Ron Paul on Jay Leno
Ron Paul had a GREAT SHOWING on Jay Leno.
(someone can embed the video if they like)
Paul did an excellent job of dispelling some silly ideas that people have about his policies. You either agree with him or you don't. But you should agree or not on his terms...not some BS twisting of views....(See RS and DK for example). With Leno, Paul covered the core issues that make him my only choice to support with a clear conscience.
He explained his ideas behind revamping SS and PAYING FOR IT.
He also explained the reality of what it would mean to have no IRS in terms of revenue...or at least a much smaller IRS. Leno did make the gaffe of mentioning IRS and money to pave roads in the sentence (that's paid by gas taxes!) but that can be forgiven.
Most of all, I loved that he explained the connection between corruption, lobbying and a LARGE TAX PURSE TO FIGHT OVER.
A worthwhile viewing. Lots of applause from the audience. I even put my hands together for a sec lounged out my sofa.
- John's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
I wish I could go along with the Ron Paul thing...
It's very tempting. I actually don't get the whole "Republicans don't like any of their current candidates" funk. I like Rudy. I like Thompson. I think Romney is all right. I don't particularly like McCain, but we could do worse. Hunter and Tancredo are nutcases, but it's just a matter of time before they're out of the race. The only one I really despise who has gotten any traction is Huckabee.
And then there's Ron Paul.
I don't completely agree with him on Iraq, but I could actually forgive him on that. I don't agree with him on opposing free trade treaties, but I could forgive him on that. I don't agree with him on Austrian economics or the gold standard, but I could forgive him on that. And overall, I agree with the Club for Growth whitepaper
arguing that he makes the perfect the enemy of the good. But again, I can probably forgive him on that.
I happen to think that no matter who Republicans nominate, they're going to be in for a *tough* race. I would support any of these candidates -- except perhaps Huckabee, whose economic populism really disgusts me -- against any of the Democrats. (I wish more Republicans would do the same. I really don't get why so many social conservatives say they would jump to a third party in a Rudy vs. Hillary race. Even if abortion is your big issue, Rudy should instantly win on the issue of judges.)
And if we're gonna lose anyway... we might as well nominate a choice, not an echo. Think Goldwater '64. He got pummeled, but he revitalized what was previously becoming an increasingly irrelevant conservative movement. He created a powerful new libertarian/conservative alliance, and the end result was not just the Reagan Revolution in this country but a worldwide pro-capitalist economic revolution.
Ron Paul's antiwar views will probably win him a lot more votes against Hillary than they'll lose him. The problem is that his economic views -- as much as I may agree with them in most cases -- are going to *lose* him a lot of votes, once the average voter learns what they are. Sad to say, a lot of voters *like* the government redistribution programs we've set up. And our tax system has become tilted in a way such that a lot of people pay zero or even negative federal income taxes.
It's sad for me to admit, but the "small government" constituency just isn't that big. And this is, in the end, the reason I believe Ron Paul is absolutely guaranteed to go down in a massive Goldwater-scale defeat in the general election: his economic views are *way* outside the mainstream of American politics.
I still want to win this one, which is why I'm currently a Rudy supporter. I think Rudy has a decent, if not great, chance of winning and has a pretty solid economic record. I also hope that nominating him might start to grow interest in the Republican Party again outside the social-conservative and Southern demographics -- we need to pick up some of the ground we've lost in regions like the West, and among moderates and libertarians. My hope is that Rudy can do that without alienating social conservatives and the South.
I see where you're coming from on Paul
even though I'm not a republican. And No, I dislike the other GOP candidates for a few to many reasons depending on the particular man. But the war and foreign policy postures are a numero uno deal breaker for me on the whole lot minus Paul.
Beyond that, I have my problems with all of them.
But as for Paul, let's clarify a few things:
Paul is the most unabashed free trader EVER. His opposition of "free trade agreements" (in quotes for a reason) has to do with the nature of agreement and its details. In this case, Paul opposes them, not for protectionist reasons, but because they riddled with clauses and conditions and they weaken the sovereignty of congress on trade issues.
Now, while I find Paul's high standards on the matter admirable, I would vote for the agreements simply because they're better than nothing. Paul is basically "biting his nose to spite his face" when votes no on these. His idea of simple free trade is lower and/or eliminate all barriers and tariffs. And he's right on this. Problem is that it won't happen and he needs to be more pragmatic.
I'm curious as to why you disagree on Austrian economics. While I don't claim to "Austrian", I can say that the methodology is sound and compelling.
The gold standard thing is a little fuzzy. He doesn't want a gold standard per se. On this, he's actually being pragmatic by wanting to introduce competition against the fiat dollar with hard money. It's a little complex but it's reasonable.
Austrian Economics
The definitive treatment of that subject can be found here
. Austrian economics is pretty much an irrelevancy at this point. The real debates in economics are now between the neoclassical school and the behaviorist school.
That's not necessarily a bad thing. I'd abolish the UN, IMF, and World Bank, but the WTO is worth keeping. The WTO doesn't infringe on our sovereignty -- it just makes rulings about whether our laws are protectionist. It doesn't force us to change those laws -- thats's still our choice. And usually when the WTO rules against us, the WTO is right and we are wrong.
I'm not sure what "hard money" is supposed to mean.
It could mean a gold or other commodity standard, in which case it's not a good idea. It's very odd how some folks who would oppose government price fixing in any other market suddenly start supporting it when you start talking about the gold market.
It could mean private banks issuing currency, but now we're off in la-la land.
Or it could mean hard-nosed Fed policy to clamp down on inflation, in which case just about every economist on the planet would agree (including Bernanke and the entire Fed board). Bernanke has been very clear that he wants an inflation target of 1-2%. Inflation at that level is completely harmless and perhaps even beneficial. The problem is that most inflation metrics have a lot of noise in the short run (if we went outside that target range, we might not really know that we had done so for 6-12 months), and the causal relationship from interest rates to inflation or from the money supply to inflation is itself poorly understood.
Lordy,
I've read that Caplan piece several times as I've gotten to understand Austrian Economics better. It's worth noting the context:
Caplan was an Austrian and is now more a mix of public choice, neo-classical with a lingering touch of Austrianism.
Caplan is one of my favorite figures in the field. I rwad his recent book and I read his stuff everyday at EconLog.
That said, I wouldn't call his paper "definitive". Mind you, the level of disagreement and the nature of disagreement he has with Austrian School is quite deep and subtle...to the point of being indiscernible on a mainstream level. In fact, he had a formal debate with fellow GMU colleague and "Austrian" Peter Boettke in front ofg an audience at GMU on the matter. I remembering reading the intro by Caplan where he stated that considering how much he and Peter agree on virtually anything and everything in real economic policy preferences and attitudes, it's kinda funny that the two could really "debate" anything. But they can. And that debate is on the deep philosophical underpinnings of Austrianism and how it coincides with and clashes with mainstream thought.
It's really a "chicken or the egg" difference. The reality that stems from the ideas is quite similar.
Don't want to repeat what he said...
...but only some of the agreements are highly technical in nature. Sure, sure, the disagreements about utility curves, indifference, etc. are technical. But the disagreements about, say, the business cycle are real disagreements that manifest them in different policy choices.
For example, an Austrian economist might advocate the gold standard, whereas a neoclassical economist would more likely advocate fiat money managed by a central bank with a strict 1% inflation target.
Also, Lordy
Keep in mind that many Austrian points are deeply embedded in economic thinking.
In fact, if you read closely in Caplan's article, he doesn't argue that it is irrelevant. Rather he says that whatever uniqueness and worthwhile discoveries the Austrians made should simply be seen as contributions to a greater Neo-classical body of knowledge and not a separate school.
You'd be surprised how relevant it really is. But economics has become a "what have you done for me lately" field and there Austrians haven't done much besides defend what they already know.
Take the recent Nobel Prize in Economics, the research that was awarded the prize was directly rooted in trying to "solve" what Austrians consider unsolvable and therefore not worth serious weight: the use of dispersed knowledge in society...see Hayek. Austrians contend that the research was an attempt but hardly an answer. It's as if Hayek said man cannot artificially create another equally intelligent being and the prize winner made a robot that responds to basic stimulus and has an IQ of 7. Some will say...HA! Hayek was wrong after all! This in the breakthru! Austrians will say the gap between what Hayek and what these prize winners discovered is still hopelessly large and that little weight should be placed its value.
Personally, I think we will create an equally intelligent being before we ever disprove Hayek's point about Knowledge and Society.
As for the gold standard, the only real valid concern I see is that we might grow more slowly since such standards will prevent super cheap credit that clashes with real indicators to fuel expansions. But on the bright side, it will smooth out business cycles.
Gold standard has many problems
Here
is a reasonably solid article explaining them.
The gold standard causes wild inflationary/deflationary swings in the short run (new gold discoveries, etc.), while being modestly deflationary in the long run (gold will be discovered slower than the economy as a whole will grow). Deflation is really dangerous -- it causes depressions because of sticky prices/wages. (Wages rarely tend to decrease in nominal dollars, causing unemployment to skyrocket when deflation hits.) The fixed exchange rates also cause problems. And the whole thing is a giant government subsidy to an economically unproductive activity (mining and storing gold).
I understand what you're saying
and have also read very convincing stuff on using some sort of gold standard. I simply don't know enough to know who is more right.
What I do know is that as far as Paul is concerned, he isn't trying to get a gold standard implemented, he's talking about competition between currencies and gradually at that. He also isn't just talking about gold. other metals and commodities are possible. He simply wants an end to fiat currency.
The main reason, besides inflation, I think is because it restrains spending by magnifying government borrowing which would cause interest rates to spike and no way to stop without cutting spending.
Again, these are all ideas and spiff-balling. I am for a tighter money supply but I'm not standing behind any particular policy.
3 way Race...
I agree that in a 2 way race a libertarian, even a well-financed one, wouldn't be able to win. But a libertarian in an anti-establishment climate could win in a 3 way race. I believe Ron Paul is ultimately going to run as an independent(unless his primary performance disappoints, then he will return to his congressional seat as originally planned).
As a Libertarian I could never vote for someone who made this quote:
Plus Rudy has surrounded himself with the whos who of the Neocons, including the Queen bee of them of all, Norman Poderhertz, who I think is literally insane.
That quote
I saw it before, and no, I don't like it either. At the same time, there are plenty of equally horrifying anti-individualism quotes that you can find for the Democrats in the race.
When I saw it I almost wondered if it was somehow horribly taken out of context. So I looked at the original speech
. The context doesn't help very much, but the overall thrust of the speech seems pretty unobjectionable to me. Even that paragraph, aside from those last few sentences, says something I would hope to be largely uncontroversial: respect for authority is not all a bad thing. The quote itself just stands out as... weird.
I see what he's trying to say in the quote... it just seems like he said it in a really weird way. I agree that freedom doesn't mean that anyone can do whatever they want -- there will always need to be some restrictions on what people are allowed to do. I also agree that freedom necessarily involves individuals ceding some authority to the state. I would think only anarchists would really disagree with these two statements.
If I were to delete the one sentence "Freedom is about authority", which just makes me go "Huh???", it wouldn't even be all that bad.
I guess it's all a question of whether you take a charitable reading or an uncharitable reading of it.
No one will ever confuse Rudy with being a libertarian, but I would think he would have at least some appeal to libertarian-leaning folks who are turned off by the social conservative wing of the Republican Party.
But what about Iraq?
Giuliani has made it quite clear that he believes we need to stay in Iraq. And he has also been one of the loudest saber-rattlers on Iran, as well.
One of the primary attractions of Paul has been his call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and his comments downplaying the need to attack Iran.
Since the war and its continued devastating costs constitute the largest issue of the campaign for many, Giuliani is not attractve for those who would be attracted to Paul.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Rudy
To be completely honest, I think that if Giuliani is elected president and we have another attack, that'll be the last presidential election we have. This guy is about raw executive power above all else.
When asked if waterboarding is torture, he replied "it depends on who is doing it". That's very dangerous and smacks of disrespect for the law.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Doesn't Thompson have fewer negatives than Rudy?
I know Giuliani has always had high approval ratings but he also has high name recognition and he's faced some very public criticism. Once people know enough about Thompson he seems to have a better +/- gap. For example, these polls
from mid September (scroll down) shows that if you ignore "No opinion" answers Giuliani is +58/-42 while Thompson is +63/-37, ie net 10 points better. Fred does even better among Republicans.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Hmm, supposedly Thompson's negatives are much higher
in more recent polls. This comment
references premium Rasmussen polling from just last week that doesn't look good for Fred.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Video Embedded...
Btw. what's up with Chusid on FD basically calling Paul a Stormfront Trooper...
you da man.
thanks.
Paul was very likeable on Leno
...and I just watched him on Bloomberg, and he was also very reasonable on there.
I'm inclined to soften my stance on him that was formed on what I saw when he spoke to the Family Research Council, which bears little resemblance to what I see when he speaks to general audiences. It was a pretty pathetic speech IMO, but it was probably unfair to put so much weight on one speech-- perhaps it was just an off day for Paul. I will withhold further judgment until I see more of him speaking and interacting in a wide variety of situations, particularly in front of right wing audiences.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Skymutt
politics is a sleazy, disgusting affair. I liked Leno's joke on the matter when he asked Paul why after 2 noble professions, he chose to get into sleazy one.
More than other candidates, Paul is the one who would most agree with that. Paul knows it's sleazy. Libertarians like Paul (and me!) see a direct and related correlation between the level of power in govt. and the level of sleaze. They mutually reinforce each other...which is why he wants to shrink its power and leave less to sleaze.
That said, all politicians, Paul included, HAVE TO pander to different groups and play their buttons to win support. Like I had said in another thread on this, every politician can be seen at his/her worse when appealing to narrow interest groups like the kooks at the FRC.
Paul is at his best when speaking broadly about his key issues:
sound economics and minimal political corruption (because they go together), prudent foreign policy and civil liberties...all wrapped in the idea of real freedom and choice.
when he veers into special interest group speeches where he must play the cultural and social conservative card, it's ugly.
I read your Paul Diary on Kos, very unfair...
How many times do you want him to spit in the face of the GOP base. Paul went to the earlier Values Voter Debate and laid out his opposition to federal laws against drugs, prostitution, pornography, and homosexuality. He had the courage to advocate marriage should be a private contract and held firm when the obligatory Terry Schiavo question came up. To boot, he also expressed opposition to any constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Ron Paul is an OYBGN physician, he is opposed to fetal stage abortions. Give him a break. He recently did an interview with Adam Curry(the former MTV VJ and host of Headbangers Ball, who has become a big Paul supporter) and Paul expressed the opinion that abortion was a private matter in the early stages of pregnancy.
Here's a video of a Paul Rally
where he tells it like it is...drug legalization, marriage should be a private contract, let gays marry if they so choose...no pardon for Bush if legitmately convicted of War Crimes.
What other politician running for their party's nomination would have the guts to say he wouldn't pardon the sitting president--a member of his own party--of war crimes if legitimately convicted.
Give the man a break. The Bush establishment absolutely hates him and tried to defeat him in Texas back in the 90s and Paul wiped their asses clean. This is a guy who can call Bush a war criminal and still get elected as a republican in the reddest of red districts in Tom Delay Territroy in Texas.
If the congressional democrats had half the balls of Ron Paul, they wouldn't be sitting at an approval rating below Dick Cheney. Think about that...
well put.
But now give Skymutt a break. He said in the post that he may have been a little too hard on Paul after watching his FRC speech.
Hey, if that was all I ever saw of Paul, I wouldn't like him either.
But because I have followed and cheered for Paul for so long, I was well aware of the realties he was dealing with in giving that silly speech to the so-cons.
What Paul wrought
An excellent summation. Because, quite obviously, they do not, and their base is already making excuses.
Perhaps Paul's success to date will inspire others to take what they thought were politically riskier stances. Feingold in the Senate tends to do this as well, IMHO. So even if Paul fails the nomination yet remains in the House, his running may yet help other Congressmen discover their, um, backbone ;}
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Ron Paul: 1 million in 8 hours...
Remember, remember the 5th of November...
They got 1.8 million today and counting...
Link
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson