Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”     Milton Friedman

August 22, 2007

Ron Paul On Morning Joe

by Doug Mataconis

Along with Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson is one of the few conservative talk show hosts whose given Ron Paul any attention, and, interestingly, they both seem to be quite positive toward him.

H/T: The Crossed Pond

TrackBack URI:
Read more posts from
• • •


  1. Mataconis soft-spins one, leaving some readers to wonder: maybe he really does like Ron Paul!

    Nah. Mataconis is a big-government concern troll and no one should forget it. When the chips are down, like RIGHT NOW, we see who’s on the BigGov/NWO side and who’s not. It’s quite revealing. National Review is on board with Mataconis.

    Comment by Buckwheat — August 22, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
  2. Buckwheat,

    I’ll let your comment stay mostly because I’m a big boy and can handle trolls.

    But, you know, you really have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 22, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
  3. I’ll second that. I’m not sure which are more idiotic…people who idolize Ron Paul like some kind of infallible god, or Republicans who still think George W. Bush hasn’t completely lost his fucking mind ( ).

    Comment by UCrawford — August 22, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
  4. Dear Buckwheat,

    As a fellow active supporter of Ron Paul, I am dismayed at your childish comment you have posted above. I would urge you to consider how you represent Paul and the message we are all fighting to get out to the masses. Name calling isn’t helping anyone and needs stop.

    Comments like yours are immature at best and a huge disservice to Paul’s campaign at worst. Serious thinkers who can engage and persuade people is what we need. Not elementary school recess insults. We need great discussions not petty arguing. Think about.

    Comment by Henry — August 22, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
  5. Henry,

    Well put. I wish there were more Paul supporters like you on these threads.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 22, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
  6. You know, I am still a Ron Paul supporter because he is the only principled candidate out there who is even remotely committed to reducing the size of government… but… I start to cringe whenever I hear him talk foreign policy.

    On the one hand, its hard to disagree that Iraq is a total waste of resources, and the whole concept of nation building is futile. But when he starts to talk about blowback, occupation and root causes, I really think he sounds like the pro-Palestinian progressives who were justifying murderous suicide bombings.

    The only concession he makes is that he says he doesn’t believe the presence of US forces overseas “justifies” terrorism but it helps explain it.

    There should be some room for Ron Paul to maneuver
    here and take a tougher stance. He doesn’t have to rattle the sabre of foreign policy, but he should suggest a role for the government to play in security and law enforcement to counter terrorism.

    You can talk about blowback all you want, but there are some total crazy fundamentalists out there who hate America for its movies and culture as much as its foreign policy.

    Comment by Jono — August 22, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
  7. Jono,

    Paul’s immigration stance is the one that makes me cringe, but I do think that Paul might tend a bit too much towards isolationism. While I think Iraq was a perfect example of the folly of nation-building and unchecked interventionism, I still support our involvement in places like Afghanistan (at least, as long as the Afghanis want us there), and the Horn of Africa (as long as we maintain a relatively low footprint) only because those two places contribute directly towards our national security (since al-Qaeda actually did set up training grounds in Afghanistan, has them in Pakistan, and has attempted to start them in Africa…specifically Somalia). But Paul’s absolutely right about places like Bosnia, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and a dozen other places. Our involvement there is often what makes us a target…not our “freedom”. Only a very stupid person with a massive sense of entitlement (like our President) would a historical trend that glaring. But given a choice between being too isolationist, or being too interventionist, I think that it’s definitely better for us to err on the side of interfering less in the internal affairs of other nations. We expect other nations to respect our sovereignty, we should hold ourselves to that same standard when dealing with them, even if we don’t like the choices they make when dealing with their affairs. So on that issue, I’m definitely with Ron Paul.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 22, 2007 @ 8:33 pm
  8. And there are a lot of crazy fundamentalists here in the States who hate freedom as well and would be willing to conduct attacks against other Americans if they thought they could get away with it. The great majority of them don’t pose an impending threat (sometimes because they lack the means, sometimes because they lack the motivation, and sometimes because they’re just plain stupid), but you don’t go overreacting to the threat that they pose by chucking freedoms out the window or by taking actions that won’t realistically change the situation, or turning the country in a police state to try and eliminate threats that cannot realistically eliminated. Overreaction causes a whole new set of problems, often worse than the ones you had before. And that’s what our foreign policy basically consists of now…knee-jerk overreactions by someone who has demonstrated an apparently limitless capacity to screw up implementation while utterly ignoring or denying the consequences of his actions. And the longer we persist with it, the more enemies we end up creating. Ron Paul’s foreign policy may not wipe out everyone who may someday pose a threat to us, and it won’t guarantee that another terrorist attack won’t ever happen (of course, neither will anyone else’s plan), but it’s a damn sight better than what we’ve got in place right now.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 22, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
  9. Oh, and Ron Paul’s plan is a lot better than anything any of the other candidates are proposing…especially that fraud Guiliani.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 22, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
  10. Dear Henry and Doug Mataconis,

    You’re right. I really stepped over the line when I insinuated that Mataconis has been negatively spinning Ron Paul stories consistently for months. That, of course, is completely untrue.

    And I did it in a childish manner I’m ashamed of, calling Doug a concern troll, which is also completely inaccurate.

    A concern troll is a blogger who pretends to be on one side of an argument, but whose real motive is to undermine that argument from within. Anyone can see that’s not Mataconis!

    What was I thinking? I can’t apologize enough. I’ll keep my comments more based in reality next time, and not state them in such a puerile fashion.

    I’m lucky Mataconis is a “big boy”!

    Comment by Buckwheat — August 22, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
  11. Why Mataconis doesn’t like Ron Paul:

    “I’ve also distanced myself from the more extreme elements of the libertarian movement. I was, I will admit, not entirely a supporter of the first Gulf War…I opposed the interventions in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. But then, September 11th happened. Call me a pro-war libertarian who watched the Twin Towers fall live on television. All I know is that the evidence is clear that Western Civilization is in a fight for its own survival right now. Following the naive foreign policy advocated by the Libertarian Party and its pacifist allies is, quite frankly, a prescription for suicide.”

    So Doug’s plan is to keep the war fires burning, using his li’l perch at the Liberty Papers to play down Ron Paul’s successes from inside the libertarian tent.

    I’m not saying he shouldn’t be allowed to do it. I’m just saying that people who read here should be aware that this is what he’s doing.

    And they are.

    Comment by Buckwheat — August 22, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
  12. Hey Doug, one more thing:

    Who are you voting for in the primary?

    Comment by Buckwheat — August 22, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
  13. Yes Buckwheat,

    I am entirely in favor of grinding into the ground the people who attacked on 9/11, and anyone who supports them.

    I also happen to think, if you’ve actually bothered to read anything I’ve written, that the Iraq War was a complete mistake.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 22, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
  14. Yo Buckwheat,

    Hey Doug, one more thing:

    Who are you voting for in the primary?

    As I’ve said numerous times here and on my personal blog….

    Assuming he’s still on the ballot when Virginia’s primary rolls around, I will vote for Ron Paul and do what I can to encourage those that I know to do the same.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 22, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
  15. “Assuming he’s still on the ballot when Virginia’s primary rolls around”

    You’re good. I almost missed this on the first read-through.

    Comment by Buckwheat — August 22, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
  16. OK, Doug — I just read all 36 posts under the “Ron Paul” heading at Below the Beltway, your personal blog.

    I found one grudging post-debate acknowledgment that Ron Paul is the only Republican running you could vote for.

    So why all the negative anti-Paul spin? I just relived it reading your 36 posts, so please don’t make me cut and paste. If you’re against the Iraq War (which I couldn’t verify as it doesn’t appear you were blogging in ’02-03), and you’re libertarian in temperament, then what exactly is your major malfunction with Ron Paul?

    I really don’t get it. Please enlighten.

    Comment by Buckwheat — August 22, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
  17. Buckwheat,

    “Assuming he’s still on the ballot when Virginia’s primary rolls around”

    You’re good. I almost missed this on the first read-through.

    Missed what ?

    If Ron’s on the ballot when Primary Day comes to the Old Dominion, I will be voting for Ron Paul.

    If he’s not on the ballot, I won’t be voting at all.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 22, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
  18. Doug,

    I think Buckwheat was referring to your constant need to mention that Paul is unlikely to win. You couldn’t even say something as simple as “Yes, I’m voting for Ron Paul.”

    We all know that write-ins don’t even get counted unless it’s a very tight race, so I think we are all capable of assuming that you wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul if he wasn’t on your ballot. Besides, he will be on your ballot, even if he isn’t doing well. He has said time and tme again that he will stay in until the bitter end.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — August 22, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
  19. …he should suggest a role for the government to play in security and law enforcement to counter terrorism.

    He has suggested bringing the troops home to protect our borders. Or, as Smedley Butler put it:

    I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

    You can talk about blowback all you want, but there are some total crazy fundamentalists out there who hate America for its movies and culture as much as its foreign policy.

    But, are those the ones carrying out the attacks? Or are those just the local blowhards?

    Comment by js290 — August 23, 2007 @ 12:52 am
  20. Doug,

    You do seem to have a compulsive need to mention that you think Ron Paul has no chance. I know that you’re just being honest, most people with half a brain know you don’t actually hate Ron Paul, and you’re probably right about his chances(although I’m still voting for Paul) but I can see why it can annoy some people…it can kind of reek of “told-you-so-itis”.


    Yes, we know you’ve got a problem with Doug. Anyone who’s ever read this blog knows you’ve got a problem with Doug…that fact has been noted repeatedly. And everyone who’s ever read this blog knows you have almost nothing to say about any topic besides Ron Paul and that your sole tactic for promoting Ron Paul is to gripe about Doug and make stupid accusations that have little or no basis in fact. You’re boring, Buckwheat, and you do a crap job of selling your candidate. Why don’t you either change your approach or stop acting like a broken record on the subject of Ron Paul and your problems with Doug? There are a dozen other topics on this site at any given time and it’s not that hard to find one written about a subject other than Ron Paul that’s worth discussing. Or if you can’t get off that topic how about discussing the merits or flaws of the issues in Ron Paul’s platform without continually referring back to what you think Doug Mataconis thinks? One of the least important parts of any of the articles written on this site is who the author is.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 23, 2007 @ 1:01 am
  21. js290,

    You’re right about the vocal fundamentalists often being the blowhards. Lots of people hate lots of things about America. The thing that separates those who are a threat from those who are not are the capability and the will to act on their hatred. Most of the “Islamofascists” (stupidest term ever) don’t have the capability, logistical or mental, to attack us so their actions rarely go beyond rhetoric. And the less we intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, the less we add to their will to attack us.

    There will always, of course, be those like al-Qaeda who will carry out successful attacks against us from time to time. That’s inevitable given that the very nature of terrorism always gives the terrorist the initiative. But as long as we’re not stupidly overreacting in a way that actually adds to our list of enemies (like we’re doing in Iraq), the more easily we’ll be able to use measured, lethal and effective force against those who are real threats to us.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 23, 2007 @ 1:11 am
  22. Jeff & Crawford,

    Umm, well, that’s cause he’s not gonna win.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — August 23, 2007 @ 5:08 am
  23. I remember the 1st time you told them that, 1 die hard wrote he was going to win because of “magic” another wrote that he would win because his message was so powerful it brought tears to the writer’s eyes and many of them replied that they were convinced he was going to win. This time silence. My question is have you finally gotten through to them or have they just tuned you out?

    Comment by Bob — August 23, 2007 @ 7:50 am
  24. Bob,

    It’s also interesting how many of them seem to believe that Ron Paul would have dictatorial and almost messianic powers to accomplish anything he wants if he did win the White House, despite the fact that there are limits to what the President can do, especially if he’s got a hostile Congress (which he would, and who will likely oppose a lot of his ideas). A lot of the people who take issue with Doug don’t seem to have any clue how government actually works, or how it’s supposed to work, or what can realistically be accomplished. That seems to be why their only argument is to whine at Doug.

    If you’re looking for a messiah, stick with religion. Politicians tend to make piss-poor saviors…and Ron Paul is likely no exception.

    Heh, heh…”magic” :)

    Comment by UCrawford — August 23, 2007 @ 9:11 am
  25. UCrawford,
    Doug and you are right, a Paul Presidency would be 4 years of warfare between him and Congress. Not much if anything would get done. But, I’ve got to admit I’d love to see the look on the liberal senator’s faces when President Paul made his 1st Supreme Court nomination and when he submitted his 1st BALANCED BUDGET! (WITHOUT AN INCOME TAX!) I know its not going to happen but I get sucked into the dream once in awhile.

    Comment by Bob — August 23, 2007 @ 10:04 am
  26. Bob,

    I’d be okay with nothing getting done. Frankly, the thing that would make me happiest is to see a President who wields the veto pen more often, which Paul could certainly do, or who doesn’t have the Commerce Dept impose tariffs (which Ron Paul wouldn’t do), or who isn’t interested in just gouging the system to try to pad their percentages in key districts. And I don’t think that Ron Paul’s SC nominees would be that off-the-wall…probably they’d be very palatable to conservatives and, because they wouldn’t be fascists, the Democrats might not have as much of a problem with them as we might think.

    Comment by UCrawford — August 23, 2007 @ 10:18 am
  27. …many of them seem to believe that Ron Paul would have dictatorial and almost messianic powers…

    Ron Paul’s grassroots support should probably hedge their bets by working on getting more libertarian leaning congressmen elected. I wonder if the chances of getting a single Paul-esque congressman elected from each state is better than Paul getting elected president.

    Comment by js290 — August 23, 2007 @ 10:56 am
  28. UCrawford,

    Imagine a President that vetoed every piece of legislation that was unconstitutional nonsense! A President that didn’t let politics make spending decisions and a President that didn’t impose tariffs just because they were politically popular.
    I don’t think his Court nominees would be off the wall to us, but they would be real (as opposed to the phony ones Bush has nominated) strict constructionists of the Constitution.

    Comment by Bob — August 23, 2007 @ 11:08 am
  29. i’ve watched this guy write his veiled,disparaging articles on RP for some time now too. it’s almost morbid curiosity to read anything he writes on RP now. and yes, you are right that the author is a troll, complete with disarming soft spin articles every now and then.

    but then when you point this out, you’re suddenly just another obsessed RP fan. so it’s pretty much like you cant even do anything about it.

    Comment by bromonation — August 26, 2007 @ 5:10 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML