22 Nov 2011

Ron Paul Disarms Occupiers

Ron Paul 58 Comments

This is simply amazing. It’s funny how the various objections to Ron Paul as a “serious” candidate keep falling away. “OK sure, he can raise a bunch of money, OK sure he can win a straw poll, OK sure he can debate well, OK sure he predicted a lot of this stuff much better than (say) Bernanke, OK sure he can speak intelligently–whether or not you agree with his views–on all the issues, OK sure he actually does fairly well in head-to-head polls against Obama, OK sure he’s got a long voting record that matches the Constitutional rhetoric that talk radio hosts champion day in and day out…but c’mon, he doesn’t resonate with the people like these other guys…” Oh yeah? (HT2 LR)

58 Responses to “Ron Paul Disarms Occupiers”

  1. Robert Fellner says:

    He is doing phenomenally well. He was a voice of sanity and reason in an otherwise truly terrifying debate on foreign policy tonight.(Huntsman was good as well) His base continues to grow steadily and that is being reflected in the polls. The efforts being made by Tom Woods’ Revolution Pac in the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire can be that final boost to put him in serious reach of winning both of those states. If that were to happen, I’d imagine his chances to win the Republican nomination outright would skyrocket.

  2. Gene Callahan says:

    Well, Bob, I think Paul is a “serious” candidate in that he is very serious about his ideas, and is not running for his own ego.

    That right there is a good reason he can’t win. But the huge reason is that he is an antiwar candidate in a party that is 70-80% hawk. When push comes to shove, at least 2/3 of GOP voters will vote for absolutely whoever is left, rather than Paul, because his foreign policy views are so contrary to theirs. (Can you imagine how hard FOX and Rush and so on are going to dump on Paul if it actually comes down to him versus [any hawk at all]. And picture the $s defense contractors will pump to whoever is left versus Paul.)

    And I say this liking his foreign policy views, and wishing someone with them could win the GOP nomination. I just don’t see how. It’s a bit like if someone advocating, say, eliminating Social Security were running for the Democratic nomination.

    But, everyone is wrong occasionally. It even happened to me once. Perhaps this will be number two.

    • geoih says:

      Quote from Gene Callahan: “When push comes to shove, at least 2/3 of GOP voters will vote for absolutely whoever is left, rather than Paul, because his foreign policy views are so contrary to theirs.”

      Then the GOP has a problem, because they can’t elect anybody with only 2/3’s of the GOP votes. Paul supporters will likely not vote for Romney et. al. This GOP strategy will only succeed at putting Obama back in the White House.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        “because they can’t elect anybody with only 2/3′s of the GOP votes”

        Well, many, many people have been elected who got less than 2/3 of their party’s votes in primaries! Barrack Obama is one of them.

        In any case, it very well may put Obama back in the White House, geoih, but that is what will happen nonetheless. If your main concern is having an aggressive foreign policy, then, after all, Obama is a much better choice than Paul!

    • Dan says:

      He is now in the lead in Iowa with the latest poll. I’m pretty sure that most in Iowa’s republican base disagree with him on foreign policy but because of the economy it doesn’t seem to stop him there. I’m not sure he can win but I think he has a shot at it this time around.

    • Anonymous says:

      But Mr. Callahan, if the government is pro-war, then as a Christian, you should submit to them not only because of possible punishment, but also as a matter of conscience and respect. Romans 13:1-7.

      You are not giving your conscience and respect to the government, when you say you are against the government’s foreign policy and wish it were different. The authority of the individuals in government was established by God. You are disrespecting God’s authority, and only submitting yourself because of the possible punishment criteria, but failing to give your conscience and respect to it. You are therefore going to hell.

      • Gene Callahan says:

        I know you’re just being an idiot, but are you aware that the person who wrote that was beheaded for refusing to obey government commands?

        • Anonymous says:

          I know you’re just being an idiot

          Haha, win.

          but are you aware that the person who wrote that was beheaded for refusing to obey government commands?

          Are you aware that the last person who did not actually respect and give conscience to the government on this thread, ended up violating Romans 13:1-7, and is therefore going to receive far worse pain and torment from God than a simple painless beheading?

  3. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Certainly he’s a talented politician – which means running a solid campaign. The question is – do enough people agree with him to get him to the White House? THAT’S what we wonder about. He wouldn’t have been in office so long if he weren’t a good politician Bob!

    • Richie says:

      What’s your point? That a good politician equals a liar?

      • Gene Callahan says:

        What an utterly stupid remark, Richie.

        • Richie says:

          Gene, at least I didn’t call him mentally retarded.

          • Gene Callahan says:

            Come now, Richie, no one thinks Ron Paul is mentally retarded.

            • Silas Barta says:

              You’re not famliar with the “Paultard” appelation, are you?

              • ArgosyJones says:

                ‘Paultard’ refers to a Ron Paul Enthusiast, not to Mr. Paul himself.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        No… a good politician (in the sense of being good at being a politician) is a guy that can stay in office a while. Such a person usually has a lot of the qualities Bob lists – and Paul is nothing if not a good politician.

        So is Bernie Sanders – but Sanders will never be president. I highly doubt Paul will either. I personally take comfort in both of those expectations.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          No… a good politician (in the sense of being good at being a politician) is a guy that can stay in office a while.

          What a terrible standard.

          No mention of intellectual impact. No mention of reducing the amount of violence against innocent people. No mention of virtues, morals, or even policies. It’s all a matter of how long they can retain authority.

          By your standard, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Castro, and Guddafi are better politicians than JFK and Ron Paul.

          • Robert Fellner says:

            Yes, Daniel_Kuehn has a terrible time understanding what words mean and using them in an appropriate manner.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        If I’m wrong, kudos to all the libertarians out there. I’m not sure it would be the best thing for the country, but I’m not sure it would be the worst thing either.

        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          Well – I take that back – it would probably be pretty bad right now given the state of the economy. But in any other time, I’m not sure a Paul presidency would be all that terrible for the country.

          • Richie says:

            I think most people that are so excited about Paul’s chances are a little delusional. If by some miracle Paul gets elected, he will be limited by Congress.

            • Captain Anarchy says:

              …or assassinated by the CIA.

  4. AP Lerner says:

    This op-ed sums up Paul’s (lack) of understanding of the monetary system.


    But of course that makes him no different than any other candidate, so sure, I guess he wins the beauty price in an ugly contest.

    PS. Mosler and el figured out the credit bubble (fyi – it’s not just housing) back in the early 90’s. So if anticipating economic trends is what qualifies you for president, then there would be an MMT’er in the office tomorrow.

    • AP Lerner says:

      late 90’s. oops.

      • JFF says:

        90’s what?

    • Daniel Kuehn says:

      Also remember the excellent Andolfatto blog post, which he wimped out of. Anyone can find the full text of that post on my blog.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        Andolfatto never laid a hand on Paul or the Austrians. There’s no evidence he has the slightest understanding of basic Austrian concepts.

        The dollar does indeed buy 5 cents of what it bought 100 years ago and banks lend money they create out of thin air. (No Austrian denies that once the individual thefts of purchasing power occur with each burst of funny money that prices tend to re-adapt to reality – isn’t that our main theme???? – which is then denied by the statists).

        Who’s trying to intimidate whom here? Apparently, we must endure the funny money regime to cure the problem that doesn’t exist so that we might all suffer from the boom/bust cycle. Just don’t think about it too hard or the cool kids will make fun of you.

        For the record, I’m no fan of Reason magazine and I don’t like the Nolan Chart (even though I apparently had a variation in a bumper sticker on my car in 1974).


        • Daniel Kuehn says:

          Yes, we statists are all just ignorant – I know the drill Bob.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            I’m not convinced you’re so ignorant. Andolfatto threw in a bunch of deception, double-talk and jive too.

          • Silas Barta says:

            Yeah, good point, Daniel_Kuehn, I’ve never seen you accuse anti-Keynesians of being that way.

            Wait, what?

        • Desolation Jones says:

          “There’s no evidence he has the slightest understanding of basic Austrian concepts. ”

          Whenever I hear Bob Roddis repeat this line after someone attacks Austrian economics, I think of this.



    • Bob Roddis says:

      What nonsense. The entire MMT scam is based upon ignoring the fact that creditors expect to be repaid with money that can purchase approximately the same amount of real goods and services that it can at present. That’s the promise that cannot be kept. The fact that the fascist state can issue money out of thin air (with which the brilliant Andolfatto does not agree) is not going to solve the problem of where the real goods and services are going to come from.

      These MMTers can’t be serious, can they?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      AP, this truly wasn’t my attempt to say Ron Paul is awesome on monetary issues, though I think he is. My point was, you don’t catch Ron Paul saying completely ridiculous things, like there are 53 states, that FDR calmed people on TV after the 29 crash, that China is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, etc. So yes a person might think Paul’s views are “crazy,” but they’re a “crazy” based on his deep reading on these issues.

      Of any of the Republican candidates right now, Paul could easily speak off the cuff for 20 minutes on any major issue (entitlement reform, deficits, monetary policy, foreign policy, civil liberties, etc.) and sound well-informed. Maybe Romney is the only other one.

      • JFF says:

        Romney could very-well “sound” well-informed but not “be” well-informed.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I think that the more average people hear Ron Paul speak that they will realize that it is the establishment views that are irrational and insane. Funny money plus wars in countries we never heard of? What for? The entire state enterprise is based upon the masses believing in problems that don’t exist and that the “experts” have some sort of special knowledge and expertise to solve these “problems”. Ron Paul makes it easy for average people to understand that such a belief is completely bogus.

        Further, it is alway instructive to newbies that his opponents have nothing of substance to offer in response to his statements, just like the anti-Austrian commenters on this blog and every other pro-Austrian blog.

        • MamMoTh says:

          Forget it.

          Average people just want cheap stolen gas to squander while driving around to give meaning to their life.

          • Joseph Fetz says:


            Why do you keep bringing this up? I am serious. Did Roddis say something to that effect? Or, are you implying that that is a belief that he holds?

            What’s the deal?

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        re: “My point was, you don’t catch Ron Paul saying completely ridiculous things”

        I would be careful about this sort of thing, Bob. You are comparing what are often slips of the tongue to what some people consider to be real, genuinely held delusions on Paul’s part. 53 states? OK. When it comes down to it nobody thinks Obama thinks there are actually 53 states. Paul actually believes a lot of the stuff we are shocked at.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          What is shocking to hear is that our fiat money system is unquestionably unconstitutional and illegal (and therefore, so are MMT and Keynesianism) as explained by Ed Vieira:


        • Funlight says:

          Kuehn, what you wrote is correct but it doesn’t follow Murphy’s post at all. I’m not suggesting you didn’t understand it, but maybe you lost your chain of thought after copying Murphy’s quote?

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          What shocks you specifically, Daniel? You may have mentioned it in the past, but it would be quite hard for me to track it down. Can you give me a short list?

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Daniel, you’re missing my point here. It’s probably confusing since you know I actually agree with Paul’s “nutjob” views on money (and how to deal with terrorists etc.).

          I should have added Newt Gingrich to the list. I’m saying, Paul is never going to embarrass himself the way some of these other “Republican saviors” have during this campaign. So when Republicans are thinking about which guy to vote for in the primaries, they certainly can’t say “has hilarious slips of the tongue or mental freezes” for Ron Paul.

      • AP Lerner says:

        “you don’t catch Ron Paul saying completely ridiculous things”

        Uh, his op-ed is saying to default now to avoid a fictitious debt crisis. It doesn’t get anymore ridiculous that that.

        When it comes to foreign policy, the man is a genius. When it comes to monetary economics, he is living in 1918.

  5. Bharat says:

    I’m still a skeptic about Ron Paul’s chances, yet more optimistic than I was before. Everyone has seen the recent Iowa poll where Paul came in 2nd around 20%, and there’s another one that just came out that shows him in first place. Doing well in Iowa and NH are definitely going to prop up his chances. Plus Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich are falling off in the polls now, so it’s probably going to become a match between Romney and Paul shortly.

  6. Mike B. says:

    I <3 Ron Paul. But sometimes I think he's gone too soft. I miss the older, more fiery Ron Paul of the 80s:



    Can you imagine what old school Ron Paul would have done to Rick "Oops" Perry?

    I also think he's also lost some of the forceful eloquence he used to have:

    However, all that being said, I still <3 and will always <3 Ron Paul.

    • Bharat says:

      That fat guy video is possibly the most hilarious thing I’ve ever seen Dr. Paul say.

  7. Rick Duffin says:

    The media continue to laud the views of “most main stream economists”. So we should trust the Keynesians? The theory might be sound, prime the pump and all; but in the real world government spending is never decreased and “temporary” government subsidies and jobs never recede. This has been the case since at least the Viet Nam era. When the good times return, the government and its attendant debt, grow even larger. So why should we believe the group of economists that have helped to weaken our economy? We have heard “deficits don’t matter” for 30 years now. If they don’t matter, please cut a check for $200k to every citizen of the U.S. That should solve all of our problems.

  8. Bob Roddis says:

    I knew from the 1980s that RP could be a smart-ass. He still has it in him. He should use it more often during the “debates” and when interviewed by the MSM.

  9. tardfinger says:

    Did you realize there are “Occupiers” that support Ron Paul, want to end the Fed, and return to a gold standard? Probably not because you don’t pay any attention to anything.

    • tardfinger says:

      Does that change your opinion about the “Occupiers” or does it change your opinion about Ron Paul? Or are you still content to live in your left-right world paradigm the rest of us are sick of? Oh wait – you are a servant of the 1%…

      • Dan says:

        Who is that directed at?

        • tardfinger says:

          The pretend economist who owns this blog.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Hey Tardmember, please clarify your comment then. Are you saying the guys who yelled “Mic check!” and started chanting during Paul’s talk, were really big supporters of him? If so, they know nothing of the speaking circuit.

          • Dan says:

            You are really barking up the wrong tree. Dr. Murphy doesn’t even register in the left-right world paradigm. He is just as sick of the system we have as you are.

            This is exactly what I fear with the OWS movement. If you don’t realize who your friends are then how can you possibly succeed in creating any positive change. Take a step back and look at how you see the 1%. Most of OWS believes the 1% control the world, right? They have the power to use the force of government to get their way. So it should be clear that looking to the government to take more action to stop the 1% can’t possibly be the solution. It would be like going to the hired henchmen for the mob and asking them to control the mob. The problem is not that they have a lot of money it is they have a lot of power. They can bend governments to their will. If you really want to go after the 1% then you must go after their power. This can not be done looking to the left or the right which I think we would agree on. This must be done by looking to men like Ron Paul who want to remove the 1%’s boot from our necks. Dr. Murphy is also a man who would like to remove the power the 1% wield over the rest of us. The libertarians are not your enemy in this regard.

            It is extremely important in any movement to be weary of those who will try to co-opt it for their own gain. The OWS movement should be especially weary of this proposition. The movement is very diverse in the area of goals and principles. The 1% will try to seize on the ideas that would expand their power and try to eliminate the ideas that would truly hurt them. More taxes and regulations will not be seriously fought by the elite because they control the means to implement those kind of ideas. They will write the laws in their favor and they will just continue to expand their power. This should be obvious when you see guys like Warren Buffet supporting higher taxes on the rich. It is the ideas of Dr. Paul and Dr. Murphy that they really fear. It is the ideas of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises that remove the power from their hands.

            It is important to see there is a problem and I understand the anger that is generated from the system we have today. But understanding the problem is very dangerous if you don’t know what the solution is. History has shown many times that the elite will seize upon the anger of the people and use it to further expand their power. This has been the fate of the people almost every time we see these movements. Look to Egypt for a recent example. They removed one form of tyranny for another and they are back in the streets. The 1% does not fear the chaos and the anger. They fear freedom.

  10. Roundhead says:

    These videos may be just one reason why people like Ron Paul: he’s a rare, consistent, honest, and smart politician.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G87jOx1VJ3o (“Computer surveillance seems appropriate for nineteen eighty-four” (1984))

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XguvMUUtTtI&feature=related (“Osama bin Laden was our good friend because he was a freedom fighter”) (1999)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI&feature=related (Predicts current downturn in 2001!!!)

  11. Bonnie says:

    I know this was about Ron Paul, and I like him, but something about jumping on board with the #OWS crowd doesn’t sit well with me. The whole movement has a problem because it is predicated on violating the rights of others; occupy this or that, public/private property, roadways, sidewalks, blocking entrances to buildings, and creating public health hazards until… Until what? Occupy until someone feels harassed enough they open a window and throw out money? These people abuse their liberty and use it to trounce on that of others. Sure, they aren’t armed like the guys of Shays’ Rebellion, and they have a valid gripe, but that does not mean they have the right to take it out on everyone else by being disruptive and menacing. I don’t like the bailouts anymore than the next Jane, but I think Ron Paul missed a golden opportunity to help these people understand the basic responsibility that comes with liberty.