toward that goal? The closest approximation to a free banking-and-gold standard was the American economy from the 1840s to the Civil War, in which there was no form of central banking, and each bank had to redeem its notes and deposits promptly in gold. But in working toward such a system, we must realize that we now have a gold supply nationalized in the coffers of the Federal Reserve. Abolition of the Federal Reserve would mean that its gold supply now kept in Treasury depositories would have to be disgorged and returned to private hands. But this gives us the clue to the proper definition of a gold dollar. For in order to liquidate the Federal Reserve and remove the gold from its vaults, and at the same time tie gold to the dollar, the Federal Reserve's gold must be revalued and redefined so as to be able to exchange it, one for one, for dollar claims on gold. The Federal Reserve's gold must be valued at some level, and it is surely absurd to cleave to the fictitious $42.22 when another definition at a much lower weight would enable the one-for-one liquidation of the Federal Reserve's liabilities as well as transferring its gold from governmental to private hands.

Let us take a specific example. At the end of December 1981, Federal Reserve liabilities totaled approximately $179 billion ($132 billion in Federal Reserve notes plus $47 billion in deposits due to the commercial banks). The Federal Reserve owned a gold stock of 265.3 million ounces. Valued at the artificial $42.22 an ounce, this yielded a dollar value to the Federal Reserve's gold stock of $11.2 billion. But what if the dollar were defined so that the Federal Reserve's gold stock equaled, dollar for dollar, its total liabilities—that is, $179 billion? In that case, gold would be defined as equal to $676 an ounce, or, more accurately, the dollar would be newly defined as equal to, and redeemable in 1/676 gold ounce. At that new weight, Federal Reserve notes would then be promptly redeemed, one for one, in gold coin, and Federal Reserve demand deposits would be redeemed in gold to the various commercial banks. The gold would then constitute those banks' reserves for their demand deposits. The abolition of Federal Reserve notes need not, of course, mean the end of all paper currency; for banks, as before the Civil War, could then be allowed to print bank notes as well as issue demand deposits.

This plan, essentially the one advocated by Congressman Ron Paul (R.-Texas), would return us speedily to something akin to the best monetary system in U.S. history, the system from the abolition of the Second Bank of the United States and the pet banks, to the advent of the Civil War.

Inflation and business cycles would be greatly muted, if not eliminated altogether. Add the abolition of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the requirement of instant payment of demand liabilities on pain of insolvency, and the long overdue legalization of interstate branch banking, and we would have a system of free banking such as advocated by many writers and economists.

Except that "free banking" is insanity, writ large. "Free banking" means that your bank--and everything in it--can collapse in a moment of panic and create a cascading effect throughout the economy. Want that? Of course not. Failure to underwrite the solvency of the banking system leads to collapse during economic downturn. Americans put more into banks than you think--debit cards, mortgages, car loans, etc. If a bank collapsed, those debts would collapse. And the world turns on you being able to meet your obligations, does it not? Or have you liberals quit working at the Gap already today? You'd have millions walking around with no clothes, selling pencils and apples in the road, with nothing on but scratchy underwear and barrels and you'd have thirty million hobos cluttering up the place.

This means, succinctly, another Depression--banks seeing a run on deposits, because people would panic at the first sign of a downturn and pull their money out of the banks because their deposits were no longer insured. A self-fulfilling prophecy--does it seem like a bad time? Better get your money out of the bank, sir! Oh, ten million people had the same idea. Poof! There goes the bank! Thanks again, Gold Standard!

So if you want to see insanity, panic, and Depression, then advocate returning us to a non-existent "perfect" currency.

No, children. The Federal Reserve is not the problem, and we have prospertity today because of the excellent guidance of Alan Greenspan. Bernacke? He's trying.

Hand this country to the "Paultards" and watch it sink into oblivion. Here endeth your scholarship. Now, shush.


Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

If Ron Paul is a "fruitcake", then Kevin Drum is "mincemeat" pie. LOL

Posted by: Gene Trosper on November 6, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Except that "free banking" is insanity, writ large. "Free banking" means that your bank--and everything in it--can collapse in a moment of panic and create a cascading effect throughout the economy.
Is this the Real Norman's voice? (more of this voice please.)

Posted by: Bill Arnold on November 6, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

>a toxic stew of composed mainly of arsenic onto the product of their mining.

I'm pretty sure it's cyanide which bonds with gold. The arsenic shows up after the gold is extracted.
Posted by: Tjm

Okay. Thanks. You're right. I'm too lazy to reference the NYT articles I've archived.

Pick your poison.

I'll take my cyanide straight up thanks. Hold the lime squeeze...

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Hi! Interesting article, though I might like to say that, as one of the best mechanical engineering students in the country, I like things that work. If it's broken, I like to fix it. The government is broken, badly. Have you ever considered that these "extreme, uncompromising positions" may be, in fact, optimal solutions in these critical times? It saddens me to read about the history of this nation and subsequently realize the mockery of its original design that it has become. Basically, my point is simple: you can have the politics, but leave the problem-solving to me! My views may be radical in the modern clime, but how is that my fault when they are based on logic and principles of design? I seek no utopia, but people like you who value politics over substance are the kind of thing I could live without. Sorry to be truthful; Have a nice day!

~Kevin

Posted by: Kevin Brennan on November 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

Posted By: Norman Rogers "Not one single COLONIST rose up against the British until the educated, wealthy class in this country (that's me, kids!) told them it was the right thing to do. Not one commoner made it his or her cause to fight for liberty until it became apparent that the monied interests and the business class were threatened by the outrageous taxation of a runaway Parliament in Britain that couldn't figure out how to pay for yet another war against France."

Thank fucking god that you were not alive during the American revolution or you would have been one of those few "patriots" who argued against revolution and for adhearing to the British policies while they continued to squeeze every penny they could out of the colonies.

Thank god that our founding fathers were nothing like you.

It was the colonists that got fed up with what was going on. And they overthrew the opressive government ruling over them replacing it with one that would be more representative of the people. Not the rich elitists.

Posted by: Norman Rogers "Ron Paul should hold his tongue and wait for someone to tell him what to do. That's all a Congressman is good for anyway."

I'm glad you showed your true colors. You elitist son of a bitch.

Posted by: Sinclair Lewis on November 6, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

LOL. "buttload", "fruitcake" followed by an admonition of "let's grow up". Tell me again why people take this guy Kevin Drum seriously - and why his "analysis" is any better than the town drunk on a bad day.

I have seen LiveJournal homepage authors that are more highly cerebral than this joker.

Posted by: jagrmeister on November 6, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

The thing about the gold standard, of course, is that to the extent it is genuinely fixed, a supply that doesn't grow as wealth is created, there's a constant change in the ratio of money (backed by the fixed supply of gold) to wealth (which is infinitely expandable). More wealth, same money supply, fixed amount of gold = the money SEEMS to be more valuable than it is.

As I remember the macroeconomics of it, the idea was that the supply of money (in its various forms) is supposed to equal the growth in wealth.

The US went on the gold standard about a hundred years ago, when there were no airplanes, and abandoned it entirely before there were any personal computers. There's kind of a lot of wealth now tied up in airplanes, air travel, and personal computing, which didn't exist and thus could not be measured by the same fixed amount of gold when we WERE on the gold standard.

Some folks (the Ron Pauls of the world) take the view that it doesn't matter -- anchoring the measurement of wealth through the means of exchange to a (more or less) fixed standard has a virtue in itself. If we had stayed on the gold standard (or returned to it) the invention of airplanes and personal computers would have still CREATED wealth, the argument goes. Fair enough, but not real practical.

So if you wanted to increase the supply of money to match the wealth to be exchanged, measuring it all by the fixed amount of gold wouldn't have any ill effects at all.

That's the part where they lost me, and I became convinced that nobody actually understands it. (First, assume a can opener.)

Cuz if you grow the money supply (but not the gold that backs it), regardless of the value the money gets to buy (plane tickets, PCs), the money is worth LESS, relative to the essentially fake value of the gold.

And if you DON'T grow the money supply (cuz there's no more gold to back more money), even though the value of the stuff you want to use the money FOR (couldn't buy a Cessna 172 in 1907) has increased, you've still only got the same amount of money to buy it: so the money SEEMS to be more valuable (and so does the gold), relative to the stuff that really IS valuable -- plane tickets, PCs and the like.

That's where the gold bug argument always struck me as becoming even more abstract than the usual economist OTOH stuff: the Fed has proven a remarkably effective tool at growing the money supply more or less equally with the economy, and the boom and bust business cycle has been remarkably tamed since WW2.

Plane tickets are a pretty good example, I suppose: in the end, air travel is all about INFORMATION. A ticket to Vegas might cost $500, and somebody might pay it. But if I wait until right before the flight, the airline might sell me the empty seat next to the guy who paid $500 for a dollar -- cuz it's a dollar more than they would have made hauling that empty seat to Vegas, which they'd have to do anyway. So knowing how many $500 seats they have to sell to make a profit (which ain't easy, ask Allegheny Airlines) is vital to the airline companies, while knowing when there's a dollar seat to Vegas is valuable to the travelling public. Put together an airline or a website that does either or both well: you've CREATED wealth.

I dunno as the gold standard could ever be that nimble about value. It's a drag on the free market, actually. People wind up speculating in money rather than value.

I dunno that you can look at any comparable stretch of economic history (60 years, all major industrialized economies), and not conclude that the post-gold system is doing something right that the gold standard system was doing wrong.

But then, I dunno anything about it: ask Jeff.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 6, 2007 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers, you win the award for the most colorful doomsday depiction of the free banking era. Unfortunately, the great Alan Greenspan himself contradicts your depiction of the time period, in 1998:

(Sorry, I don't know how to get italics)

"The Second Bank of the United States also played an important role in limiting note issuance all over the country by presenting bank notes for specie payment. The resultant intense political controversy over the charter renewal of the Second Bank of the United States, and the wave of bank failures following the panic of 1837 led many states to reconsider their fundamental approach to banking regulation. In particular, in 1838 New York introduced a new approach, known as free banking, which in the following two decades was emulated by many other states.

Free banking meant free entry under the terms of a general law of incorporation rather than through a specific legislative act. The public, especially in New York, had become painfully aware that the restrictions on entry in the chartered system were producing a number of adverse effects. For one thing, in the absence of competition, access to bank credit was perceived to have become politicized--banks' boards of directors seemed to regard those who shared their political convictions as the most creditworthy borrowers, a view not unknown more recently in East Asia. In addition, because a bank charter promised monopoly profits, bank promoters were willing to pay handsomely for the privilege and legislators apparently eagerly accepted payment, often in the form of allocations of bank stock at below-market prices.

While free banking was not actually as free as commonly perceived, it also was not nearly as unstable. The perception of the free banking era as an era of "wildcat" banking marked by financial instability and, in particular, by widespread significant losses to noteholders also turns out to be exaggerated. Recent scholarship has demonstrated that free bank failures were not as common and resulting losses to noteholders were not as severe as earlier historians had claimed.

Nonetheless, it is fairly clear that the strength of banks varied from state to state, with regulation and supervision uneven. As a consequence mainly of the panic of 1837, the public became aware of the possibility that banks could prove unable to redeem their notes and changed their behavior accordingly. Discounting of bank notes became widespread. Indeed, between 1838 and the Civil War quite a few note brokers began to publish monthly or biweekly periodicals, called bank note reporters, that listed prevailing discounts on thousands of individual banks. Throughout the free banking era the effectiveness of market prices for notes, and their associated impact on the cost of funds, imparted an increased market discipline, perhaps because technological change--the telegraph and the railroad--made monitoring of banks more effective and reduced the time required to send a note home for redemption. Between 1838 and 1860 the discounts on notes of new entrants diminished and discounts came to correspond more closely to objective measures of the riskiness of individual banks.

Part of this reduction in riskiness was a reflection of improvement in state regulation and supervision. Part was also private market regulation in an environment in which depositor and note holders were not protected by a safety net. That is, the moral hazard we all spend so much time worrying about today had not yet been introduced into the system."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/speeches/1998/19980502.htm

-------------------------------------------------

The trick is to figure out whether the bank failures were the result of too little regulation, or too much. For Greenspan and many other economic historians, there is simply not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other.

What does seem evident is that there has been quite a bit of exaggeration about the free banking era.

Posted by: Ben Schroeder on November 6, 2007 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

Um...there's no such person as 'Norman Rodgers'. It's a parody.

You'd know that if you weren't a moron.

“The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest”
- Albert Einstein

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

My advice-- Democrats should tap into the real anger that is reflected in the Ron Paul movement--none of this BS "maybe we will or maybe we won't" with regard to Iraq and Iran.

Second--vote in every possible Republican primary and caucus for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Neal on November 6, 2007 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK

Except that "free banking" is insanity, writ large. "Free banking" means that your bank--and everything in it--can collapse in a moment of panic and create a cascading effect throughout the economy.

Is this the Real Norman's voice? (more of this voice please.)

Yes, this is me and I am him. What the hell is wrong with you people? I've been trying to tell you how the world really works from day one. It is because of your "liberal bias" that you have failed to comprehend what I know and what I can communicate to you.

Thank fucking god that you were not alive during the American revolution or you would have been one of those few "patriots" who argued against revolution and for adhearing to the British policies while they continued to squeeze every penny they could out of the colonies.

No, I would have put my blood and treasure on the line--see John Hancock--and I would have supported the cause for liberty. I would not have done so until a like-minded group of people in my own class with their own money to risk would have joined me.

You see, you think it's about the common man. It was never about the common man. Uncommon men make history. Common men are the salt of the Earth, God bless them, but they make no history and lead no revolutions, sir.

Thank god that our founding fathers were nothing like you.

They were exactly like me. I am white, Protestant, I have a lot of money, and I like to partake of the ladies. I am also an excellent writer--so Benjamin Franklin and myself--we would have been homies, sir. Franklin would have turned his nose up at a common man like yourself.

It was the colonists that got fed up with what was going on. And they overthrew the opressive government ruling over them replacing it with one that would be more representative of the people. Not the rich elitists.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Who put up the money to arm, lead and equip those men? The investor class. The merchant class. The educated class.

The richest man in America in 1776 was either John Hancock or George Washington, depending on whether the British were sending Washington one load or two loads of goods in exchange for his tobacco crop.

You're pathetically uneducated about your own country, sir. Thank you for giving me the chance to spell it out for you--the common man of that era was lucky to have two shoes and a dry nose, what with the lack of currency, employment and opportunity. When the investors and merchants decided enough was enough, THEY made the decisions, led the Revolution and THEY wrote the Constitution. What common man of that era did anything, except bitch about the food and watch it all happen from behind the flap of a tent?

I'm glad you showed your true colors. You elitist son of a bitch.

Poor baby. Call me sir, and be thankful I let you have what you have when you have it. What you have can be taken away if people like me decide you're too big for your britches, you know.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINK


Here's Greenwald today, emblematic of the way in which Paul has brought traditional conservative ideas into constituencies once reflexively hostile:

"Individuals who historically may not have been attracted to "limited-government" rhetoric and all of the specifics it traditionally entails may find that ideal necessary now after six years of endless expansions of intrusive federal government power.

Regardless of one's ideology, there is simply no denying certain attributes of Paul's campaign which are highly laudable. There have been few serious campaigns that are more substantive -- just purely focused on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues. There have been few candidates who more steadfastly avoid superficial gimmicks, cynical stunts, and manipulative tactics. There have been few candidates who espouse a more coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political values."

Posted by: cool hand luke on November 6, 2007 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

So Glenn Greenwald joins the ranks of the cranks.

Yeah, that Ron Paul is quite a paragon of deep thinking and coherence alright.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 6, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Regardless of one's ideology, there is simply no denying certain attributes of Paul's campaign which are highly laudable.

No, they are not.

This is called "putting lipstick on a pig."

You go ahead and kiss that pig. As for me, I'll keep making decisions and I'll keep making money.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum please renounce your ignorance, look deep into your heart man - look at the big picture. Ron Paul can handle the pointed questions, but lets give him an unbiased audience, instead of the "bussed in and slipped some cash by Romney" audience that is present in such debates as Fox "Go Adolf Guiliani Go" News.

Rudy cross dresses. And has multiple wives. He does not represent the family. America's core is the family. It must persist, the family must be #1 - Ron Paul will place such great family values as a moral guideline, and allow us, the people, to make our own decisions where we live.

It is time to take responsibility for our mistakes as a collective conscience America we must stand up and shout before it is too late:

FREEDOM

Ron Paul 2008

(sorry posted this twice)

Posted by: Andrew Allen on November 6, 2007 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

He's a Democrat you know. Yes. Ron Paul is a D E M O C R A T.

Normie's daily affirmation.

Posted by: Normie's guru on November 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

This post reminds me of why I stopped reading Kevin Drum. I came here out of boredom--well, at least I wasn't bored when I saw this post. I disagree with Paul about most things, but I can't stand reading smug centrists like Kevin Drum laying down the law on who is an adult and who is childish.

Paul is getting more attention than he deserves because most of the political world is dominated by "serious" adult people, the sort that plunged us into Vietnam a few decades ago and Iraq today. Paul's popularity is a slap in the face of mainstream politicians and pundits like Kevin. I wouldn't want him to win, but if he bothers Kevin that can only be good.

Posted by: Donald Johnson on November 6, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Libertarians are cranks from the get go. I mean, do we seriously have to argue the merits of a gold standard in this day and age? And how about all the other crackpottery involved?

And Ron Paul isn't even a consistent Libertarian -- witness his crazy pro-life position.

Posted by: frankly0 on November 6, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, Norman, people like you are the reason we need people like Ron Paul.

Most of the rest of us can only survive if the crazies neutralize each other.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on November 6, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

>Yeah, that Ron Paul is quite a paragon of deep thinking and coherence alright.
Posted by: frankly0

If and only if you happen to live out in the OORT Cloud.

"No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country." - Alexis de Tocqueville

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Belatedly but:

>Que swarm of lunatic Paulites/Ronbots in 3... 2... 1...
Posted by: F. Frederson

It's 'cue'. 'Que' is either Latin or Spanish. If Spanish you need an accent on the 'e' and it means 'what'.

Qué es?

Or 'queue'...to line up.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

If Ron Paul is a "fruitcake", then Kevin Drum is "mincemeat" pie. LOL

This is what trusting our comedy production to a wholly unregulated market gets us.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.

(Like Norman Rogers, W. J. Bryan was wrong about almost everything--ecept this issue).

Posted by: rea on November 6, 2007 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

(Like Norman Rogers, W. J. Bryan was wrong about almost everything--except this issue).

You're sweet for saying so, but really, Bryan was talking about a gold standard from another era. I have explained the variations, and hopefully there are one or two of you who can learn from what I have brought to the table.

Unfortunately, your "liberal bias" and your nutty conviction that I am some sort of "parody" cloud your judgement. When I am right, I am right. Fortunately, I don't care what anyone thinks.

I am an American Lion.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: "Poor baby. Call me sir, and be thankful I let you have what you have when you have it. What you have can be taken away if people like me decide you're too big for your britches, you know."

If you really are of the class you claim, I don't begrudge you your money. However, I despise the way your class pulls the ladder up behind them. That and your class's tendency for sending working stiffs off to senseless wars.

So, if a Ron Paul insurrection gives you and your pals at the country club ulcers, I'm all for it. Here's to a brokered convention! I'll be pulling the lever for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

Posted by: Ak Liberal on November 6, 2007 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

No, I would have put my blood and treasure on the line--see John Hancock

More to the point see Robert Morris.

This discussion of the Pauline proposal of a return to the gold standard leaves out our global brethren. What do they do about such a standard now that we've pissed off those we haven't pissed on?

Shall the dear Ron ask them nicely to go along with us in fixing our value or should we promise (not threaten-such a nasty word) to invade them to liberate their gold and their minds?

Posted by: TJM on November 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

Deciding to lose 100 pounds after a lifetime of pork is extreme. But it's healthy.

Posted by: Michael Malak on November 6, 2007 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

>This is what trusting our comedy production to a wholly unregulated market gets us.
Posted by: shortstop

Good un, babe.

“The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
—Voltaire

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

What you have can be taken away if people like me decide you're too big for your britches, you know.

what, you won't let him buy the latest copy of Hustler at the convenience store where you clerk?

People who have to constantly tell others about their supposed greatness are the most pathetic losers of all.
Come and get me, bitch. Oh wait, you can't touch me because you're an impotent douchebag.

Posted by: haha on November 6, 2007 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

dr sardonicus at 8:49 PM: Unfortunately, Norman, people like you are the reason we need people like Ron Paul.

Most of the rest of us can only survive if the crazies neutralize each other.

Key difference: Ron Paul thinks he's serious.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

If you really are of the class you claim, I don't begrudge you your money. However, I despise the way your class pulls the ladder up behind them. That and your class's tendency for sending working stiffs off to senseless wars.

Oh, yes you do. I see your ilk all the time. You watch me as I roll past in my Lexus SUV and you want to be me. I am sorry, but if you worked harder, you might get there. If you knew investment banking, you might have a shot. I didn't inherit everything I have, because my Father was, at least late in his life, incapable of properly leading our family's company. I had to step in and assume control of the board and remove him. Nonetheless, you ARE envious. Try to be happy with what you have.

I have not "pulled a ladder up behind me." I give jobs to people, I create wealth, I pay commissions to brokers, I buy things. YOU have a responsibility to work hard and play by the rules. Pull this country out of the situation it is in and put it on a Gold Standard and the rules will never favor yourself. People like me would simply take our cut of the pie and leave you at the end of the Ponzi Scheme.

I am against that. That is not the American way.

So, if a Ron Paul insurrection gives you and your pals at the country club ulcers, I'm all for it. Here's to a brokered convention! I'll be pulling the lever for whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

Riiiight. And what will happen is that taxes will go up, and wealth creation will flounder and this country will become obsessed with minor details again. What we need is to unleash the free markets. Putting us on a "gold standard" unleashes no free markets--it removes the rules and the structures which allow every to own stocks and become part of the entrepreneurial class.

Who is the richest man in America? It's Bill Gates.

What did he do? He started a company out of nothing. He had nothing. He was nothing. He had an idea, and that idea worked. Any of you could become Bill Gates, and any of you could be the richest man in America. Not by birth, but by virtue of your talent and ability. (ha! on the Washington Monthly?!?)

Why wouldn't you want to do something far more reasonable, and start companies and invest monies and be somewhat like Bill Gates and create wealth? Our system works and it's great for that kind of thing. You don't have to be Bill Gates to make it work, but the great thing is that the sky is the limit.

The gold standard puts a ceiling over your head made of bars. Bars of lead. Bars that stop you. Bars that limit the ability of the free market to operate within a structure that won't collapse.

I am a lion who won't live in your cage, sir. I must roam free.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder what a debate between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would look like??????

Posted by: Mazurka on November 6, 2007 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

I am an American Lion.

He is Norman, hear him roar!

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

>But then, I dunno anything about it: ask Jeff.
Posted by: theAmericanist

Truly the last genuine Mugwump on the planet.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder what a debate between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would look like??????

Screw that. We want Ron Paul vs. Norman!

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Wow a thread full of crazy people! It must be close to election time.

Posted by: B on November 6, 2007 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

Screw that. We want Ron Paul vs. Norman!

Oh, I've already won that debate. Honest Injun.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Probably already upstream, but hey:

Next thing you know you'll be treating Kusinich.

Posted by: larry birnbaum on November 6, 2007 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

254 comments?! They're right -- libertarians are over-represented in the blogosphere.

Posted by: Gregory on November 6, 2007 at 9:43 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, how about a shout out to tough talking Air Force vet? I'm curious, is it Ron Paul's position that only the military gets to have a say in the running of this country, or just you and Musharraf? I await your response, sonny. Get back to us when you're done burying the dead colleagues you use as political fodder, you shameless a-hole.

I freely admit to knowing nothing about the gold standard, but I have learned from this very informative thread that there's apparently some sort of connection between support for the gold standard and unbearable arrogance. I'm just not well read enough to know how that whole connection works.

I've also been interested to learn that apparently your support for a candidate isn't sincere unless you're willing to put money down on an Irish gambling site. And all this time I thought donating money, campaigning and casting my vote were sufficient.

And finally, I've learned that if your crazy uncle is out in the driveway in his bathrobe yelling at the neighborhood kids, and you mention that he's crazy, you are actually "threatened" by the fact that he's "gaining traction."

Posted by: ChrisO on November 6, 2007 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Lets see.people who disagree with me are aggressive and are abusing me. If there are lots of them, they are spamming me. If they really mean what they say, they are a cult. If their position is unusual, they are tin-foil hat loonies. If they wont let me have the last word, they must be censored, so I can go on insulting them without them abusing me with their aggressive, paranoid loony cult spamming. I get it.

Posted by: disinter on November 6, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see….people who disagree with me are "aggressive" and are "abusing" me. If there are lots of them, they are "spamming" me. If they really mean what they say, they are a "cult". If their position is unusual, they are "tin-foil hat loonies". If they won't let me have the last word, they must be censored, so I can go on insulting them without them abusing me with their aggressive, paranoid loony cult spamming. I get it.

(fixed quotes, sorry for the duplicate)

Posted by: disinter on November 6, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Boo friggin hoo for Kevin Drum and all the other tards on here that don't like Ron Paul.

I'm sick of the government, it's cheerleading patsies and it's numerous poverty pimps who feed at the taxpayer trough. I and many other have simply had enough of it and we're speaking up finally...and we ain't going away.

Deal with it, crybabies.

Posted by: Geoff on November 6, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

dis·in·ter :
1. To dig up or remove from a grave or tomb; exhume.
Could you possibly be trying to call yourself a dissenter?
Geoff:
The possessive form of "it" is spelled without the apostrophe.

Welcome to America, friends. Now learn English.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Deal with it, crybabies.

We are dealing with it. We've already showed you that putting lipstick on a pig means you get to kiss your mother.

We've also explained to you that the crackpot theory of returning to the gold standard has already been dealt with and explained.

We've also explained to you that Ron Paul has no chance of winning anything, other than a one way ticket to nutleytown with stops in kookooville and dumbass notch.

What part of that did you miss? It's a given that we'll round you people up and purge you, en masse, from the body politic and an unwelcome cancer, just like we did the Black Panthers and the Michigan Militias. Go too far out on either limb and it's curtains for you, my dear.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers at 9:28 PM:
Oh, I've already won that debate. Honest Injun.

I believe you, Norm.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Wow 258 posts! Boy that Ron Paul is really irrelevent to have this many posts. I'm assuming the revelent candidates have, what, 600 posts about them?

I tell you what Kevin, let's play a little game. You write a post saying Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson is a fruitcake and see how many posts it draws and compare it to this thread and then see whic candidates draws the most discussion?

Posted by: Sean Scallon on November 6, 2007 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Who is the richest man in America? It's Bill Gates.

What did he do? He started a company out of nothing. He had nothing. He was nothing."

Bill Gates started out rich and became far richer.

His father was a founding and eventually named partner in the biggest law firm in Washington state. Starting in 1975 his mother was on the board of regents of the University of Washington. Both he and Paul Allen attended the most prestigious private school in Seattle (current tuition on the order of $20k/year)

The idea that he is some kind of rags to riches, or even regular person to riches story is yet another example or ridiculous right wing fantasy.

Posted by: jefff on November 6, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul knows he has no chance of grabbing the top spot nomination. He's shooting for Veep on the Kucinich ticket.

Posted by: majarosh on November 6, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

Wow 258 posts! Boy that Ron Paul is really irrelevent to have this many posts.

That's "irrelevant."
We're learning tonight that many Ron Paul supporters are new Americans, and are still learning our language.

The volume of posts only proves that Ron Paul supporters are less likely to have actual lives to attend to. (But then, what does this say about me? Never mind.)

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

While I generally consider Kevin too moderate, too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the forces of evil, and too inclined to play the High Broderist of the liberal blogosphere, he is dead right on nutjob Ron Paul. Being right on Iraq (for probably the wrong reasons) does not a non-whackadoo make. A skimming of the comments (and Glen Greenwald's truly horrific and disturbing piece today) shows that there are plenty of nutjobs here also.

Posted by: Marlowe on November 6, 2007 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

His father was a founding and eventually named partner in the biggest law firm in Washington state. Starting in 1975 his mother was on the board of regents of the University of Washington. Both he and Paul Allen attended the most prestigious private school in Seattle (current tuition on the order of $20k/year)

No, chowderhead. He was "middle class."

Do you know what "middle class" is? A hint to you sir--"middle class" is not wealthy or rich. And my point stands. It's a looooooooong way from coming from a "middle class" family to being worth over $40 Billion dollars. I realize that to you, a man who has to argue over the price of rolling papers and a Big Gulp with a man who can't figure out whether the two dollar bill you're using is real or not, that "middle class" and "$40 Billion dollars" are so abstract that you might as well be a chimp looking at the Sistine Chapel for instructions on how to open a banana, but I digress.

Sheesh. What does a man have to do to read a little informed commentary around here? Do I need to write the questions myself?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

disinter, getting no response to his martyrdom act before, tries again:

Let's see….people who disagree with me are "aggressive" and are "abusing" me. If there are lots of them, they are "spamming" me.

Suggest you do a search for the words "aggressive," "abusing" and "spamming" in this thread. All done? What did you find?

If they really mean what they say, they are a "cult". If their position is unusual, they are "tin-foil hat loonies".

Well, lessee...aw, look at that. "Cult" is a word first used by you. Look, you might understand this better when you're calmer and, with luck, a little more mature: Iconoclasm is not a synonym for virtue, justice, courage, freedom or wisdom. It is perfectly possible to run against the mainstream and still be an idiot. If you cannot explain what your boy Ron stands for in terms of specific policies--if, like many of your fellow travelers in this thread, you have no freaking idea what most of Paul's positions are--you are, as Disputo correctly says, a proud adherent of the cult of ignorance.

If they won't let me have the last word, they must be censored, so I can go on insulting them without them abusing me with their aggressive, paranoid loony cult spamming.

Who the hell has been censored here? One gets the feeling that you've written this little "We Shall Not Be Moved" speech and are determined to use it whether or not it has anything to do with the venue you're in.

We don't really mind that you're so dumb. But do you have to be such a drama queen with your little persecution act? If you're grown up enough to Join the Ron Paul Revolution!, you're old enough not to whine incessantly.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

Did Perot voters boo hoo all the time like this? I can't remember, but seems like they were able to cowboy up and not expect that they'd earn respect for their bold independence via tears and recriminations.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, Lord, thersites, you're probably right. He probably did think that's how you spell "dissenter." Laugh of the thread.

Posted by: shortstop on November 6, 2007 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

Did Perot voters boo hoo all the time like this?

That was in the pre-blog era. Perhaps that was a mercy.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

There are two things I've always admired about Gates, who was born, if not on third, certainly with a long lead off second and nobody on first so he wasn't looking at a force play with nobody out.

First, he understood before almost everybody else that software was intellectual property, which is after all the foundation of his fortune. He also realized that the operating system is (or was) the defining character of a PC, not whether it was "IBM" or even "IBM" compatible.

But that's not the true measure of the guy.

The true measure of Gates is that, after his mom (playing golf, no less) set him up to sell IBM the operating system for their newfangled "personal computer", it isn't even that he managed to get IBM to let him sell it to OTHER personal computer manufacturers... and don't ya know IBM regretted THAT decision.

It's that at the time that Gates sold DOS to IBM, Gates didn't actually own it.

Not bad for a kid who was, what? 22 at the time.

Posted by: theAmericanist on November 6, 2007 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Did Perot voters boo hoo all the time like this?

And they probably waited until after the election.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

—Kevin Drum 2:31
Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?

I think we have the answer to your question, Kevin.

Posted by: thersites on November 6, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, I can't believe this thread topped the number of comments to the Gibson LesPaul thread recently. The guitar thread was far more detailed with respect to its earnestness however.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 6, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Les Paul trumps Ron Paul.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

SCHADENFREUDE ALERT, BMI, Fruitcake, Residuals:
All diversions from November 6th, 2007 TODAY in CONGRESS.

Mukasey, Impeachment Resolution, trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's earmark, Harry Reid babbling, Nancy Pelosi hiding, Kennedy cringing, Leahy not laughing, Code Pink water boarding, Kucinich Kuciniching.

Brilliant!

Posted by: majarosh on November 6, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

so, it has now become a fruitcake pov to oppose mass murder.

so, kevin, would you share with us your picture wearing the sturmabteillung uniform?

let's see how we can parse this: ron paul opposes the continuing extermination of iraqis by us agencies[usarmy, usmc, blackwater, aegis, dyncorp, et alia]. even more to the point, he opposes the continuing murdering and maiming of amerikans that the usg has invested[by virtue of deceit] into that invasion of a sovereign nation that never attacked the usa, that never had any ambitions to attack the usa.

if ron paul has any failings, it is that he hasn't vilified the institutional demtillian/reptillian usg enough.

personally, i would like for ron paul to declare himself as the leader of the anti-homicide party, opposing the usg's mass murdering of "wogs" and the casualties incurred by the gunsells that we have coerced into the usa's pursuit of mass murder.

it is really time for ron paul to hold up the mirror. and reveal to the citizens of the usa what a gangster state we have been/are/intend to be.

compared to ron paul, all the others seeking the office of capo di tutti capi are just the most erstwhile gangsters you will ever observe. never forget it.

at this moment, you might have these opportunities: you can continue to preserve the gangster ownership of this country. or you can decide to try and end the rule of gangsters.

what future do you want? the continuation of the gangster rule? or a chance for a cessation of that rule by gangsters?

i favor the anti-gangster proposition. and why is it that such a posture is being ridiculed?

Posted by: albertchampion on November 6, 2007 at 11:39 PM | PERMALINK

and it's "Cue" not "Que."

Yes, yes, preview is your friend, I'll remember to use it next time (not that anyone cares after 280+ posts by the loony Paulites I was warning about).

Posted by: F. Frederson on November 6, 2007 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

it is really time for ron paul to hold up the mirror. and reveal to the citizens of the usa what a gangster state we have been/are/intend to be.

What a moron.

Last time I had a look at things, we were busy putting gangsters in jail in this country. Did you fail to notice that Rudy Guiliani broke several crime syndicates in New York? Did you fail to notice that, for all intents and purposes, there is no "mob" anymore?

You're like a child with a little bit of knowledge about lighting fires. Sooner or later, you're going to light your Bigwheel on fire and drive over someone's gas line and holy hell is going to break loose. And when it does, where will you be?

You certainly won't be using properly capitalized letters or forming a lucid thought, that's for certain.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Fruitcake? Paul is a fucking Texan.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Um, no. Ron Paul represents our founding fathers who had the idea of a free country with free people. A fruitcake he is not.

Posted by: me on November 6, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

Many founding fathers were slave owners. Their idea of freedom was probably better than Paul's will ever be, though.

Posted by: Brojo on November 7, 2007 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

i have always asserted that if eecummings could dispense with caps, so could i. caps have nothing to do with the verity of the argument.

and rudy was/is a gangster. his mob prosecutions were part of his alliance to other sectors of the mob. he was part of that game. sort of how the mob rats out smaller gangsters that are stepping onto the turf of a bigger capo regime. rudy was just another mob gunsell. for hire.

Posted by: albertchampion on November 7, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

To those who have actually studied monetary policy and the real history of central banking (beyond a cursory "opposition scan" of Mises, that is) the half baked rationales on this board are only slightly less offensive than the dreadful piece of dung being commented upon (to use Capote, "That's not writing, it's typing.").

The practical outcome of fiat money is inflation--an invisible tax (i.e. transfer of wealth). This often leads to unaccountable government spending. This leads to ever widening scope of government and influence peddling. This usually ends up with mercantilism and military aggression, as it has here. This is not opinion, these are historical trends that can be mapped.

To those who don't really care about monetary theory and history, yet continue to refute: how are we doing so far? I mean here, in the US. How's our report card on the above? Is your true liquidity better than it was 10 years ago? Better than your dad's? Building any wealth? Can you send a kid to college on one income? Comfortable about your children's future? Happy with the fact that the government is our 5th largest employer and 57% of PhD's return to their own nations when they are done with their American education because innovation and manufacturing are nearly dead? Happy that the rest of the world is dumping dollars like last week's fish, and that they may finally untie oil from the dollar? Are we loved or feared? Are we defensive, or an aggressor? Do most Americans see that the government as beholden to them, or to special interests?
Comfortable that the always-moneyed government has enough programs to dictate most aspects of your life, your health, your wealth, your education, your religous and personal beliefs? And has indoctrinated your childen into actually believing it has the authority to do so and always has?

If so, you may have good reasons. Maybe you're affluent. Maybe you're a statist. Perhaps a well-meaning Socialist. Maybe these things don't touch you. But consider that you may also be woefully out of touch with much of America, and perhaps that -- and not policy -- is why you do not grasp or agree with the enourmous appeal of a Ron Paul (or a Ross Perot, or a Barry Goldwater, or a Ronald Reagan, for that matter).

Today, Dr. Paul is the only significant candidate with enough knowledge and ambition to remedy a broken monetary system. I don't think it's perfect, and moreover he's never said it is (RP willfully acknolwedges that risk is inherent to living your life in freedom...a point the Socialists and Statists I know never seem to want to debate). But specie-backed money is (historically proven to be) more stable--and yields fewer unintended consequences--than fiat money. It also helps limit the printing-press-fueled corporatism that funnels money (OUR money) to the politically connected at the expense of those who earn it through their labor. (By the way, central banking - like our Fed - was a core plank of the Communist platform. And for good reason - it kills competition and helps assert state control. Hmmm, I wonder how that worked out for them.).

And if you want to know WHY the Fed and the CFR, Brookings, and the Ford Foundation, and so on exist in the US, read Hope and Tragedy by (Bill Clinton's Georgetown mentor) Carroll Quigley. But don't scan Mises for seven minutes and come back to rebut an issue that is so complex that some economists spend decades on it.

And if you do like money backed by nothing and eternal war...you might still someday consider the fine doctor a wiser choice when they are putting you on the next no-fly list (perhaps for your membership in the NRA, which President Chelsea Clinton might criminalize as subversive for political points) or forcing your child to take psychotropics, or chipping you with RFID "because it's just so much easier than cash" but the emerging police state is simply a conversation is for another time...


Posted by: hopingyoueducateyourself on November 7, 2007 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINK

Money policy is too complex for any Texan, that's for sure.

Posted by: Brojo on November 7, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. While most of the pro-Paul comments are every bit as batshit-crazy as I'd expect from the more, um, far-out libertarian crowd, the responses from Kevin's so-called "liberal" readers remind me why I changed my party registration to "unaffiliated", and why I long ago stopped caring what the "progressives" think.

I don't want Paul to be president. No, no, no, unless the alternative was Giuliani (in which case I become a gun owner). I might vote for him in the primary (I live in California) just to fuck with the GOP and to show that some of us are nauseated by the rest of the assholes who want to rule the country. I'll settle for Obama - he seems reasonable enough - and occasionally one of the other not-Hillary candidates shows signs of virtue. But I'm fucking sick of the "shut up and eat your vegetables" constituency that refuses to admit that maybe, just maybe, the government is a wee bit overgrown, and maybe some of us would prefer that our elected leaders think a little harder about their grand schemes to make us all better, more moral citizens. For a start, let's see the Democrats run a candidate who will end the War on Drugs - completely (let me correct that - a candidate they won't ignore). There's at least $40 billion you can spend on health insurance for the poor or something at least semi-worthwhile. Next, ag subsidies and wasteful defense projects (missile defense is one of the cheaper ones, kids). Yes, I know you all support doing these things, but the people you elect don't.

In a political environment where the NY Times praises the ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft because it enables the federal government to continue shining a flashlight up our collective ass, where John Edwards opposes decriminalization of marijuana because he thinks, and I quote, "the president of the United States has a responsibility to ensure that we're sending the right signals to young people", where hordes of "liberals" scream for the FCC to hyper-regulate the airwaves but don't see the connection between an enormous FCC and appalling moral censorship, and where New York bans trans-fats because. . . fuck, Bloomberg is an authoritarian creep - why is so difficult to understand why some of us are excited about a candidate who actually takes the concept of restraint in government seriously, even if he's a crazy near-anarcho-capitalist goldbug? The mere fact that someone in a major party is talking about individual liberty and restrained foreign policy for a change is a huge improvement to our political discourse.

And there's a simple explanation for Paul's partial support from some real liberals like Greenwald: Paul hasn't voted for any of the legislative clusterfucks over the last six years, while the Democratic party has grabbed its ankles for the administration and assorted special interests (remember those agriculture subsidies?) so many times now that we've stopped taking you assholes seriously when you keep telling us "we promise, the next people we elect will be better." Fuck that.

Posted by: Nat on November 7, 2007 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul represents our founding fathers who had the idea of a free country with free people. A fruitcake he is not.

No, he represents an extreme fringe element in our political landscape that has no constituency, just a lot of over-enthusiastic peons who know nothing about how the world really works.

I represent what our "founding fathers" really were. They were learned men with money. Ron Paul and his followers are broke, lonely people who think they can radicalize the system and force insanity on all of us.

I am a lion at the gate. You cannot tame me. I will protect what is mine. You shall not pass. And you shall face oblivion.

But consider that you may also be woefully out of touch with much of America, and perhaps that -- and not policy -- is why you do not grasp or agree with the enourmous appeal of a Ron Paul (or a Ross Perot, or a Barry Goldwater, or a Ronald Reagan, for that matter).

Note how you drop Reagan in with Goldwater and Perot. Perot was insane. Goldwater recanted much of what he believed. Reagan led the true revolution in our country.

Ron Paul is the intellectual heir to Lyndon LaRouche, not any of the men you cite.

Did you hear that, good people? Your Uncle Norman saved that for last.

Lyndon LaRouche, you've just been replaced by Ron Paul. Enjoy your lucidity, for it shall be fleeting.

Today, Dr. Paul is the only significant candidate with enough knowledge and ambition to remedy a broken monetary system.

He's a quack.

He's the new Lyndon LaRouche.

Suck on those eggs, sir.


Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 7, 2007 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

In a fit of messianic delusion, Norman Rogers wrote:

I am a lion at the gate. You cannot tame me. I will protect what is mine. You shall not pass.
And you shall face oblivion.

And you call RP fringe? Wow. I'll hand it to you, you've got balls. Then again, most fools do.

Crack a history book, porkchop. It might help quiet the voices.

Posted by: hopingyoueducateyourself on November 7, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum is bought and paid for my the establishment. Otherwise he would wake up and join the Ron Paul Revolution. Hey Kevin--start blogging out of conviction and not for a paycheck. Ron Paul is the only hope for America. You should support him

Posted by: Nate on November 7, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

I saw your lame article posted on CBS: "Ron Paul FRUITCAKE"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/politics/animal/ma
in3459836.shtml

Whoever you are, Kevin, you need to go back to Journalism school. This has got to be the most uneducated, infantile, immature article I've read on CBS thus far...and that says a lot! Ron Paul received the large sum of donations from real people (myself being one of them), not rich corporations. It amazes me that the ONLY fighter of the Constitution that is running for president gets the most HEAT from mainstream media. Whatever, there is no such thing as bad publicity...just bad journalism.


-A REAL, living, breathing Ron Paul supporter from Pennsylvania

Posted by: Jen on November 7, 2007 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Norman,

You are going to love camp FEMA.

What a moron. Ron Paul is a fringe candidate? Why? Because he supports the constiution.

Norman you are a traitor to the US.

Posted by: Nate on November 7, 2007 at 12:47 AM | PERMALINK


What are you, scared? Just because he is receiving internet support, doesn't mean it's fake. We are a REAL community and are easily able to communicate at the click of a button. Think about it. The internet is a mere communicating weapon and an extremely powerful one at that. I'm sure you have received thousands of emails by now. We are REAL People. Go read the Constitution and you'll see who the real fruitcakes are.

*MUAH!

Posted by: Danielle on November 7, 2007 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hey benjoya... just because you're not Republican doesn't mean you can't vote it.

Posted by: kevinisaflamingretard on November 7, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

I'm pretty sure name calling is generally considered more infantile than having strong beliefs.

Posted by: Dave Hamilton on November 7, 2007 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

We are a REAL community and are easily able to communicate at the click of a button.

Yeah, but have you ever been on a date?

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

You ask where all the Ron Paul fans come from?? We are passionate about him as a leader and also passionate about the need to return this country to its roots of limited government! We also put our money ($4 million on 11/5/07) where our mouths are.

Posted by: joel on November 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM | PERMALINK

Attention Mr Drum:

You seem to have much in common with the ignorant views of Joel Stein; that is to say, that anything different than the status quo is unacceptable and irrelevant.

Even CNN noted yesterday that Ron Paul's name, for instance, was mentioned on mainstream news coverage 4,000 times in a time period of around a year as compared to 90,000 times for John McCain. Despite being ignored by mainstream media he STILL raised $4.2 million from individual supporters. THAT's amazing and not to be casually dismissed.

Since you seem to not understand Ron Paul or the benefit of stable money as in your other blog post about "stagnant wages" I suggest you read the landmark 1938 essay "The Revolution Was" by Garret Garrett. It's easily found in a quick Google search. Once you understand the point of that amazingly relevant text, you may begin to grasp who Ron Paul's supporters are and why they are so insistent. I'll even make it nice and easy for you- it's right here.

Posted by: G. Gebhardt on November 7, 2007 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

I support Ron Paul because the Democrats only win the presidency lately when there's a Republican running as an independent spoiler. Go Ron!

301

Posted by: Susan Tsuki on November 7, 2007 at 6:19 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, CluelessCake.
Absolutely do not toss out insults with erroneous information and then ask for people to grow up.
Why must my America be chock full of asses?

Posted by: Will on November 7, 2007 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

You do not know what you are talking about Mr. Kevin Drum.
Since I assume that you did not have a lobotomy lately, then I must conclude that you are a paid neocon mouthpiece.
The Neocon Barbarians are very afraid of Ron Paul because he speaks the Truth and once he is elected, their scams will be over.
Be afraid. Very Afraid. The people are waking up and your days of control through deception are over.
Truth will set you Free!

Posted by: Rolando Bini on November 7, 2007 at 8:05 AM | PERMALINK

". . . but I guess it's something to write about."

I'm sorry: but your affected dissaffection, your forcd ennui, doesn't work; we will elect this guy with the firebrand of ex-apathetics.

Posted by: Klutometis on November 7, 2007 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

I think the reaction to this post shows how many Ron Paul supporters are unemployed and living in their parents' basement, with time on their hands.

Posted by: melissa on November 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

I find it hysterical that an irresponsible journalist will say "Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?" after he refers to a ten term congressmen running for the highest office in the land as a "fruitcake".

Well you want to know who supports Ron Paul? You have my name and e mail address, and I support him.

Posted by: Dianne Boyter on November 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM | PERMALINK

I support Ron Paul because the Democrats only win the presidency lately when there's a Republican running as an independent spoiler. Go Ron! Posted by: Susan Tsuki

Oh, you mean like in 1996, 2000 and 2004?

That's a really good reason to back a nut. Bakka yarou!

Posted by: JeffII on November 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

"DUhhhhh.....70+% of the ppl voting in the general election are vehemently opposed to the IRAQ war and want us OUT NOW. 70% of those voting in the general election next November are against warhawks. THEREFORE...I will ridicule the ONLY republican who has a snowball's chance of beating Hillary...and I will back a candidate who "honorably" causes republicans to hand the presidential election to a Democrat backed by a democratic congress cuz a communist state sounds honorable to me...."

Question: DO YOU REALIZE HOW YOU SOUND TO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT MENTALLY HANDICAPPED TO YOUR DEGREE?

Posted by: Mark on November 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"I think the reaction to this post shows how many Ron Paul supporters are unemployed and living in their parents' basement, with time on their hands." – Melissa.

Melissa, don’t cheapen what should be a legitimate debate with condescension. Let Mr. Drum do that. If insulting Ron Paul supporters somehow raises your spirits, then I urge you to continue. Do so with my heartfelt pity. Kevin Drum is equally vapid and patronizing in the tone of his ill-begotten article. Ron Paul is patriot, a supporter of the constitution, a veteran, and a medical doctor. He has ushered new life into this world when delivering babies. He has saved lives as a surgeon in times of war. He now seeks to restore a republic to the people for which it once stood. Call him a ‘fruitcake,’ or a ‘nut’ at your own moral peril. As for the alleged craziness of abolishing the Federal Reserve, allow me to quote the late President Woodrow Wilson, who regretted the creation of said institution even on his death bed, stating: “A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.” It should be as abundantly clear to the basement-dwelling patriot, as to the corner-office patriot that an elevated debate focusing on the maxims of our Nation’s founding fathers, and the tenants of our once-hallowed constitution, will prove Ron Paul the victor. Unfounded slander, and dimwitted adherence to failing political ‘norms’ only serves to further wet the masses’ palette for real TRUTH. RON PAUL IS THAT TRUTH. Thank you so very much Mr. Drum.

Posted by: C. Barrett Ford on November 7, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

C. Barrett Ford: RON PAUL IS THAT TRUTH.

Next on [insert name of daytime TV talk show]: Is Ron Paul the Messiah?

Posted by: alex on November 7, 2007 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Is this article by Kevin Drum: Fruit Loop?

Posted by: BillK on November 7, 2007 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Your hero John Maynard Keynes was the real FruitCake. But as the saying goes the proof is in the pudding. Watch the spectacular drop in the Federal Reserve Note and the equally spectacular rise in Honest Money - Gold and Silver.
People who believe the fantasy that a currency can be printed and printed and printed and also retain value just need to grow up.

Posted by: Wags on November 7, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

"Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything"
In your dreams. Wait and see.

"Can we all please grow up?"
I don't know Kevin. Can you grow up?

"can we stop pretending to be political infants"
But Kevin, you ARE a political infant.

"if Ron Paul really is suddenly a "serious" candidate"
No, Kevin, Ron Paul has been a serious candidate for over TWO DECADES. Where the hell have you been?

"In the last Republican debate I saw, this noted truth-teller gave a strange and convoluted answer about his economic policies that the audience plainly didn't understand"
Well, Kevin, sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. This is especially the case regarding the state of our nation's finances. But don't expect to find out the truth about the Federal Reserve from the mainstream media, or from a public school textbook. At least you got it right about Ron Paul being a noted truth-teller. Ron Paul tells the truths that none of the other candidates dare touch. Know why? They're all owned by the oligarchy, as I suspect you are, Kevin.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." Samuel Adams

Posted by: FreedomJoyAdventure on November 7, 2007 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

No serious Republican would support Guiliani, a man who cheated on his wife and destroyed his family in the process. Dr. Paul has the moral and political strength and fortitude to lead the nation to greatness. We are in need of a great leader, and Paul is the only candidate on either side that fits that bill. Paul has my vote, and I suspect millions of others too.

Posted by: Eric on November 7, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

We are all owned by the oligarchy. Paul won't change that. Paul will make the oligarchy a dictatorship of bikers.

Posted by: Brojo on November 7, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kev, if this wasn't your blog post, I'd call you a troll... or something.

Seriously -- did you write this just to get extra hits on WM? That would almost be respectable.

Now Kev, go and look at a video clip of WTC 7 and think about how much it doesn't look like a controlled demolition. We all know that chaotic damage = symmetrical collapse, right?

And the Fed is legit, right?

And the War on (some) Drugs is humane, right? It's working, right?

You're a fool, Kevin Drum. A fool or a tool.

Posted by: Squidink on November 7, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

My sincere apologies for being off-topic in this VERY long thread, but I need to come to the defense of the REAL American Bluebloods, who would rather Die than behave like Norman Rogers.

Let me assist poor Norm with his schtick, because it appears Mr. Rogers really IS a parody of what he IMAGINES a captain of industry or rich W.A.S.P behaves like in mixed company. That he's so off base is proof that he's not what he claims.

a) Upperclass people do not reveal their incomes to anyone who's not their banker or trust fund manager.

b.Upperclass people do not discuss money at ALL in mixed company, and that includes proclamations regarding the cars they drive or how much they paid for their Patek watches.

c. Many are notoriously stingy and even ape the working class (sometimes men even try to pass as homeless - no really) because they prefer to slip about anonymously, and also because they've run out of challenges.

d) Real bluebloods are polite and deferential to the point of obsequiesness. Courtly, even. They don't act like big snots on other people's online discussion threads.

e)Real bluebloods talk incessantly about their famous ancestors, their hounds, their horses and their obscure and expensive hobbies, and as such they tend to be interminably BORING. Seriously: After you're done being entertained by their eccentricities you'll feel like poking your eyes out with your fork.

Norm, I hope this information assists your character development.

As for Ron Paul? Whether or not he wins the nomination or the presidency HE WILL AFFECT THE DISCOURSE, something that's extremely important in a race between Tweedledumb and Tweedledee. But they have to invite him to the debates for this to happen, something the Party is trying hard not to do. Mostly because he wipes the floor with all the other candidates, and it embarrasses them.

I'm a prochoice liberal but I'm also a stubborn contrarian. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primaries because I refuse to vote for the neocon sewage the elites present to us as "choices." I was one of the 36,000+ people who donated money to Ron Paul campaign on Monday, and I plan to give him more. And I'm both progressive and prochoice!

Also: Ron Paul doesn't accept corporate contributions, either, which makes that $4.2M even more remarkable. The average donation was $103.

So people think Ron Paul is a fruitcake? YAWN. I don't care. I'd rather have a fruitcake in the White House than a neocon globalist warmonger hell bent on witnessing Armageddon during his/her lifetime. Us Paultards are not going to vote for a Ron Paul dictatorship, and he doesn't want to be a dictator anyway, so all this blather about HIS abolishing this-or-that is just stupid. HE doesn't get to dictate things that lie outside of his limited purview. Besides, he's the only Republican against the war. People who don't agree with Ron Paul's economic/social policies are going to vote for him for this reason alone.

I can't wait to see him debate the Hildabeest. He'll wipe the floor with her, too, if only because he stands for SOMETHING, while she stands for NOTHING (beyond being a good soldier for the neocon's New World Order, something she'll never admit to). Paul has been a hit at all the Republican debates because he throws the monkey shit right back at those accusers who baselessly accuse him of having stupid opinons. He's ready for all of them; in fact he's one of the few Republicans who gets CHEERS during the debates for the way he responds to the other candidates. So there! Poopyhead.

Posted by: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker on November 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

100% opinion, 0% fact: that is what writers like you must resort to because Ron Paul is 0% opinion, 100% fact. You can't present a single comprehendable statement that refutes anything Ron Paul says, so you resort to name calling, baseless accusations and hot air predictions. Guess what: people are catching on---and at an accelerating pace---to these tricks used by you and your big media cohorts. A new world is unfolding before your eyes while your world is crumbling; you just can't see it because you are in serious denial (a very real phenomenon). Wake up, and welcome to the revolution.

Posted by: tippingpoint on November 7, 2007 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Since name calling is the last resort for the intellectually weak, I fully accept the name "political infant". And as a diaperless political infant I will enjoy doing what infants do all over your naive assumptions about the validity and force of the Ron Paul Revolution.

...gastric noise, smells, pushing, grunting smiling.....

Thank you, I feel much better.

Posted by: Political Infant on November 7, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Well, well, well - What do we have here said the big security guard at the political prison when Kev walked in. Looks like your next.

Even if Ron Paul doesn't win, we all win if his message continues to live on.

We can only hope that dweebs like Kevin "Stop beating your" Drum, find another line of work, like paging for Ron Paul and learning what freedom and liberty are really all about.

Kev - Keep your mindless comments to yourself.

Posted by: Freeman on November 7, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Let me assist poor Norm with his schtick, because it appears Mr. Rogers really IS a parody of what he IMAGINES a captain of industry or rich W.A.S.P behaves like in mixed company. That he's so off base is proof that he's not what he claims.

I would consider myself a member of the merchant class. My Father was a self-made man, an immigrant who came here with the funds necessary to begin building a company that capitalized on the need for the US government to buy armored cars. That's what he built when he came to this country--armored cars used by Pinkerton's and the like. From there, he expanded the business into the realm of silencers for weapons, flamethrowing devices and how to use asbestos products to shield people from being incinerated.

a) Upperclass people do not reveal their incomes to anyone who's not their banker or trust fund manager.

I'm an investment banker; thanks to my arrest in 1994, everything about me is public knowledge. What I made last year is none of your business, so in that regard, I agree with you.

b.Upperclass people do not discuss money at ALL in mixed company, and that includes proclamations regarding the cars they drive or how much they paid for their Patek watches.

I wear a Tag Heuer watch; the Tiger Woods model. I talk about what I talk about and there is no "rulebook" for such things. You're being ridiculous now.

c. Many are notoriously stingy and even ape the working class (sometimes men even try to pass as homeless - no really) because they prefer to slip about anonymously, and also because they've run out of challenges.

I would agree that I have run out of challenges. I've been as successful as possible. I know a fellow who wears threadbare pants and shirts. He has shirts that are worn almost completely through at the elbows and his shoes are always worn down to soles. He's worth a staggering amount of money but he hasn't been clothes shopping since his wife passed away. Perhaps you forgot that we, the rich, are human? Or are you just passing along your breathtakingly ridiculous observations for free?

d) Real bluebloods are polite and deferential to the point of obsequiesness. Courtly, even. They don't act like big snots on other people's online discussion threads.

I'm not a blueblood, and I talk the way that I talk because of the enormous amount of abuse that my ideas have received here. I'm proud, but I do not care what people think.

e)Real bluebloods talk incessantly about their famous ancestors, their hounds, their horses and their obscure and expensive hobbies, and as such they tend to be interminably BORING. Seriously: After you're done being entertained by their eccentricities you'll feel like poking your eyes out with

Whatever. Sorry to burst your bubble, but if I talked about the Potato Famine and how one of my great grandfathers was a mentor and advisor of Michael Collins, your eyes would glaze over.

Did you copy that list out of some wikipedia thing? That's a pretty half-assed attempt at setting me straight.

How are things with the Paultards? How do you feel about hitching your wagon to another Lyndon LaRouche?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 7, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

We are gonna wipe the floor with you cowards.
Ron Paul 2008

Posted by: ralphie on November 7, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

We are gonna wipe the floor with you cowards.
Ron Paul 2008

You won't be wiping it with us; you'll be wiping the floors FOR us.

The world needs libertarian janitors, I guess.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Drum, you suck.Paul is the only decent candidate in the running. He's the only candidate with any regard for the constitution, the only candidate who recognises the income tax as unconstitutional, the only candidate who intends to end the bogus "war on terror" immediately, the only candidate who would stop the federal reserve from creating money out of debt and restore the gold/silver standard. Paul is not "suddenly" a serious candidate - he's been more serious and real than ANY other candidate since day one - that's why he wins every post-debate poll. Also, if Paul's record breaking (no quotes because it's REAL) fundraiser is just a function of the growth of the internet as a political money machine, why haven't all the mainstream candidates been able to match this feat as of yet ?

"Champion of the working man" my ass. All of the other candidates will continue to beat the working man into the ground, continue to allow our jobs to migrate, continue to allow millions of ILLEGAL immigrants lower the working wage in this country as they have for 25 years, continue to allow the destruction of union after union in the name of corporate (read: wall street) profit, and continue to allow the sell-off of the infrastructure which our fathers and theirs fathers built and paid for with their hard earned tax money. Paul is the only one willing to face the fed, wall street, and corporate America, and tell them that the free-for-all that started under Reagan is OVER, and restore the power to the working man, where it belongs. Paul recognises the destruction of the working man/middle class as a necessary function of the corporate/wall street conglomerates, the fat cats who have no idea what it's like to get dirt under your nails in the course of a day's work, the people who truly believe that the US can survive solely as consumers in a service-based economy which produces NOTHING of physical value.

If we have to walk through the fire now so that our children and their children can live the life that our forefathers intnded, I say get the coals ready. Paul's positions only seem "extreme" to those who think that everything that's happened to this country in the last 80 years is just hunky-dory, and more status-quo will suddenly turn us around and somehow magically return this nation to prosperity....in my opinion that's "extremely" naive - maybe even childish!

Posted by: Zeke on November 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Merchant class? Oh. Very well then. As Emily Litella would have said, "That's very different, nevermind." FWIW I don't think Wikipedia has an entry for "bluebloods."

PS: As to who was richer, Hamilton or Washington: George had a royal pedigree but grew up very poor. Upon reaching adulthood he was a relentless social climber deeply in debt from keeping up appearances. During the French Indian war his "salary" came as tracks of conquered land.
How did he make his fortune? He inherited Mt. Vernon, but didn't have much in the way of cash. So he married it. Later he inherited other properties from extended family members. He paid a lot of money to free all his slaves. When he caught a chill and was bled to death by the doctors he had a few thousand $$ in the bank. His approximately 150-200 shares of this and that were donated public works (in his name of course).

The "dangerously aristocratic" and philandering Hamilton was also self-made man, but only just so through military and government (legal) service. He, too, found his fortune and married it. He had plenty of debt himself, but I'm not related to him and haven't researched it, so I don't know how things worked out for him in the end.

I wouldn't call either of them "rich." Prosperous maybe, for having married well after their cash poor early years, but I suppose that's splitting hairs.

Posted by: The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker on November 7, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

The story of my life is, "Instead of Getting a Divorce, Next Time I'll Buy a House For Someone I Hate."

I would be far richer today if it wasn't for the dingbats that I have married.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

I am not a Paul supporter, but to call him a "fruitcake" for wanting to get out of Iraq (good), wanting to abolish income tax (good), and slimming federal government down to what the constitution intended it to be (great), makes fruitcakes look a whole lot more rational than the "Bomb Iran!" cheerleaders and guys who are such cowards they have to pretend the earth is 6,000 years old for the Bible Beaters.

Yes, he's not going to get elected, but thats not because HE's crazy - it's that the majority of GOP voters are!

Posted by: GILMORE on November 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I am not a nutcase gold standard guy but I have to point something out.

In 1913 it cost $.57 cents to buy what cost $1.00 in 1800.

In 2006 it costs $20.15 to buy what cost $1.00 in 1913.

I'm sure I don't have to point out what happened in 1913. But I will. It's called the Federal Reserve System and the end of gold backed money. More or less.

Posted by: The Wine Commonsewer on November 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Truely sad when defending the constitution makes a man "extreme". And these so called "grown adults" who know better than to support someone so extreme, do not deserve the freedoms entitled to them under the constitution. Ron Paul is the champion of the constitution, and I am disgusted that you would belittle this man. I insist that you question your own patriotism.

"Posers wave the flag, Patriots wave the constitution"

Posted by: Eric on November 7, 2007 at 4:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, what is your issue with getting rid of the federal reesrve? Do you really think we are in a good situation when all of the money in circulation comes from a private bank disguised as a branch of the federal government? Seriously, do you LIKE paying income tax on this perpetual cycle of interest accrued by this system of loans? What is your deal?

Posted by: truthhurts on November 7, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul Rocks.
Kevin Drum is a Tool of the Corporate Dictatorship.
Go Paul!

Posted by: JW on November 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

"In 1913 it cost $.57 cents to buy what cost $1.00 in 1800.

In 2006 it costs $20.15 to buy what cost $1.00 in 1913."

Which corresponds to an average inflation rate of 3%. Jawdropping, eh?

"It's called the Federal Reserve System and the end of gold backed money. More or less."

Actually, no. Try 1933, and God Bless FDR for taking us off it.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

F*ck off Kevin. We are real and he is real. You are just whoring yourself like the rest of the media.

Be afraid, be very afraid. When he wins we will be seeking retribution from those that sold America down the river.

Posted by: Zen Bruder on November 7, 2007 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

When he [Paul] wins we will be seeking retribution from those that sold America down the river."

'Cos, y'know, executive branch supporters seeking retribution is what minimal-government libertarianism is all about.

The jokes just write themselves, really.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

BTW - The average donation was $103. That is per person for those that were left behind in math. This number alone would be mind numbing if the other candidates were measured by the same criteria - the average contribution not the amount raised. While other candidates pander to corporations and high net worth individuals for their monies, Ron Paul is getting money from the rest of us that care about our country, not just our own self interest. Actually my self interest is the America of my youth. My self interest is a non-fascist government that stays out of my business. Ron Paul can bring back our country and our credibility and our liberty.

Posted by: Zen Bruder on November 7, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

Be afraid, be very afraid. When he wins we will be seeking retribution from those that sold America down the river.

You know, they SAVE the IP addresses of the posts that threaten people. Good luck, "Paultards." Ye shall be consumed in a fire, methinks.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 7, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Buttload? Really? Very professional.

Posted by: none given on November 7, 2007 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Apart from, umm, the Great Depression and stuff, and the wrenching recessions in the late nineteenth century.

Fiat money and automatic economic stabilizers like unemployment benefit and progressive taxes - as great a contribution to human welfare as the invention of penicillin.

Hello? The great depression was a result of the Fed's screw-ups...they've even admitted it! Sounds like you need to bone up, pal!

Posted by: Eason on November 7, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, who the hell is this worthless and meaningless piece of lying shit? Just another media whore and globalist shill. You couldn't even stand in Ron Paul's shadow you hack.

Posted by: Dave Iles on November 7, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

You know it's a gonna be an informative and impartial news article when "buttload" is in the first sentence and "fruitcake" is in the title.

Posted by: robin banks on November 7, 2007 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

"The great depression was a result of the Fed's screw-ups...they've even admitted it! Sounds like you need to bone up, pal!"

Read the goddamn Eichengreen paper. The problem was that the Fed *stuck too goddamn long* with the gold standard during the recession. Eichengreen notes that countries that took themselves off the Gold Standard earlier recovered from the Great Depression faster than those that stayed on the Gold Standard longer. So the problem wasn't "existence of fiat money" but "not enough goddamn fiat money".

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

"The great depression was a result of the Fed's screw-ups...they've even admitted it! Sounds like you need to bone up, pal!"

Also, it's worth noting that what Bernanke (and other scholars at the Fed) say isn't that the Fed actions precipitated the contraction in the economy, but didn't do enough to prevent the contraction from becoming worse. Other economists, like Eichengreen, have raised doubts whether the Fed could have compensated sufficiently post-crash, and blame the Gold Standard for transmitting the problem worldwide.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

What are you scared of?

Posted by: RSP on November 7, 2007 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

When the author says that the audience didn't understand Dr. Paul's answer on monetary policy what he's really saying is HE didn't understand the answer. I'm not suprised considering the purile tone of this article. I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject but even I understand that the more you make of something, the less valuable each unit of that thing becomes, whether it's IPODs or paper currency, the principle is the same. If our government had the discipline to operate with a fiat currency without having to print billions out of nowhere to cover their bloated budgets, the fiat currency probably wouldn't be near the problem. Unfortunately the people we elect don't know the meaning of the word discpline.

Posted by: Howard H on November 7, 2007 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Is Ron Paul also in favor of butter churns, keel boats and whale oil lamps?

Posted by: jrw on November 7, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Did you say "buttload"? You Idiot!

Posted by: Not bots on November 7, 2007 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

The opposite of Ron Paul is Hilary Clinton - rarely answering tough questions clearly, or directly, so she helps reduce risking her lead by offending. That's what you want - another D.C. cog in the wheel, talking points, decision through partisan committee, etc? Allow me to suggest that, the reason Paul's positions seem so "meaningless" is because the concept of clear, direct answers to tough questions is totally alien to most of the listening public. It's meaningless if you accept the status quo as acceptable. It's meaningless if you're looking for more established and polished rhetoric ...that leads nowhere for the average American. Give Paul a chance to deliver on his clear answers.

Posted by: chrism on November 7, 2007 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum,
Is a waste of time, not Ron Paul.

Posted by: Chris on November 7, 2007 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Keven Drum,

Enjoy your fame wrapped in hate mail. You are a total butt munch for your masters at Wa/mo.

I give it a week or so before they kick you to the curb.

Posted by: Chris Williams on November 7, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum YOU are a waste of time and a fruitcake, NOT Ron Paul. Do you want freedom or socialism? Who is the Candidate that has raised the most money from military families? That's right Ron Paul. I know Kevin truth hurts, but you wouldn't know conservatism if it hit you in the face.

Posted by: Eric on November 7, 2007 at 9:11 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't read all 3000 comments but after the first 1000 no one had mentioned what Ron Paul's plan for currency his.

I think he wants to start a competeing currency that is backed by gold. People could choose between Federal Reserve Notes, which is currency backed by debt, or US Notes, which is currency backed by something (gold or silver). I would rather my money be backed by something instead of being created out of nothing. This is why the dollar is one of the worse currencies right now.

Posted by: Paul V on November 7, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

In case some are still commenting--whew!

Some points I would like to make. Libertarians are essentially 19century Democrats in outlook. The only reason more are Republican today is because the Dems are more socialistic than the Republicans in some essential economic matters.

The classical liberals/19century Jefferson/Jackson/Cleveland Democrats understood that government was the cause of war and had to be controlled. They understood that one way to do that was to abolish central banking, and preserve a commodity money standard.

Twentieth century Democrats believe in fiat money and war. Most of the wars fought in last century were Democratic wars. Teddy Rosevelt was a warmonger of course but most other Republicans of the twentieth century were more noninterventionist than the Democrats we had.

A government that is confined to a gold or silver standard of some sort finds it hard to go to war. They hate to overtax, fearing rebellion of the masses. So, they would rather inflate. Nations go OFF the gold standard to fight wars. Those Democrats on this list who say they are anti war should try to keep that in mind.

Milton Friedman, a well known libertarian economist, helped invent the dominant school of economics today, monaterism. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics for showing how the errors of the Fed were largely responsible for the great depression.

Ron Paul is not a Chicago School Monetarist. He believes in Austrian economics. He has written at least two books on the subject of monetary policy which can be purchased inexpensively at the Mises Institute or through Lew Rockwell. He did in fact co author the Minority Report on the role of Gold in Reagan's first term, which includes a very detailed monetary history of the US.

In recent times, former Congressman Jack Kemp, one of the original supply side economists, also championed a return to gold.

The world was on the gold standard until 1933, which was suspended in the US for the Great Depression and WWII, and afterwards was replaced by a limited international gold exchange standard between nations, correctly identified on this blog as Bretton Woods.Nixon imposed wage and price controls on the nation and removed the US from its Bretton Woods obligation to redeem gold, at $35 an ounce or any price. BTW, the Libertarian Party was founded that year in response to Nixon's economic policies.

It is true that farmers in the late 19th century were debtors and clamored for inflation, which in those days was more minting of silver dollars. However, what was not mentioned was 1) workers are not farmers, and workers are savers, not debtors like farmers. The gold standard was popular with urban workers, and they were, until 1896, the backbone of the gold standard Democratic Party. and 2) the country at that time was under Republcan rule since the Civil War, except for Grover Clevelands two inconsecutive terms. The Republicans abandoned the free banking system set up by Andrew Jackson and Marin van Buren and had a "Federal banking system" where all banks, including rural banks that farmers depended on, had to take orders from a Cartel of New York City banks. So,the populist inflationary movement was motivated as much by anti Wall Street sentiment as by opposition to gold, which was more of a symbol of power concentrated in Republican hands in a government imposed banking cartel.

And, if a big bank fails under a free banking system, the whole system DOES NOT FAIL. It is precisely under Central Banking that a major failure can occur.(The federal reserve, after all, was responsible for starting the Great Depression). Since under free banking every bank is independent, if one fails the others are not tied into it and only that bank will likely fail. Under central banking, which is top down, if the major banks fail, the whole system will collapse, so the central bank is cleaning up their mess by bailing them and wall street,and now mortgage lenders, out. Big banks are "too big to fail" under central banking. Ron Paul considers this inflation a tax on the working class, and he is speaking Main Street vs Wall Street.

AS Democrats, I would think you would try harder to understand his working person vs the financial/political elite message better.

Posted by: Libertreee on November 7, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

Kudos to Paul V for being the only RonBot with the guts to even hazard a guess at what RonPaul's "gold standard" policy prescription would entail.

Jeers to Libertreee for providing yet another example of how every other RonBot insists on long-windedly talking around the issue in apparent hopes that we'll forget what the question is.

Posted by: Disputo on November 7, 2007 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Grow up? Did you read your own article? I can't believe anyone would even publish this crap.

Grow a spine, find some testicular fortitude and then maybe you can write about growing up. I suppose you think the US government is doing a great job??? More of the same for you, huh? Open your eyes and look around at the world your kind of attitude has brought us. It is time for a radical change. I hope there is still time.

Posted by: Bob on November 7, 2007 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Liber says:if a big bank fails under a free banking system.... and then compares a single bank failure under "free" banking to if the major banks fail, the whole system will collapse and uses this rather odd construction to "show" how much better free banking would be. (Hint: to make an effective argument don't use your conclusion as one of your assumptions)Apples? Oranges? Fruitcake? Tree reports, you decide.
I suppose the Libertrees will all understand that the money is gone when the bank that fails is their own. It's the market; just like when the S&Ls went under. Riiihgt.

Posted by: TJM on November 7, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK


CBS Labels Ron Paul a "Meaningless Fruitcake" With "No Chance" Of Winning

Prison Planet | November 7, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Despite a general begrudging acceptance amongst a large swathe of the corporate media that Ron Paul is a real contender for the Republican nomination following the hugely successful November 5th "money bomb" campaign, a CBS News op-ed piece today labels the Texas Congressman a "meaningless" "fruitcake" with "no chance" of winning.

The article is entitled Ron Paul, Fruitcake and its writer, Kevin Drum, attempts to make the point that anyone who even expresses an interest in the Congressman's campaign is a "political infant" who needs to "grow up".

In reality, it's Drum who needs to grow up - his four paragraph whine reads like the literary equivalent of a baby throwing its toys out of a playpen.

"Ron Paul raised a buttload of money yesterday. This doesn't really change anything, and everyone knows it, but I guess it's something to write about. So people are writing about it," seethes Drum.

"But look: can we stop pretending to be political infants, even if we happen to be bored this week? It's cheap and easy to take extreme, uncompromising positions when you have no actual chance of ever putting them into practice, so Paul's extreme, uncompromising positions really don't mean a thing," writes Drum.

"They're meaningless, and I wish grown adults who know better would stop pretending otherwise."

"Seriously, folks. Can we all please grow up?" he concludes.

The words of Officer Barbrady from South Park come to mind - "Nothing to see here folks. Move along..."

On what foundation does Drum claim that Congressman Paul's campaign is irrelevant? His growth curve and fundraising is outstripping any other candidate from either party and bookmakers are slashing his odds of winning the Republican nomination left, right and center.

Granted, the average geriatric Giuliani supporter cited in telephone surveys is going to keep Paul's poll digits low, but the fact that he routinely trounces the opposition in TV and Internet polls and has been widely lauded for shaking up the debates is hardly "meaningless" as Drum claims.

What's really happening here is that, whether wittingly or unwittingly, the establishment minions are terrified that their perch on the peanut gallery can be so forcefully undermined by a grass roots rebellion against the stranglehold of the elite - who carefully screen presidential candidates year after year - ensuring only establishment lackeys ever have a chance of winning.

What the Ron Paul Revolution has created is bigger than whether or not Ron Paul will win the nomination in 2008.

This is about setting a benchmark and getting a foothold in an otherwise stage-managed and contrived electoral process, and having a candidate of the people front and center who the corporate media cannot possibly ignore.

In that sense, the Ron Paul phenomenon is far from "meaningless" and Kevin Drum is the one who needs to "grow up", for his political infancy betrays a complete ignorance of what is taking place.

In addition, if Ron Paul is so "meaningless" then why is Drum, along with an army of other establishment media stooges and Neo-Con cult members, wasting his time in attacking the Congressman?

In the words of William Shakespeare, Methinks this CBS hack doth protest too much.


Posted by: PhantomOfLostLiberty on November 8, 2007 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

....Just in case you missed Mr. Watson handing you your ass back Mr. Drum.

http://infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_cbs_labels_paul_meaningless_fruitcake.htm

Posted by: PhantomOfLostLiberty on November 8, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Since the dear Mr. Watson can't even tell the difference between a CBS News op-ed and Drum's WaMo blog, it's rather unlikely that he can find his own ass with both hands, much less hand anyone's else ass back to them.

Posted by: Disputo on November 8, 2007 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

For some reason I find it more infantile to call a beloved Doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies and is in his tenth term as a Republican congressman a fruitcake. But that's just me.

Posted by: Kandice Wilson on November 8, 2007 at 3:54 AM | PERMALINK

I believe you are the one who needs to grow up.
I realize has the mainstream media is finally beginning to find out how popular Ron Paul's views are with Americans he will be attacked.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi

It is a sad state in American politics when those that defend the US Constitution as law are deemed "fruitcakes".

You should save your rants for those who swear an oath to defend the Constitution, then do everything in their power to shred it.

Posted by: Jim Liberty on November 8, 2007 at 6:30 AM | PERMALINK

This is one of the most ridiculous articles I have ever read. What about people believing that freedom is possible in this country is "infantile". Have we been so programmed to believe that big government and the loss of our liberites is the only way? To believe that we can have freedom and security is "extreme"??? If America is so far brainwashed that they would actually fall for a line of bull like this article then we are all really in trouble. I believe Ron Paul can win and if people would stop eating politely with a knife and fork the piles of crap that the media dishes out. If they would start thinking for themselves, form their own opinions, and decide their own beliefs we can start changing things in the country.

Posted by: April on November 8, 2007 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I have been a long time fan of your work, but this post is kinda embarrassing and makes you look like a hectoring weenie.

Personally, I think anybody who professes to believe in the blood and resurrection of the lord Jesus Christ is a delusional fruitcake, but that pretty much covers the nomination fields of both parties, so for the time-being I'll put that aside.

It appears what you are really underlining as "extremist" and "fruitcake" about Paul is the United States Constitution itself.

It's a shame you can't and won't say the same thing about politicians that dig in their heels spouting silliness about "Islamofascists" and issuing vague psychopathic threats, ie. "No option is off the table" - those options presumably including suicide, mass homicide, concentration camps, carpet bombing hospitals and mosques, etc.

Last point, Pot. Meet. Kettle. - Your spitting the dummy about an ingenious grassroots fundraising drive says more about infants than anything about the Paul supporters.

Count to ten and take some deep breaths before hitting the [ENTER] tab next time.

Posted by: billy bob tweed on November 8, 2007 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

What is it with Ron Paul and cross burning?

Do ALL of the people who have been so voiciferous about supporting Ron Paul agree that cross burning is NOT a crime?

--Cross posted on the newer thread, the full article is here:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

[Democratic candidate] Morris recently distributed copies of political newsletters written by Paul in 1992 in which the Surfside physician endorsed the concept of secession, defended cross burning as an act of free speech and expressed sympathy for a man sentenced to prison for bombing an IRS building.

Cross-burning as free speech? (And sympathy for domestic terrorist bombers?) Um, yeah. Two months later, the Austin American-Statesman let Paul share his views in his own words:

Not all officials express alarm when discussing cross burnings. U.S.Rep.-elect Ron Paul, a Texas Republican from Surfside, described such activity as a form of free speech in some situations.

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

See, here's that problem again. When Paul explains it, it sounds all nice and reasonable. What you do on your property absolutely should be your business, and nobody should be able to tell you what you can and can't put on your Saturday night bonfire. But Texas was having a huge upswing in cross-burnings that year, which were part of an (all-too-successful) effort to terrorize its African-American community.

There's plenty of legal precedent that one person's right to free speech ends when it begins to terrorize others into silence -- and, because of this, cross-burning is recognized as a hate crime in many jurisdictions across the country. But Ron Paul, for all his libertarian talk, apparently doesn't believe in putting any restrictions on speech, even when it damages other individuals and the overall level of civil behavior in society.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 10:02 AM | PERMALINK

Re: "But Ron Paul, for all his libertarian talk, apparently doesn't believe in putting any restrictions on speech, even when it damages other individuals and the overall level of civil behavior in society."

This is a canard. Instead of putting imaginary assumed beliefs or non-beliefs in Ron Paul's brain and mouth, why don't we instead look at what Paul has actually and consistently advocated about free speech and restrictions: The U.S. Constitution. That's his guidebook. Period. If you want to change free speech laws and impose restrictions, you make amendments to the Constitution, and you do it by the book. The framework and the procedures are all there. It's plainly simple and bleedingly obvious, but continually gets turned into smoke and hot air by spinmeisters who would rather shred the Constitution than actually protect and preserve it.

Posted by: parkman on November 8, 2007 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

I think Ron Paul does have some ideas that seem like lunacy and doubtless attract some unsavory wackjobs from the lunatic fringe. Nevertheless, he is the only candidate raising ideas about our foreign policy that deviate from mindless infantalyzing fear of the boogeyman and our new savior Jack Bauer. When was the last time we went into an election discussing America living up to the ideals and rule of law of her Constitution? Be honest.

Posted by: sally m on November 8, 2007 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

Instead of putting imaginary assumed beliefs or non-beliefs in Ron Paul's brain and mouth, why don't we instead look at what Paul has actually and consistently advocated about free speech and restrictions:

An imaginary assumed belief?

Are you fucking kidding me???

He actually said this:

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

What part of racist hate crime do you not understand what this is about?

No wonder Ron Paul is endorsed by so many people from Stormfront.

What a fucking joke! It's not about protecting the Constitution--it's about recognizing an insane purveyor of coded hate speech for what he is--a fringe threat to the rights of Americans everywhere. What a shameful disgrace he is, not only as a sitting Congressman but also as a human being.

Every one of you Ron Paul supporters--you endorse cross burning? You all Stormfront supporters?

I guess we need to shine the light on you cockroaches a little brighter...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINK

Note to self:
Don't waste time reading Kevin Drum drivel again.

It's makes me sad to listen to the sheep who consider the ideas of this countries founders as "extreme" and a candidate who isn't owned by corporations as not "serious".

And all the responders who consider Pauls monetary system ideas as ridiculous are either ignorant of history and how our system currently works or are part of the money-for-nothing crowd. You know, the people who shuffle money for a profit, but produce no real value in society. Without being able to use money that was printed out of thin air, most of these people would be flipping burgers for a living, so of course they want to maintain the status quo. Their skill set is sadly lacking in a society that produces.

Posted by: Rossi on November 8, 2007 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Hoo-boy. To be a Constitutionalist in the 21st century now means you're a card-carrying member of Stormfront. This is hysterical paranoia and typical transparent smear.

Posted by: j. pauline spaghetti on November 8, 2007 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

To be a Constitutionalist in the 21st century now means you're a card-carrying member of Stormfront.

No, but if you try to rationalize cross burning, and if you write for the Dixie Daily News, and if you're part of the Patriot Network [the tax dodge outfit], and if you are endorsed by members of Stormfront, that pretty much means you're in bed with the card carrying members of Stormfront.

How does that card look in your wallet? Pretty spiffy?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, if you were to remove all the posts with ad hominem attacks and grade school name calling, this board would look like swiss cheese.

Posted by: Scoo on November 8, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

If you say anythng positive about Amtrak for a train arriving at its destination on time, that automatically makes you a Nazi. Who can deny or dispute that? And geewhiz, what is it about those train schedules and the coded messages they are sending to passengers? Hate crime violations, surely!

Posted by: lazy days on November 8, 2007 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

If you say anythng positive about Amtrak for a train arriving at its destination on time, that automatically makes you a Nazi.

Actually, it was Mussolini who made the trains run on time.

Don't any of you idiots read the stuff you're supposed to know? A mistake like that will get you kicked out of your next Klan rally, shit for brains. Do you want to be the only one kicked out for being stupid? Or is that a badge of honor for you? Being able to say that you were so goddamned illiterate that you got kicked out of a Klan rally for being the stupidest son of a bitch alive?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Read the goddamn Eichengreen paper. The problem was that the Fed *stuck too goddamn long* with the gold standard during the recession. Eichengreen notes that countries that took themselves off the Gold Standard earlier recovered from the Great Depression faster than those that stayed on the Gold Standard longer. So the problem wasn't "existence of fiat money" but "not enough goddamn fiat money".

Now there is so much fiat (or fake money) the dollar is the Sh**iest currency on Earth. The Fed's inept regulation of the market is the main argument, not "fiat versus metallic standard". Before the Fed, the worst thing that happened is people would get scared everytime gold was moved and pull their money from the market. With high tech security today that would not even be a problem. You could even still employ all your buddies from Blackwater. It only took the Fed two decades to screw things up so badly the entire world suffered, you said it yourself when you turned your argument into an authority appeal. THAT IS THE MAIN POINT! It is an inept institution that does nothing but drive the dollar's worth DOWNWARD! I read somehwere that the Fed LOSES money coining the penny....LOSES MONEY!! The dollar is in the "terlet" I don't care what is done with the money and what standard we go off of, as long as the Fed's filthy fake money printing ends! The Fed's artificial tampering with a so called "free market" negates any real freedom in said market. It is a corrupt unprincipled organization with questionable loyalties and an objectionable status (private or federal?) with virtually NO oversight! It needs to go!
Read the Godamned Constitution, To hell with Eichengreen!

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

It's remarkable that the genuine fruitcakes are the ones who can't shut up about Stormfront and the Klan, and worse, foist membership cards of said organizations into the wallets of people who are much more likely to be card-carrying members of the ACLU. The old scare tactics aren't working. The Ron Paul revolution is a sure sign that people are taking off the blinkers and refusing to be kowwed by Stalinist fear and Orwellian smear. Keep attacking Paul and it's just gonna make more people sit up and pay attention to those signs popping up all over their neighborhoods. (Hmmm, mebe Pale Rider is a Ronbot plant...?)

Posted by: doug n.dinsdale on November 8, 2007 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

The Ron Paul revolution is a sure sign that people are taking off the blinkers and refusing to be kowwed by Stalinist fear and Orwellian smear.

No, it's not Stalinist or Orwellian to use the actual statement of a person to show that they have reprehensible views. If a man actually says, in public:

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

As Congressman Ron Paul said in the Austin-American Statesman, then it's merely accountability at work. You may confuse accountability with Stalin or Orwell (and you know nothing of these things if you link Stalin to Orwell and attempt to use code words whose understanding is above your pay grade).

What I suspect is true is that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters don't know that he has ties to tax dodge outfits, southern States Rights hate groups and has claimed that cross burning is a matter of free speech.

Pardon me for pointing out that ya'll been suckered by a flim-flam artist.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider wrote:

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

What part of racist hate crime do you not understand what this is about?

Give it a rest Pale Rider. The ACLU backed two men convicted of cross burning all the way to the Supreme Court. Ron Paul is no more a white power ranger than the ACLU is. I think the Ron Paul supporters are weird, but there's no need to slander the man by imputing to him beliefs he doesn't have.


Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Give it a rest Pale Rider. The ACLU backed two men convicted of cross burning all the way to the Supreme Court. Ron Paul is no more a white power ranger than the ACLU is. I think the Ron Paul supporters are weird, but there's no need to slander the man by imputing to him beliefs he doesn't have.

Wow, that's GREAT logic. So if a man says something in public, advocates for it, and makes it a part of his public record as an elected politician, he really DOESN'T believe it, an unaffiliated case that has no bearing on the issue is suddenly relevant and pointing out what he's said in public is slander?

Actually, I wrote it, so it's libel.

Shows you what you know.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul is no more a white power ranger than the ACLU is.

So now the folks at Stormfront, the Patriot Network, and the Dixie Daily News are all in bed with Ron Paul because he DOES NOT support things like cross burning? Are all of these hate groups and anti-American advocates suddenly the moral equivalent of the ACLU because they meet at the nexus of one aspect of free speech with Ron Paul? Or is there, to put it mildly, just a *slightly* more complicated explanation that what you've put out here?

Tell me, in your infinite grasp of logic, which does not seem to be on display here today--does the ACLU go around lynching people? It seems to me that if everyone can agree in your world that cross burning is protected speech (and, no, it is NOT) then the next step is to ask, why are we not allowed to form mobs of like-minded citizens and lynch people who violate the standards of the community by whistling at white women? Where do you think everyone meets up on that issue? Is lynching someone just a free speech issue? What if they called you a "douchebag?" Is it your right to lynch them from the tallest tree in the middle of town? Or is there some moderate middle ground you can stake out on that issue? I'm sure that the ACLU has a position on lynching--do tell us what you think it might be.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

"Milton Friedman, a well known libertarian economist, helped invent the dominant school of economics today, monaterism."

Sorry, monetarism isn't the dominant school: It's a kinda Keynes-with-a-bit-of-monetarism-and-rational-expectation thrown in. the drop in the velocity of money in the early 1980s kinda put paid to the idea that monitoring M1 or M3 was all-important. The relative decline in monerarism can be seen in that central banks target interest rates, not money supply, as the policy tool. (you do know you can target one but not the other, right?)

"The federal reserve, after all, was responsible for starting the Great Depression"

No. The Fed *exacerbated the great depression*: it didn't trigger it. And the earlier countries dumped the gold standard, the faster they recovered.

Eason wrote:
'Now there is so much fiat (or fake money) the dollar is the Sh**iest currency on Earth. ..Read the Godamned Constitution, To hell with Eichengreen!'

Well, it's always nice having a rational policy discussion.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

"So if a man says something in public, advocates for it"

Rider, do you understand the difference between "advocates for" and "does not want to see prohibited"?

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

Your argument is the equivalent of the gay marriage hysteria in the 2004 election. Believe it or not, whether we like it or not, hate groups have a right to hate as much as you have the right to worship the invisible man in the sky. You don't like it that way? Petition congress to change the Constitution. I'd much rather live in a country whose citizens privately burn crosses than a country whose government publicly burns bodies all over the world! Ron Paul is not advocating FOR hate crime! He's advocating limiting your personal freedom on your private property. You don't care about your own privacy or personal freedom? Move into a glass house and hire a TV crew to follow you around 24/7, but don't you dare infringe on my right to do anything within reason on my own property, whether it was burning crosses or burning Stars of David or reading the Qu'Ran, or nailing the Qu'Ran to a cross then burning it and wraping the ashes in an US flag and bury it in a pit of rattlesnakes. This is America! I'll be as crazy as I want to be on the property I paid for with my hard earned money the government sees fit to let me keep after they jack my paycheck for all their lucrative scams.

You, however, should continue on your shill parade, and smear someone's name by calling attention to a quote that you have had the stroke of genius to misconstrue into an advocation of a hate crime. Pretty pathetic! You have GOT to be a Christian! Blinded by Love, eh? Love for yourself and for your religious icons that prop up your daily existence and justify your stay on this planet.

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Rider, do you understand the difference between "advocates for" and "does not want to see prohibited"?

You mean the difference between associating with like-minded advocates and speaking out about the issue to assure people "he would not send Federal police" to break up cross burning and then being very passive on the issue?

When you say in public that you would not use the power of the Federal government to prohibit a hate crime, you are merely telling people that you think what they do on their property is alright with you. If that's not advocacy, than it is certainly an assent to something which is not a free speech issue, but rather a hate crime designed to terrorize people.

A hate crime...designed to terrorize people...like, I dunno. Lynching, perhaps?

So what's your answer to the whole question about lynching? Or are you going to piss your pants and run away from that one?

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

Well, it's always nice having a rational policy discussion.

Well, now it's clear to me that you can bite the meat of my statement. Not surpising. What's the matter? You started by throwing a few *goddamns* at me. I responded in kind. Now you act like you are above the conversation? OR did you run out of authority appeals? What's the matter? Haven't read anything on economy aside from Eichengreen? ONCE AGAIN, The point is The Fed is inept. You proved it with your authority appeal to Eichengreen. Eichengreen wrote it, you regurgitated it and now you can't even discuss it. PATHETIC!

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider -

You are nobviously a strong man of rock solid immovable principle, so tell us how you really feel about flag-burning.

Should flag-burners be prosecuted for hate crimes and treason?

Be careful: A wrong or dissembling answer might expose you as a card-carrying member of Al Qaeda.

Your logic.

Posted by: surfin on November 8, 2007 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Your argument is the equivalent of the gay marriage hysteria in the 2004 election.

How do you equate cross burning with same-sex marriage? What leap of logic across a burning river of bullshit do you have to accomplish to make THAT analogy work?

Believe it or not, whether we like it or not, hate groups have a right to hate as much as you have the right to worship the invisible man in the sky.

Yes they do, and when their actions--such as cross burning, lynching, harassing interracial couples and committing acts of violence--violate the law, they are arrested and punished. Until Ron Paul actually burns a cross on his property and then lynches someone for whistling at a white woman, he is free to do whatever he wants, but I'm also free to point out what he has said and who he associates with. Right? Or does free speech end when someone points out how ridiculous you are?

but don't you dare infringe on my right to do anything within reason on my own property, whether it was burning crosses or burning Stars of David or reading the Qu'Ran, or nailing the Qu'Ran to a cross then burning it and wraping the ashes in an US flag and bury it in a pit of rattlesnakes.

If, for example, the home owners association where you lived prohibited such displays, you could lose your property. What then? If, for example, you burned that cross, you'd be committing a hate crime. Good luck getting out of that. And if, for example, the species of rattlesnake that you killed was a protected species, then you'd face fines and imprisonment. So I don't know what your point is, other than you're a little confused about the law. I suggest you get a lawyer, (maybe even a Jewish one who's good with money, because that is what you believe, right?) and try to get all that sorted out before you go burning your hands and the seat of your pants trying to make a point.

This is America! I'll be as crazy as I want to be on the property I paid for with my hard earned money the government sees fit to let me keep after they jack my paycheck for all their lucrative scams.

Like roads, bridges, or the hospital where they'll treat you for those serious burns? The scam jacked from your paycheck that pays the salary of the police who will arrest you for being a public nuisance or for violating a ban on burning items outdoors without a permit? The scam about the fire department, and how they will have to put out your crazy fire to keep from burning down someone else's home because you were too irresponsible to figure out what you were doing in the first place?

The very same scam jacked from your paycheck that pays Ron Paul's Congressional salary and his exhorbitant health care coverage, which rivals anything you could purchase on your own?

You, however, should continue on your shill parade, and smear someone's name by calling attention to a quote that you have had the stroke of genius to misconstrue into an advocation of a hate crime. Pretty pathetic! You have GOT to be a Christian! Blinded by Love, eh? Love for yourself and for your religious icons that prop up your daily existence and justify your stay on this planet.

???

That's just too crazy to touch with a stick. Or a burning stick, at that.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Should flag-burners be prosecuted for hate crimes and treason?

You dumbass.

What minority group is terrorized by the burning of the American flag?

Minorities ARE terrorized by cross burnings.

Minorities ARE NOT terrorized by flag burnings.

Did the stupid valve open up? Whoosh! Here comes a whole flood of stupid! Well, I guess Pale Rider will just have to flush out the place and put everything in its right place again. Alrighty then, I'm up for it. Lemme get my mop.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

When you say in public that you would not use the power of the Federal government to prohibit a hate crime, you are merely telling people that you think what they do on their property is alright with you. If that's not advocacy, than it is certainly an assent to something which is not a free speech issue, but rather a hate crime designed to terrorize people.


I'm sorry, could you show me again where exactly RP said he would not use federal force to stop a hate crime? Anyway, to stop a "hate" crime, wouldn't you need to send in the "thought" police? Why don't we just microchip everyone and that way we can control their emotions for them? Better yet, we should drug them all, it's more efficient and also much more lucrative as the plebes will be paying for their own zombification, neh? Trade your personal liberty for safety you hothouse plant!

Pale rider says that he is scared. Would everyone please stop scaring the gutless wonder with their threats of setting his religious icons ablaze?

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider,

Tsk tsk, as I feared, you are evading the question and dissembling.

I will give you the dignity of answering it directly, or will have to assume, almost certainly, that you are a sympathizer and perhaps even agent of Al Qaeda.

Simple question - Flag-burning: Treason or Free Speech?

Posted by: surfin on November 8, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Joining several other commenters, I find it both hilarious and sad that a man who advocates nothing more than a return to governance by The Law--the Constitution--rather than by the whims of individual men and women (e.g., Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton) is labeled a "fruitcake."

Ron Paul is no more a fruitcake than James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington were fruitcakes. He may not be as clever or as inspiring as those men, but he is without question the only candidate for either party whose political philosophy is close to Madison, Jefferson, and Washington.

Kevin Drum's labeling of Ron Paul as a "fruitcake" simply reflects Kevin Drum's lack of knowledge of U.S. law and U.S. history.

Posted by: Mark Bahner on November 8, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

Simple question - Flag-burning: Treason or Free Speech?

Oh, my bad! You see, when answered you by pointing out how ridiculous and foolishly structured your question was by pointing out that flag burning, which is protected free speech, is not the same as cross burning, which is a hate crime, I thought you were capable of getting my meaning.

Apparently, you are so doltishly stupid, you need to have it spelled out for you.

It is not treason. Treason is when you reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent in order to smear her husband after he just revealed that you were lying about a link between Iraq and procuring yellowcake uranium from Niger.

It is protected free speech. No minorities, save the minority of people who have no idea what free speech is really all about and worry about stupid shit all day, are terrorized when someone burns the flag.

Minorities ARE terrorized by cross burnings.

Do you get it? Flag burning-not treason. Flag burning-protected free speech.

Hate crimes bad. Puppies good. Hate crimes bad.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, could you show me again where exactly RP said he would not use federal force to stop a hate crime?

???

Cross burning (which is a hate crime) assenter Ron Paul:

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

That part in bold? That's where he said it.

I realize that you people are having your Messiah exposed as a snake oil salesman (the snake oil boiled out of the rattlesnakes on FireMarshall Bill's property upthread, apparently) and that it's tough to see your little worldview brought crashing down around you to be such rabid supporters of a man in bed with southern racist organizations and Stormfront, but cheer up: you can still support Tom Tancredo for a little while.

At least Tancredo gets into the debates nowadays.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

"You proved it with your authority appeal to Eichengreen."

Look, I pointed out, upthread, that (1) the Gold Standard contributed to spreading the Great Depression, (2) those that stayed on the Gold Standard longer suffered longer. [and the attempt by the UK to return to the pre-WW1 gold exchange rate was arguably the ultimate cause].

This was not an appeal to authority: it's called "citing your references", so you can put down the cheat-sheet on fallacies now, 'cos you're not using it right.

I gave you the link to the Eichengreen paper so that you could, umm, educate yourself on the topic, which, frankly, you seriously need, as your response was essentially "Fed, inflation, dollar are all the SUXXOR!!"

While you're perusing the paper, you might want to get yourself a paper or book that shows a graph of the GDP growth of the US in the nineteenth century and the twentieth century (Coulter's book on microeconomics has such a graph, IIRC.) Stare at it for a while and see what insights come into your mind.

FYI, the dollar's recent tanking has little to do with domestic inflation, or money supply for that matter: there's been no corresponding spike in inflation or money supply. It has more to do with the persistent budget deficit under W, 'cos the deciderer doesn't want to hikes up taxes to match spending. That, and the change of perception of investors about the quality of emerging market investments (and BRIC in particular).

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, wisely asked:

"What minority group is terrorized by the burning of the American flag?"

According to current census reports, the world population currently stands at approx. 6.6 billion people. The population of the United States is approx. 300 million. That's 4.6% of the world's population. So America is very much already a victimized minority group on this imperial planet that we police without any gratitude.

Check the statistics of Muslims. About a billion of them, maybe more. There are waaaaaaay more Muslims on this planet than there are Americans, and they are really, really scary. Some of them might be your neighbors. Some might even be your secret friends and loyal comrades, hmm?

Burning a flag is clearly a hate crime directed against Americans to make Americans feel terror and panic. You are o-kay with this hate crime and treason. So the questions are, Do you hate America or do you hate America?, and Why do you hate America?

Posted by: b.cambell on November 8, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

How do you equate cross burning with same-sex marriage? What leap of logic across a burning river of bullshit do you have to accomplish to make THAT analogy work?

You've made an issue out of a non issue. Only an alarmist would read what you have into RP's quote. An alarmist or a slander shill dressed as an alarmist. That is how it equates. But once again you've miscomprehended. Must be tough livin life the way you do.


Yes they do, and when their actions--such as cross burning, lynching, harassing interracial couples and committing acts of violence--violate the law, they are arrested and punished. Until Ron Paul actually burns a cross on his property and then lynches someone for whistling at a white woman, he is free to do whatever he wants, but I'm also free to point out what he has said and who he associates with. Right? Or does free speech end when someone points out how ridiculous you are?

You can speak all you want, about whatever you want, just don't yell fire when no one has even touched a match to yours or anybody else's cross ablaze. It's morally bankrupt. And what is more racist? Burning a cross and harrassing an interacial couple or bombing a counrty full of brown people until you've wracked up at least half a million kills. I'll take RP's reticence to send in the troops (for whatever reason) over the current climate of shoot first ask questions later. You just go ahead and ride in to get em! Nothing bad like Ruby Ridge or Waco could happen for being too alarmist about what other peole are doing on their own private property.


If, for example, the home owners association where you lived prohibited such displays, you could lose your property. What then? If, for example, you burned that cross, you'd be committing a hate crime. Good luck getting out of that. And if, for example, the species of rattlesnake that you killed was a protected species, then you'd face fines and imprisonment. So I don't know what your point is, other than you're a little confused about the law. I suggest you get a lawyer, (maybe even a Jewish one who's good with money, because that is what you believe, right?) and try to get all that sorted out before you go burning your hands and the seat of your pants trying to make a point.

Thanks for inferring that I am a racist. I was wondering how long it would take for you to throw a slur against my character. Before your ad hominem went out across the land, the point is it's my private property and if I am batshit stupid enough to move in next to someone who likes burning crosses, it means I did not do the Due diligence on the property and I will ahve learned an important lesson in purchasing real estate. What if my cross gets old and it is in bad shape. The damn thing is seven stories high. The boys and I thought we'd burn it down when I burnt my barn down. I've got a permit for the Barn, would you give me one for the cross? The only thing that confuses me about the law is the fact that people like you think it is necessary to ad "helpers" to crime legislation such as "hate". No, you have to label the perpetrator's frame of mind and therefore police his brain. Stalin is proud of you. Are you proud of him? Mutual respect is important in relationships.

Like roads, bridges, or the hospital where they'll treat you for those serious burns? The scam jacked from your paycheck that pays the salary of the police who will arrest you for being a public nuisance or for violating a ban on burning items outdoors without a permit? The scam about the fire department, and how they will have to put out your crazy fire to keep from burning down someone else's home because you were too irresponsible to figure out what you were doing in the first place?

Like roads, bridges, or the hospital where they'll treat you for those serious burns? The scam jacked from your paycheck that pays the salary of the police who will arrest you for being a public nuisance or for violating a ban on burning items outdoors without a permit? The scam about the fire department, and how they will have to put out your crazy fire to keep from burning down someone else's home because you were too irresponsible to figure out what you were doing in the first place?

Surely you jest? Why don't you look outside your window and feast your eyes upon the crumbling urban decay that is the US's infrastructure. Besides, in my state, STATE taxes pay for roads and bridges, not the federal income taxes. My Police and Fire Department are STATE institutions as well and answer to the STATE, not the Federal Government, so my STATE taxes pay for my fire fighters and Police force. Maybe you need to write your state senate and ask when the Federal Govt, took over all the state institutions in your state. You want to call (whatever) a crime? Fine, just don't try to tell me what my frame of mind is for commiting it. By the by, whose job is it to arrest a man who has ordered the deaths of over 5,000 US military servicemen and the deaths of well over one million people from the Middle East? Far bigger crime than setting a religious item on fire, neh? Maybe you should start to worry about the REAL CRIMES being perpetrated as opposed to the thought crimes.

The very same scam jacked from your paycheck that pays Ron Paul's Congressional salary and his exhorbitant health care coverage, which rivals anything you could purchase on your own?

Can someone PLEASE direct Pale Rider to RP's congressional record over the last 25 years?

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

It's not just cross-burnings that terrorize me, it's the cross by itself. We should outlaw crucifixes. Objects of terror they are, gives me shivers just thinking about the intercourse of those two sticks. I'm all for criminalzing Hallowe'en, too.

Posted by: henry the ix on November 8, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

"No, you have to label the perpetrator's frame of mind and therefore police his brain. "

Newsflash: According to groundbreaking legal theory by Eason, mens rea is just like Stalin. Film at 11.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin:

I'm quite a bit more of a "lefty" than you and in consequence - though I check in occasionally - I haven't read you regularly in years. But you have officially gone back into to my top ten list with this one post.

Ron Paul? Ron Paul! Nut case, yes. Significant in some way, no. Next.

Posted by: tim quick on November 8, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Just a little more Ron Paul stuff to further convince Sock Puppet and whoever else that Ron Paul isn't just a mere racist--he's actually an openly insane one. He actually does say that he opposes racism. And then he makes some of the most off-the-wall crazy and racist statements ever uttered in public by a sitting Congressman.

I'll highlight the actual quotes and the actual statements of Ron Paul, just so there's no confusion, okay?

Defend the man who said these things, if you dare--

-----------------------

Candidate Had Newsletter With Controversial Stance On Blacks
24 May 1996
CongressDaily/A.M. English
Copyright (c) 1996 National Journal Inc.
A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday. Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary, in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings.

Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his comments came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time," and that he opposes racism.

In later newsletters, Paul wrote that lobbying groups who seek special favors are evil, and that "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government."

Texas
Newsletter by Paul attacked
Associated Press
329 words
24 May 1996
San Antonio Express-News English
(Copyright 1996)

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.

He said his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Paul's Democratic opponent, Charles "Lefty" Morris, said many of Paul's views were "out there on the fringe" and that this fall voters would judge his commentaries.

Morris' campaign distributed selected writings by Paul this week.

Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.

He said he'd produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.

Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital.

Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Nothing bad like Ruby Ridge or Waco could happen for being too alarmist about what other peole are doing on their own private property.

Right, so it's okay to kill ATF agents and it's okay to allow a cult leader to sexually abuse children--is that what you're saying? So long as they do whatever they want on their property, no one should butt in, right? Well, what if that was you being bent over a kitchen chair and what if it was you having a thumb shoved up your ass--what then? I'm sure you'd be crying in your own lap until the police rescued you.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Look, I pointed out, upthread, that (1) the Gold Standard contributed to spreading the Great Depression, (2) those that stayed on the Gold Standard longer suffered longer. [and the attempt by the UK to return to the pre-WW1 gold exchange rate was arguably the ultimate cause].

Let us just disclose that Eichengreen is far from unbiased. He is a Keynesian, and is extremely biased against gold. In 1985, while teaching at Harvard, he edited a collection of essays entitled The Gold Standard in Theory and History (New York: Methuen, 1985), which pretends to offer a "complete picture" of how an international gold standard would operate, with pro's and con's. Yet he failed to include a single article by a gold supporter! His last chapter, "Further reading," makes no reference to Mises, Hayek, Röpke, Rothbard, Sennholz, Laffer, and other noted defenders of gold. So much for objectivity!

This was not an appeal to authority: it's called "citing your references", so you can put down the cheat-sheet on fallacies now, 'cos you're not using it right.

No, it's called an appeal to authority when you regurgitate conclusion of said authority without offering proof of the conclusion. The conclusion is not that the gold standard caused the depression, but a mishandling of the change over caused it. Not, using the standard itself! You continue to tout that it was the standards fault. It was the Fed's mishandling of that standard. It was an artificial tweak in a free market economy and we paid the price.

Case in point: Eichengreen and other gold critics have pointed out that in a crucial time period, 1931-33, the Federal Reserve raised the discount rate for fear of a run on its gold deposits, If only the U.S. had not been on a gold standard, the critics say, the Fed could have avoided this reckless credit squeeze that pushed the country into depression and a banking crisis. However, the U.S. gold stock rose during the first two years of the contraction. But the Fed reacted ineptly. "We did not permit the inflow of gold to expand the U.S. money stock. We not only sterilized it, we went much further. Our money stock moved perversely, going down as the gold stock went up."

A Monetary History, pp. 360-61.


The FED's FAULT not GOLD's fault! So yes, your appeal to authority is just that, an appeal to authority. A type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Eichengreen can certainly be called out for his sins of omission in that paper. And he ain't the only bull in the rodeo.

"The blind, undesigned, and quasi-automatic working of the gold standard turned out to produce a greater measure of predictability and regularity—perhaps because its discipline was impersonal and inescapable—than did deliberate and conscious control exercised within institutional arrangements intended to promote monetary stability."

Leland Yeager, "An Evaluation of Freely Fluctuating Exchange Rates," quoted in Mark Skousen, Economics of a Pure Gold Standard, 2nd ed. (Mises Institute, 1988), pp. 81-82.

Now, THAT is a citation!

I gave you the link to the Eichengreen paper so that you could, umm, educate yourself on the topic, which, frankly, you seriously need, as your response was essentially "Fed, inflation, dollar are all the SUXXOR!!"

I saw no such link, but I wouldn't need to. I am well aware of what it says. I am even more aware of the paper's glaring omissions, which you seem to be lacking knowledge of. My arguement of: "Fed, inflation, dollar are all the SUXXOR!" is plainly superior to your fallacy of authority appeal that "Gold was the problem not the artificial regulation of a free market economy". Give me a break!


While you're perusing the paper, you might want to get yourself a paper or book that shows a graph of the GDP growth of the US in the nineteenth century and the twentieth century (Coulter's book on microeconomics has such a graph, IIRC.) Stare at it for a while and see what insights come into your mind.

I'll be sure and run right out to buy the book about money, written by the truest of true fruitcakes....Ann Coulter. Since she opened my eyes to such revelations like "Jews are christians" and "9/11 widows are media whores" and "John Edwards is a faggot and I hope he gets hit with a homicide bomber", I don't see a problem with listening to her tell me how to run our economy. You call RP a fringe lunatic? Get some perspective already!
I think you need to take that graph and do an old fashioned compare and contrast with a graph of gold's expansion over the same period. Then you'll see what we are ALL missing out on, as opposed to a tightly regulated economy that only a fortunate few are allowed to benefit from.


FYI, the dollar's recent tanking has little to do with domestic inflation, or money supply for that matter: there's been no corresponding spike in inflation or money supply. It has more to do with the persistent budget deficit under W, 'cos the deciderer doesn't want to hikes up taxes to match spending. That, and the change of perception of investors about the quality of emerging market investments (and BRIC in particular).

Today, in the real world, there is hardly a brain devoted to economics or monetary policy that will not admit that, contrary to what many modern macroeconomic models suggest, central bank actions often affect both inflation and measures of real economic activity, such as output, unemployment, and incomes. the true economists tries to understand these blowbacks as opposed to blatantly ignoring them *cough* Eichengreen *cough*

http://www.google.com/search?q=central+bank+actions+often+affect+both+inflation+and+measures+of+real+economic+activity%2c+such+as+output%2c+unemployment%2c+and+incomes

To say it's Dubya's fault is like giving credit to Clinton for the prosperity of the Nineties or giving Giulianni credit for stopping crime in NYC.

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Newsflash: According to groundbreaking legal theory by Eason, mens rea is just like Stalin. Film at 11.

You qoute law so well then you should understand that the MENS REA is all they are going after here! There is no ACTUS REA! Burning a cross is not inherently evil....sick and twisted, yes, but not evil or wrong in the traditional sense. When used in conjuction with terrorizing someone (for whatever reason) then yes it is a crime, BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY A LAW ON THE BOOKS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM HARASSING ONE ANOTHER. There is already a law to keep people from trespassing and or lighting fires on public or private property without permits or regulations. Take your phony law degree and shred it. The only news flash is the fact that you are ignorant enough to believe that mens rea alone is enough for a conviction.

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Right, so it's okay to kill ATF agents and it's okay to allow a cult leader to sexually abuse children--is that what you're saying? So long as they do whatever they want on their property, no one should butt in, right? Well, what if that was you being bent over a kitchen chair and what if it was you having a thumb shoved up your ass--what then? I'm sure you'd be crying in your own lap until the police rescued you.

When I was sexually assaulted as a child, I hid in the perpetrator's room until he went to sleep, then I beat him into a permanent vegetable state with a pool cue, and then a baseball bat. I did seven years in a juvenile work camp for that one. The Government didn't rescue me or my EIGHT year old sister, just like they did not rescue ANY sexual assault victims from Waco, or pre-empt any violence at Ruby Ridge. Due to their incompetence, nearly all were burned alive at Waco, and a man lost his wife and child due to direct provocation BY the federal government at Ruby Ridge. What else will you need to be reminded of? By the way, if you are an ATF agent and you come to my house, under false pretenses (buying property) to keep me from doing what I think is the right way to protect my family, and upon my refusal to co-operate, kill my wife and child. You best have an S on your chest.

Here is a link. BONE UP!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#Preparation_for_an_assault

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like the Sock Puppet really did piss his pants and run away.

Here's some more Ron Paul to close out the thread--enjoy!

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities
across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good
sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly
avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of
actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color
of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for
many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who
doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that
it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black
men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of
proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial
politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting
booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you
are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the
streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their
Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Blacks have "civil riqhts," preferences, set-asides for government
contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black
mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black tv shows,
black tv anchors, black scholorships and colleges, hate crime laws, and
public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.
Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that
race riots would erupt in our large cities. I'm now predicting this will be
the major problem of the 1990s.

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058
-------------------------

And why would a "staffer" use the term "I" throughout an article like this? Just curious...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a link. BONE UP!

That's okay, dude. Someone already "boned up" on you.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

If Ron Paul is a racist for not condemning a private cross burning absent of any real crime, then what does that make you? You, who so blatantly throws a childhood trauma in the face of the ones who suffered it? YOU are the one pissing in his pants. You are the one who can't come up with a sound arguement to justify his alarmist position of PC hawk. Sad! I know you are ashamed. Unless you are not programmed to know shame.

Your comment was a sad indictment of your ignorance, your narrow-minded attitude, and (most importantly) your intolerance to those who differ from you. YOU are the real biggot, Pale Rider, and it doesn't take a genius to see it. You have blatantly displayed it for the entire world to see. Climb back into the cesspool from whence you slithered and wait for your reptile brain to become less dominant, the slime your way back out and you might be able to understand how debating can work without ad-hominems.

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK


Sorry, the author of the textbook;s name was Colander's, not Coulter:
http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-David-C-Colander/dp/0072551194/ref=sr_1_41/102-8154065-9090542?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194553940&sr=8-41"

"The FED's FAULT not GOLD's fault!"

If it's not the Gold Standard's fault, then why did the countries that went off the Gold Standard recover faster than those that went off it? Your cite doesn't address that at all, sorry. There's empirical data on this. [It's a general problem with Austrians - they disfavor data in favor of theory.] The Gold Standard gives the monetary authorities less ability to maneouver and to correct mistakes. That's the problem with it. And if you looked at a graph of GDP growth, you'd see that the volatility of growth was higher in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, before we had the stabilization measures in the economy that we have.

Also, fixing the value of money against Gold is an intervention in the market, just as it is to set an implicit inflation target against a basket of goods. In the end, your ability to stick with the standard is based on the credibility and ability to stick to the standard. As the UK learned in the 1920s, that can be pretty tough. Further, you can't control both the money supply and the interest rate simultaneously, as we learnt during the experiments in monetarism in the early 1980s. Going to a gold standard risks spikes in interest rates, and the resultant unpredictability in investment and consumption decisions.

"Today, in the real world, there is hardly a brain devoted to economics or monetary policy that will not admit that"

Eason, try to keep a coherent thought in your head for five minutes. You called the dollar the "Sh*ttiest currency on Earth". I thought you were referring to the recent tanking of the dollar with respect to other currencies. Like I said, that has everything to do with budget and current deficits and much less to do with recent policy by the Fed.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

"Ron Paul? Ron Paul! Nut case, yes."

Yes, a presidential candidate who will actually follow the Constitution! What a bizarre idea!

"Significant in some way, no."

Because all the other candidates, Republican and Democrat, are also raising $4.3 million in one day, from 30,000+ donors, right?

Posted by: Mark Bahner on November 8, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, the author of the textbook;s name was Colander's, not Coulter:


I actually felt bad about debating with you after you cited Coulter. It just didn't seem right as you seem relatively intelligent. I feel much better about engaging you now. I will also look into the book and author now that I know it isn't the craziest person imaginable.

If it's not the Gold Standard's fault, then why did the countries that went off the Gold Standard recover faster than those that went off it?

It's simple, they did not have the Federal Reserve to botch the changeover. Those country's had more efficient handling of the actual switch over to fiat money. It's obvious! All the countries had the same resources and same idea, but WE are the ones who screwed it up for everyone....The institution that screwed the pooch is to blame, not the standard itself. You cannot blame gold for being gold, but you can blame the inept institution that mishandled the gold. There is empirical evidence of that as well. The citation I posted regarding this quote is a google search. If you cruised through well over one million websites and references adressing the subject in the two hours it took you to reply well, I digress, for the sole reason that there is no way I can keep up with your manic reading ability.

Synopsis: even under the defective gold exchange standard, there is evidence a considerable amount of room to avoid a devastating worldwide depression and monetary crisis.

If you don't believe that then I Just don't know what to tell you. Gold is unflinching, people flinch, the market crash was HUMAN ERROR not the fault of an inanimate metal hell bent on destroying the world. We will never know what could have happened had the humans not touched the forbidden fruit, is my only point. I think I've made that pretty clear.

So have the Austrians since you are now appealling to their authority in much the same manner as you appelled to Eichengreen's

Like you say, Austrians love evidence:

In their view, the key cause of the Depression was the expansion of the money supply in the 1920s that lead to an unsustainable credit driven boom. In their view, the Federal Reserve, which was created in 1913, shoulders much of the blame.


Also, fixing the value of money against Gold is an intervention in the market, just as it is to set an implicit inflation target against a basket of goods. In the end, your ability to stick with the standard is based on the credibility and ability to stick to the standard. As the UK learned in the 1920s, that can be pretty tough. Further, you can't control both the money supply and the interest rate simultaneously, as we learnt during the experiments in monetarism in the early 1980s. Going to a gold standard risks spikes in interest rates, and the resultant unpredictability in investment and consumption decisions.

I'm certanly a big enough man to admit when I've been non-plussed. This is a good point, but I can't help thinking that the "predictability" that is being striven for in investment and consumption decisions being over-regulated to the point that it is unhealthy for the average US citizen and "fixed in favor of" certain large money interests. Can you blame me? And, once again, it was the UK's handling of the return to the standard, at pre-war (WWI) parity, that was botched, Not the actual standard itself. Returning to the gold standard at this rate meant that the British economy was facing deflationary pressure. According to Rothbard, the lack of price flexibility in Britain meant that unemployment shot up, and the American government was asked to help. The United States was receiving a net inflow of gold and inflated further in order to help Britain return to the gold standard. Human Error, not Gold's fault! If they had tried returning at a different rate things may ahve been different. Inept humans. Gold makes no unwise decisions. It can't.


Eason, try to keep a coherent thought in your head for five minutes. You called the dollar the "Sh*ttiest currency on Earth". I thought you were referring to the recent tanking of the dollar with respect to other currencies. Like I said, that has everything to do with budget and current deficits and much less to do with recent policy by the Fed.


Why didn't you finish the quote? My reference to the Dollar bill was one I took liberty of exageration on. Of course I know the dollar fares much better than most. But the fed has a hand in it as well. It can't be all the fault of one president, regardless of how fundamentally retarded he is. the Fed hawks the interest rate. It apparent, terribly apparent that the housing market is on the downturn and will soon shut hundreds of thousands out of their own houses. Are you telling me that the Fed chairman's decisions on the interest rates have ZERO effect on our economy. And that the current state of affairs is to be blamed soley on a Neo Liberal (in a neo con disguise) in the white house. I can see where you are coming from, and I certainly agree (to a degree) but there are all kinds of alternatives, and NO ONE knows enough about the way the Central Bank affects the economy to say it has nothing to do with any negative effects on our economy. It just plain true taht no one really knows. I say find out, and until we do, make sure we get at least one DOVE as a chairman over the time the research takes.

I say it is still akin to praising Clinton for the prosperity of the Nineties because taxes were high. There are all kinds of influences that have simply been ignored, much like Eichengreen's paper. I dare say I have been at least the most coherent person you've argued with this year about the Fed. Give me that at least

Posted by: Eason on November 8, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

'I actually felt bad about debating with you after you cited Coulter.'

I'm sorry for getting the reference to David Colander's (I was getting him mixed up with a David Coulter who's an ex-CEO of Bank of America): guess I should have cited Mankiw or DeLong's textbooks instead.

Anyway, check it out. You'll see the trend towards decline in volatility in the economy over time.

'This is a good point, but I can't help thinking that the "predictability" that is being striven for in investment and consumption decisions being over-regulated to the point that it is unhealthy for the average US citizen'

This is thing I don't understand, this eat-your-castor-oil aspect of Austrian theory. If modern monetary policy and fiscal institutions which help stabilize the economy mitigate the effects of recession (which they do, comparing the severity of recessions in the nineteenth and early twentieth century compared to now), why are they so reprehensible?

'and "fixed in favor of" certain large money interests.'

I can't agree with you on this. Volatility in the economy disproportionately affects the poorer. If you have more money, you can tolerate a lot more risk than if you have little assets aside from your hand and brain.

'The citation I posted regarding this quote is a google search.'

You're gonna have to give me a more specific better homework assignment than that.

'According to Rothbard, the lack of price flexibility in Britain meant that unemployment shot up'

Gosh, there was an English economics professor from Cambridge who wrote a book in the 1930's about the problems in getting an economy out of recession if prices are sticky downward. Name begins with a K, but I'm having a hard time with economist's names so I better not guess. I wonder if Rothbard has heard of him?

'Are you telling me that the Fed chairman's decisions on the interest rates have ZERO effect on our economy.'

Eason, I didn't say that. What I said was that the weakness in the dollar against other currencies is a function of budget and trade deficits, plus the rise in quality of other investments (the BRIC countries being seen as being more-investor friendly, the maturing of the Euro as a currency.)

But do I think the Fed's monetary
"I say it is still akin to praising Clinton for the prosperity of the Nineties because taxes were high."

Actually, there's something to that: the decline in the Federal Deficit from the tax rises in the 1993 budget meant relatively more investment money going into the private sector rather than into bonds. (If you want a good laugh, look up Newt Gingrinch's and Forbes' magazines prediction of an immanent recession.)

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

"And, once again, it was the UK's handling of the return to the standard, at pre-war (WWI) parity, that was botched, Not the actual standard itself."

Yes, but if the Fed screws up the interest rate target, the FOMC can trim it at the next meeting as soon as the data shows there's been a mistake.

If you realise the exchange rate to gold that you've set the dollar against is wrong, or is no longer suitable for whatever reason (say the velocity of money drops like it did in the early 1980s), you either have interest rates spiking and a resultant recession, or you revalue against gold, blowing the credibility of the standard you so valued.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of the Great Satan on November 8, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hello sir,

I just found your short message on CBS and I support Ron Paul for President 2008.
I came back from Iraq just last year and I'm training troops going overseas right this moment.

Though I do not agree with Ron Paul 100% on the war in Iraq, I do understand why he wants to see the U.S. to pull out.
We are spending way too much for this war, we shouldn't have gone in, in the first place. Reason for that is: Pres. Bush didn't have a "declaration of War". I say, since now we are there we should stay until we win. The Iraqi people need us.

With only disagreeing with Ron Paul on the war in Iraq, I can put aside my opinion in that matter and cast my vote toward Ron Paul. Other then that, I agree with EVERYTHING else in Ron Pauls campaign.

GOD BLESS RON PAUL, he is the savoir of our Constitution and Americans freedom's. If he loses the GOP ticket, I'll write his name when it comes time to vote for a President.
If he loses this, we Americans will lose more of our freedoms and our Constitutional Rights!

SSG. McDonald

Posted by: Luckie McDonald on November 9, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

Wow.

So many people, fooled by a charlatan. We really do live in interesting times.

That someone was racist as Ron Paul could be taken seriously by anyone is a shocking development in the history of our country. He must really be splitting that Tancredo/David Duke vote, though.

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 9, 2007 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, your transparent attempt to show people you care who is racist and who isn't, has failed miserably. Anyone on this board can see that it is you who are the real bigot. Just ask the next Rp supporter of color what he or she thinks about RP's so called racist statements, shill.


Sock Puppet, you said:

Anyway, check it out. You'll see the trend towards decline in volatility in the economy over time.

I certainly will. A fresh perspective can never hurt. My main attraction to Paul is not his monetary policy, but his stance to stop the killing in the middle east and return the world's faith to the US economy. I have no doubt, given his record, that he can acomplish this. I also see RP as the only Republican who can beat Hill-Bot. The Democrats are as autocratic as the Republican base and beholden to even scarier interest groups (is that possible?).


This is thing I don't understand, this eat-your-castor-oil aspect of Austrian theory. If modern monetary policy and fiscal institutions which help stabilize the economy mitigate the effects of recession (which they do, comparing the severity of recessions in the nineteenth and early twentieth century compared to now), why are they so reprehensible?

The reason is simple. These institutions are full of self serving beauracrats. There is nothing inherantly wrong with the Fed, except the fact that this particular brand of human is controlling it and institutions like it. I think the Austrians have had it up to the Großglockner with Beauro/Autocrats, no?
Gold doesn't serve it's own self interest. Even Eichengreen called the solution to our current economics issues (which would be for the central banks of the world to closely coordinate more with the Fed) an avenue not to far removed from, "weak soup for dinner at the end of a bitter cold day." These institutions are affecting our economies in ways we cannot even fathom, and may never even realize. Better that they just go, IMHO.

You're gonna have to give me a more specific better homework assignment than that.

The aim was to show you that there is much more information out there about what ways the Fed negatively affects us than even the smartest Austrian Economist with the most funded research vessel may know. I hate Homework and those who assign it, sorry.

Yes, but if the Fed screws up the interest rate target, the FOMC can trim it at the next meeting as soon as the data shows there's been a mistake.

All fine and dandy but, to me, an apparent layman on the subject, this sounds like: Listen, I know that the Gold market works itself out, but since it does so rather painfully sometimes, why don't we set up an institute of regulators to regulate the market that is supposed to be free from regulation? What if the regulators mess up, you ask? Well, we can have a group of sub-regulators that regulates the regulations, and in order to keep the Sub-regs in step we can place all kinds of regulations on how they regulate.

It's too much red tape! There are too many Beauracrats! In response to RP's recent accusations that the Fed has robbed US citizens of wealth, Bernanke stated, "If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they’re going to buy consumer goods in dollars, then as a typical American … then the decline in the dollar – the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive,". Excuse me, but I feel like this autocrat should be a little more clear cut when he is answering to Congress. Seriously, I have learned more practical tid bits about the economy and The Fed from my debate with a sock puppet than I have watching three seperate senate hearings with the Fed Chariman in the hot seat (or the luke warm sofa chair as Congress has lost any semblance of a spine). And yes, I try to watch as many of these on C-span as I can physically handle (which ain't really that many).


If you realise the exchange rate to gold that you've set the dollar against is wrong, or is no longer suitable for whatever reason (say the velocity of money drops like it did in the early 1980s), you either have interest rates spiking and a resultant recession, or you revalue against gold, blowing the credibility of the standard you so valued.

I really understand the setbacks that Gold has, but from what I understand of it, it is far less worse than an institute full of self servers who are part of the same money machine that has been betting against the US for the last 50 years, and as a result driving the dollars worth consistently down. I'll try to explain the best way I can. These are beliefs that I have put together as best I can but in no way tend to try and prove. I can't prove it, I'm merely applying the law of corrupt govt beauracracies to the fact that no one really knows exactly how the fed affects the economy of our antion and (now) the world.

The Gold standard certainly has drawbacks and a sharp increase in interest due to poor exchange rate predictions is nothing to sneeze at, but isn't it better than a credit driven crunch perpetrated by a large crowd of money changers, for lack of better description, that refuse to be open and honest about their exploits in investing against the dollar in order to increase their proffits? Increasing their proffits is the main point. It's proffit driven, beholden only to profits for shareholders. Profits for shareholders, not the American Public that the Institution is supposed to be serving. The Fed is just like the NSA or the CIA or the IRS or Monsanto for that matter. They're hedging they're bets AGAINST the American Public by making sure their exploits are A) Well hidden, and B)They always win (ie make money), regardless of who loses.

Anyway, my main attraction to Paul is the fact that he is the SOLE candidate to clearly state and remain loyal to that statement, that he will bring our young men and women back home to their families. God bless those unfortunate bastards who have to fight over there, or anywhere for that matter. We are not the Roman Empire, and I refuse to live under a psuedo-military dictatorship, that passes around the top spot, from a Bush to a Clinton, like the Wayon brothers pass a joint at Thanksgiving! It has been intersting Sock Puppet and I hope I have at least conviced you that not all Ron-bots are simply bots! =)

Posted by: Eason on November 9, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK
So many people, fooled by a charlatan.

I suggest you look in a dictionary for the definition of "charlatan":

"(char�la�tan) mountebank: a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes"

"A charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money or advantage by false pretenses."

Ron Paul is about the farthest person AWAY from a "charlatan" who has run for president in the last several elections. He is in no way a "flamboyant deceiver" or attempting "obtain money or advantage by false pretenses."

Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate in the race, for either party, who will take seriously his Oath of Office to "preserve and protect the Constitution."

Certainly Bill Clinton--a two-term president--far better fits the definition of "charlatan" than Ron Paul! Look at how Bill Clinton bombed the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan, and then laid out smoke and mirrors to pretend it was something other than a plant mixing and packaging medicines that saved lives. How many people do you think died from the Al Shifa plant being destroyed, and Bill Clinton not having the honesty to admit his mistake and make sure the plant was rebuilt?

Do you think Ron Paul would ever do such a thing? (Of course, Dr. Paul wouldn't have a sexual relationship with an intern, so he wouldn't ever feel the need to blow something up in order to look "presidential"!)

That someone was racist as Ron Paul could be taken seriously by anyone is a shocking development in the history of our country.

Oh, good grief. Get a clue. Do a Google search and learn something. For example, what Democrat ***currently serving in the Senate*** (who is in fact the longest-serving U.S. Senator in history, and has twice been the Senate Majority Leader) said these things:

"The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

?

Or that he would "...never submit to fight beneath that banner (the American flag) with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

?

(Note: He made good on his pledge...in part because he never fought anywhere.)

Posted by: Mark Bahner on November 9, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

um sir, please don't assume, that since you obviously can't comprehend his "complicated" economic policies, that it is a reflection on everyone else's understanding. I will provide a summary for you plain and simple. We need to STOP spending money on a government that feels the need to breast feed us, and police a world (where it has NO juridiction). THen MAybe START paying attention to our very serious economic problems like social security, medicare, the 30 billion that we printed last year with no backing. and our ever impressive deficit. THere is no candidate that is giving real solutions besides Ron Paul. You want to know where his fan base is coming from? Hi my name is Seth; Im a conscerned citizen. Meet the thousands of my peers that can figure out this internet thingy and hundreds of friends that left comments below.

Posted by: Seth on November 10, 2007 at 3:18 AM | PERMALINK

Clearly you don't get it but there is hope for you yet.

Dr. Paul is outspoken/well spoken, truthful, and cares about his country.

Even quite a few of us Canadians support him.

The "Fruitcake" comment was rude and uncalled for.
Show a little class if you expect to be taken seriously.

Posted by: Canadian Patriot on November 11, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, Strung Puppet...Where do they all come from? Ron Paul is a candidate that I can vote for in good conscious, not the lessor of two evils.

Posted by: jf on November 11, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

Paul , not a straight talker? No I know the person who wrote this piece has no credibility. You have never heard him give direct answers to those questions? What are you watching? We'll grow up, if you start doing some serious reporting.

Posted by: Javier on November 13, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Where do Paul fans come from? The real world.
I am sixty, female, and I've seen it all (politicians). I have concluded that the Founding Fathers were Libertarians. Read any of their many writings and the Constition!
Many of us (boomers) have almost given up, but Ron Paul is so refreshg.
By the way, fellow Christians, even Jesus gave us a choice. You cannot force people to serve your God. This is a free country. For this reason, you can serve Christ freely! So PRAY for Paul's election.

Posted by: katherine on December 3, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly