"Who Is Ron Paul?" National Review Interview with Ron Paul

[JohnEngland]

Interesting interview, worth reading. Here's part of the intro:


Ron Paul speaks softly and carries Mises. The eccentric, famous, and infamous Texas congressman has a frail frame and a frailer voice. “I am not powerful, but my ideas are powerful,” he says.

Everybody knows his name. Everybody talks about him. But nobody can agree as to who he is.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/255968/who-ron-paul-interview?page=1

[emazur]

He's pretty much inline w/ my view on immigration:


nro: We know what that means. Anyways, another change in direction: How do you square your hard line on immigration away with your libertarian philosophy?

PAUL: Well, I just think that it’s unsustainable without having some border protection, mainly because of the welfare state. The welfare state encourages our people not to work, and so then we need workers. And when immigrant workers come in, there are welfare benefits, education, and Medicare for those who come who are not legal. If there wasn’t that, I’d be pretty generous with illegal immigration.

I’m writing a book for next year, and I’m going to say I support neither amnesty for everyone nor guns and shooting people when they come over. I want immigration to be legal, but I would argue that there should be no federal mandates to provide services for illegal immigrants. Maybe immigrants would go back, then, to their families, on their own. I think it’s virtually impossible to send back 12 million people, but I don’t think we should give them citizenship. So the Left will be unhappy because they want immediate citizenship, and the Right will be unhappy because they want to send them all home. But the other day, we had that DREAM Act vote — a lot of things there I was sympathetic to. But they wanted to give them tremendous welfare benefits. I don’t like that kind of stuff.

[low preference guy]

the introduction is a hit job.

[Slutter McGee]

the introduction is a hit job.

A little. But I expected about a million times worse from the National Review.

Slutter McGee

[sailingaway]

Just finished the first page, which was terrific until it started a conclusionary 'one thing is for certain, he's quixotic, weird and wrong about a lot.....' with no argument at all to support any of that name calling.

I'll read the rest, but I had been waiting for the other foot to fall, given how much I liked the lead in, and it seems to be just a more subtle form of the same old, from the same people....

....sigh, well, at least they let him say his thing, and he says it well.

That's all we can fairly ask for (next time without the 'quixotic' 'weird' and 'gadfly' adjectives, preferably...)

Key point:


NRO: One thing that matters to you and a lot of disciples of Austrian economics is inflation. Some think it’s necessary and good because, with sticky prices, it helps to stimulate growth. Can you explain your problems with steady inflation?

PAUL: It’s the worst thing any government could deliberately do. It’s counterfeit. It means some people will benefit at the expense of others. People who saved money and are living off their savings get cheated. It’s a moral issue: They might make 1 percent on their certificates of deposit, and they can’t live on that. And the government practically gives the money to the banks and then they turn it over and buy Treasury bills and bonds and make 3 or 4 percent.So they make billions of dollars after having just been rescued from their bankruptcy.

It’s wrong to deliberately devalue the currency, because prices go up and if your purchasing power goes down, then somebody is stealing from you. So to me, it’s theft. And they should never be allowed to do that. And the responsibility of government is to guarantee the value of currency. The Founders understood it clearly, they had had runaway inflation of the continental dollars, that’s why they said you cannot admit bills of credit, no paper money — we totally ignored that and it’s one of the major reasons we’re in the mess we’re in.

[1000-points-of-fright]

unquestionably weird, wrong about a lot

The unfamiliar is always seems weird to the sheltered mind. Notice that the author never actually says what RP is wrong about.

[emazur]

the introduction is a hit job.

It ultimately weighed in more towards the negative side, but at least tried to present some balance

[low preference guy]

what does this mean?


NRO: What about from you? Running for president in 2012?

PAUL: Don’t know, too early to tell.

NRO: We know what that means.

[sailingaway]

what does this mean?

Means the interviewer is a snot. They all want the first 'scoop', but Ron has his own thinking to do, and timing for effect once he decides.

[Travlyr]

— Matthew Shaffer is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.


Two things about Ron Paul are for certain. The first is that he’s quixotic — unquestionably weird, wrong about a lot, and probably unelectable to higher office — but a necessary gadfly reminding us of our lost constitutional liberty.
No ... dumbass. Maybe you should read-up on your interviewee before you report ignorant crap. Ron Paul has written several books that evidently are above your grade level.

Two things about Ron Paul that are for certain is that he is unquestionably honest, intelligent, consistent, courageous, and a persistent shill for liberty, peace and prosperity.


NRO: So inflation transfers wealth?

PAUL: Inflation goes from the middle class to the wealthy, and it is a tax, and the people don’t know about it. It’s invisible. That’s why they get away with it. Eventually the people wake up, and then it’s too late, and you get rampant inflation. Bernanke brags that he can turn off inflation in 15 minutes. He can’t. There’s so much money out there, which is going back into use — commodities are going up. This idea that there is no inflation is absurd. One thing they do is they want everyone to talk about inflation as the CPI. Austrians say that inflation is when you increase the money supply — sometimes some prices go up, sometimes it starts out in land, but eventually it can be everything.

Yes, Matthew ... they don't teach this in school, but inflation transfers wealth, and that is why the central bankers do not want to give up their money printing abilities. Read and learn.

[Matt Collins]

That article on the website shows being posted on Jan 3rd. How's that possible?

[Matt Collins]

— Matthew Shaffer is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.


Matthew Shaffer graduates next month from Yale College with a BA in Economics and Humanities. Matt was editor in chief of the Yale Free Press and a columnist for the Yale Daily News. He was a research assistant at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal and was selected as a Koch Fellow last summer. Matt is a graduate of the United States Marine Corps Officer Candidates School.



mshaffer@nationalreview.com
matthewshaffery10@gmail.com

http://www.facebook.com/TheMatthewShaffer

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ah, the Kochtopus strikes again.

[TNforPaul45]

Matthew Shaffer graduates next month from Yale College with a BA in Economics and Humanities. Matt was editor in chief of the Yale Free Press and a columnist for the Yale Daily News. He was a research assistant at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal and was selected as a Koch Fellow last summer. Matt is a graduate of the United States Marine Corps Officer Candidates School.



mshaffer@nationalreview.com
matthewshaffery10@gmail.com

http://www.facebook.com/TheMatthewShaffer

Remember how Yale used to put out intelligent elitists? Now....just pitiful. At least he knows how to imitate a parrot rather than an intellectual. Good for us, bad for them. Or maybe bad for us.... I dunno.

[Knightskye]

Not done with the first page. They got his position wrong on the death penalty. He's against it.


That article on the website shows being posted on Jan 3rd. How's that possible?

At 4:00 a.m., no less. I've seen articles post-marked with the next day, but not the next week. Maybe that article will appear in their print magazine next month?

[William R]

The unfamiliar is always seems weird to the sheltered mind. Notice that the author never actually says what RP is wrong about.

Where does National Review dig up these hacks. The magazine has fallen so far it is almost unrecognizable. Russell Kirk and Frank Meyer are spinning in their graves.

[wormyguy]

That article on the website shows being posted on Jan 3rd. How's that possible?

It'll presumably appear in the January 3 issue of National Review.

[William R]

The author or editor updated the article with this

"Two things about Ron Paul are for certain. The first is that he’s quixotic — unquestionably a little weird, and probably unelectable to higher office — but a necessary gadfly reminding us of our lost constitutional liberty. The second is that Paul, the author of End the Fed, among other books, has been selected as the new chairman of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. The man who wants to end the Fed will now be overseeing it (as far as Congress can oversee the Fed). NRO’s Matthew Shaffer talked to Paul about that oversight, his economics, the presidency, and more.

[devil21]

What part of an interview requires a preface where you rag on your interviewee and frame the interview before the actual interview is even published? Fucking media hacks.

[Inkblots]

Maybe I'm just desensitized to words like 'quixotic' and 'gadfly', but I thought that was a very good interview. At the very least, Dr. Paul was able to speak substantively on some actual issues. It's nice to see his ideas get play in the mainline conservative press.

Though I note the only comment so far on the interview accuses him of being an anti-semite. Sigh.