7/15/2007

Media distortions: Ron Paul attacked

While I may not support Ron Paul for president, the Politico did an amazing hit piece on him: "Ron Paul warns of staged terror attack". I confess that I briefly bought into this claim until I read this piece: "Robbing Paul of the Truth". You really need to read both pieces to see how really bad this is.

Labels:

posted by John Lott at 8:26 PM

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you support Fred over Ron? Ron is much more committed to the "Freedomnomics" you support, including being pro-gun. Sure, he has no chance of winning, but your support doesn't change that either way, so you might as well point to Ron as an example the rest in Washington should follow.

7/17/2007 11:14 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

I think that Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas, though I don't agree with him on everything (the gold standard and the war are two issues that come to mind). I also don't think that he will win, and if I can help Thompson get the nomination, through what little impact that I can have, I think that I should do that.

7/18/2007 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are Fred Thompson's good qualities? From what I understand he was an unremarkable (and not the most conservative) senator, and is mostly known for his acting career. Ronald Reagan was also an actor, but at least he had sort of inspiring Barry-Goldwater-strikes-back qualities. What is Thompson? A hybrid Dick Cheney/Paul Harvey? With the bad fortune of the Republican party (Iraq certainly played a role), I think you need a candidate better than Thompson if the general election is your concern. If it isn't and you just want someone to embody Republican principles as "Mr. Republican" Bob Taft and the aforementioned Goldwater & Reagan did, Paul seems the better choice.

I also find a decent amount that is likable in Tom Tancredo, though he can't even capitalize on his embodying of a winning issue (immigration). It is too bad Paul has already rejected a third party run so he won't front the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party or join up with Mike Gravel (I know he wants to get rid of the income tax and drug prohibition and little else about him) for an "Angry Old Guys Denouncing the Politicans in DC" ticket. At least that would be entertaining, as opposed to a bunch of "Audacity of Hope" and "It Takes a Village" blather.

7/19/2007 6:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I support Ron Paul. Frankly John, I'm surprised you don't based on what I know about you from what I've read. I was initially excided about Fred earlier in the year, but since I've had a chance to see more of him, I think he's a dud that can't effectively articulate his views when he's off script. That makes me question whether he really believes them or not, and if he does, whether he has the intellectual underpinnings to effectively communicate/debate them in an election. Ron Paul does.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

11/21/2007 4:03 PM  
Blogger Bryce said...

Why is it that you disagree on Ron Paul with the Gold Standard? I will be able to vote for the first time in the coming election and I am trying to learn who would be the best candidate. Right now I will be voting for Paul but if you have any suggested reading related to the Gold Standard I would love to know. I don't know much about economics and I am trying to learn.

12/23/2007 10:34 PM  
Blogger John Lott said...

Dear Bryce:

Thanks for asking. If we had been on the gold standard over the last few years, we would have seen wild swings in the price level and probably be in a severe depression right now. Think of it this way. If we were using a gold standard, as the value of gold increases it would take less of the currency to buy any product. The price of gold has gone up something over a hundred percent during the last few years -- that is the same a fifty plus percent deflation. If the price of gold were to decline by fifty percent, that would be the same as a hundred percent inflation. If we lived in a country were the government printed so much money that the price level was going up or down by really large amounts from one year to another, a gold standard would probably be OK, but our inflation rate is only a couple of percentage points. There is no reason to suppose that the value of gold would only change by a couple or a few percentage points from one year to another. Gold changes a lot in value for many reasons: 1) people hold it more when disaster looms, 2) changes in demand for its use in various products, 3) changes in the cost of mining or processing it.

I hope that this helps.

12/25/2007 1:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home