Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ron paul. Show all posts
Friday, June 15, 2007
Reason: Can a libertarian Republican appeal to Democrats?
Brian Doherty (author of Radicals for Capitalism) has an article in Reason Online in which he writes: “One of the keys to why Paul should have wider appeal is that while he is certainly very libertarian, he is in many ways more federalist and constitutionalist than libertarian in a strict sense.”
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Chicago Tribune: What's wrong with a clutter of candidates?
The Washington Post recently decried the "clutter of candidates" in the debates. In an editorial in today's Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman responds:
“Only mavericks will challenge the entrenched verities that generally give us policy options running the gamut from A to B. When was the last time you heard a politician propose to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, as Ron Paul did in the GOP debate?”
“Only mavericks will challenge the entrenched verities that generally give us policy options running the gamut from A to B. When was the last time you heard a politician propose to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, as Ron Paul did in the GOP debate?”
Friday, May 11, 2007
Lou Minatti Sees Stupid People
Lou Minatti appropriately juxtaposes an image of the kool-aid man with a discussion of Ron Paul's fans.
He's right about at least one thing: the mainstream media are not "conspiring" against Paul. They mostly show us what we're willing to pay to hear, see, or read. And since the vast majority of media consumers have no idea who Ron Paul even is (he still polls at < 1%, post-debate), they couldn't care less about him. Heck, most people wouldn't pay to read about Ron Paul even if they did know who he was.
Even so, as Radley Balko wrote in Ron Paul, The Real Republican (FoxNews.com, 2007-02-20): "Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored."
It was indeed hilarious to watch the other candidates scramble to revise and clarify their remarks in support of a national ID card after Paul came out against it. And I don't think anyone ever expected the final two words of a Republican debate to be "habeas corpus".
After a performance like that, I can forgive Paul for having a bunch of over-zealous supporters. Where's that kool-aid jar again? I'm thirsty.
He's right about at least one thing: the mainstream media are not "conspiring" against Paul. They mostly show us what we're willing to pay to hear, see, or read. And since the vast majority of media consumers have no idea who Ron Paul even is (he still polls at < 1%, post-debate), they couldn't care less about him. Heck, most people wouldn't pay to read about Ron Paul even if they did know who he was.
Even so, as Radley Balko wrote in Ron Paul, The Real Republican (FoxNews.com, 2007-02-20): "Paul's presence in the race is important because he'll put issues on the table that would otherwise be completely ignored."
It was indeed hilarious to watch the other candidates scramble to revise and clarify their remarks in support of a national ID card after Paul came out against it. And I don't think anyone ever expected the final two words of a Republican debate to be "habeas corpus".
After a performance like that, I can forgive Paul for having a bunch of over-zealous supporters. Where's that kool-aid jar again? I'm thirsty.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
US News & World Report: Ron Paul's Online Rise (2007-05-09 1500 ET)
“Technorati spokesman Aaron Krane confirmed that, to the best of the company's knowledge, the online support for Paul is genuine.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
