Ron Paul has always been more about hype than reality. Every year we hear how the media is engaged in a conspiracy not to report on him and that you ignore him at your peril and every time he proves to be no more than the niche candidate.
He has a base and they are rabid, they love him, and they are much less beholden to the Republican party establishment or anyone else other than Paul. Indeed he has his partisans on the Left as well who are every bit as fanatical. To read the comments over at Firedoglake you'd think he has the support to win in a landslide.
So a post I had written back in October of last year has all of a sudden "trended" to use the language of Twitter. I have seen a huge spike in readers of this old post that wasn't on my mind recently.
However the people have spoken, so let's talk Ron Paul. To read the original post that has suddenly garnered such interest-very welcome interest, always, by the way. You can't like me or anything I write too much; very high up in my catechism-please see
For the direct link that a lot of people found this post at see
As suggested in my title I don't hold Paul in very high regard. I see his economic and monetary ideas as loopy-going back to the gold standard? Paul clearly knows little about the original it he calls for it. New Gingrich, in one more display of the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of his entire candidacy has recently joined in calling for the gold standard.
Meanwhile in the classical age of the gold standard (1873-1913) the economy was in recession roughly 1 out of every two years-half the time. It also suffered from intermittent, regular, bank panics every 4 years. Comparably the monetary system has been much more stable since. While it's true it has in recent years been to under the control of private bankers, this doesn't mean we should end the Fed but rather do what people like Barney Frank and the great, late congressman Henry Gonzalez talked about-basically ending it's "iindependence" which means being a creature of the banks.
The reason I haven't paid Paul much attention lately is he's not been relevant. As a niche candidate he never can build above this ceiling and isn't doing it this year either. What's actually interesting about Paul to me right now is whether he has deliberately taken a dive in these debates with Romney-why does he attack everyone in the race but Romney?
If there is nothing nefarious going on this means he sees nothing worth criticizing Mitt Romney, reason enough to abbout someones qualifications. If you can't see what's wrong with Romney what kind of analyzing skills does he have?