As we approach the Iowa caucuses like a runaway train, some things about the state of politics in Virginia have me confused.

To wit:

If the Virginia Republican primary petition process was so obviously rigged, why didn’t the fellow who is in every way but openly Bob McDonnell’s favorite (Rick Perry) make the ballot? Has the land of the Byrd machine fallen so far in fixing elections?

Is Bill Bolling’s staff trying to push me to Ken Cuccinelli? Do they realize how many people they’re pushing away from Romney with their combination of tone-deafness and smart-alleck remarks masquerading as a press release under the boss’ name?

On the other hand, if Bolling must suffer for his staff due to one press release, why can’t Paul suffer for multiple newsletters written by insert-scapegoat-here than went out under his name?

Speaking of Dr. Paul, of the two candidates who made the Virginia ballot, he is the only one who is on record in support of allowing the federal government to use its monopoly/monopsony power to influence price and services in the health care market – a position I consider far, far more dangerous than the individual mandate; he has openly supported reflating the housing bubble and creating moral hazard in the insurance market via tax-code chicanery; he refuses to support the Ryan Medicare reform; and he has called for maintaining the current sclerotic entitlement system for Americans as young as 26 (Weekly Standard) . . . and Mitt Romney is the “liberal” on the ballot?

Cross-posted to RWL

  • Samuel Gilleran

    +1 to all of these things, DJ.

  • Mitt Romney is the flip flop progressive shmagressive phony conservative that independents will not support in numbers. Paul wins the indys.

  • Pingback: Bearing Drift Blog Attacks Ron Paul for No Reason... « Blog()

  • Bob

    Your comment about the housing bubble and moral hazard for insurance is unfounded. Ron Paul supports giving a “tax credit” to those who lost their homes in a natural disaster, and extending the 1st time home-buyer credit. Your moral hazard comes from the idea of insurance companies skimping on payouts due to the tax-credit in case of natural disasters, and the re-inflation comes from extending the home-buyer credit.

    Both are nonsense. Ron Paul’s position is to give as many tax credits as possible to individuals. That’s right – returning more of your money that government took from you via coercion.

    If an insurance company skimps on payments due to this “tax credit” – take them to court. That’s what they are for. Ron Paul would also let the market work for determining the value of a home, and is against all the manipulations that over-value homes (or let people get into homes they can’t afford).

    I get it though – this is about bashing Ron Paul at all costs – regardless of the actual facts.

  • Christy

    I’m with Bob above me your distortion of Ron Paul’s positions is very close to outright lies. When has Ron Paul ever voted to raise taxes or ever voted to increase Govt control in any market. It’s ok if you dont like Paul, I believe in the true philosophy of Liberty, but at least stick to facts when you write about why you don’t like a candidate.

  • There is only ” one ” constitutional, non-hypocritical, true to Our Lord Jesus ‘s message of ” peace “, honoring one’s word on any issue, he is Dr./ Rep. Ron Paul; both our political ” Moses ” & ” Messiah “. May Our Lord guide him to both victory and safety; Amen !

  • Mike Stahl

    I must admit, I’m a bit confused. First, I simply cannot understand why arguing for more people to pay less taxes-the homebuyers credit-is “liberal”, do please explain why it is conservative to support higher taxes? So far as I know, Paul supports abolishing the income tax, period…I’m for that too, and I don’t care if it is piecemeal or in a fell swoop. Why do you favor higher taxes?

    I saw nothing that implies a “moral hazard” in insurance, insurance companies would still be liable for all contractual losses-at least according to the sources that were listed(second hand)from your links.

    As far as the medicare assertion, I believe that it has always been Paul’s position to end the trade barriers that prohibit Americans(government and citizen)from buying the same drugs from overseas, or from Mexico and Canada, that are sold at faaaaar lower prices….who’s for price supports here?

    I do understand why you support Romney.

  • The [redacted] down neck scenario being waged on Paul by republicans is dirty at best. This blog is “Virginia’s Conservative Voice”, DJ.

  • bob minarik

    You gotta fix this Doc. Thou shall not bear false witness.
    You lose all your credibilty when you lie like that about Ron Paul.

  • gabe harris

    Better to leave the post unchanged and remove all legitimacy from yourself permanently.

  • huh

    Thanks, DJ, this outrageous display of conservative idiocy which you have put up for all to see has made my day today.

    One day, I’ll show this to my grandkids, and we’ll still be laughing.

  • Seriously McGuire, what on Earth have you been smoking?

  • I’m stunned. Let’s talk about Social Security. Ron Paul would prefer that we simply dump the system. He wants to give younger people the option of opting out. He wants to phase out Social Security rather than try to fix it. It can’t be fixed.

    And the rest of what you said is just so much lies and distortions one has to wonder what chemicals you were ingesting when you wrote this post.

  • Matthew Swaringen

    Your examples are quite funny. The government grants a monopoly via patent law, and you are whining about price controls that would at best serve to counteract that for poor people? The talk of how much research money should be left to these companies is ridiculous frankly, it’s not as though they are operating in a free market regardless.

    And then on housing calling tax credits (not taking people’s money as much as you would otherwise) inflating a bubble, I think you have to truly have a distorted set of reasoning skills.

    Please try harder.

  • Steve_O

    DJ, I really do not understand how you have totally missed Ron Paul’s message of liberty and freedom from the overgrown nanny state we are currently suffering under. I think you should go and read Dr. Paul’s latest book, “Liberty Defined”, if you do I think you will want to issue him a formal apology for totally misrepresenting him in your blog.

  • MD Russ


    You just rolled a hand grenade into the cuckoo’s nest. If your intent was to flush out the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party, then you have my admiration. I haven’t enjoyed a thread on Bearing Drift this much since someone postulated that Jamie Whats-her-name is not electable against Allen.


  • DJ McGuire is another idiot who has lost all credibility by publishing outright lies.

    Dr. Paul wants to get the government OUT of medicine. Dr. Paul knows it was the Fed (federal reserve) that created the housing bubble. This is why Ron Paul wants to first audit the Fed, then get rid of it.

    Ron Paul is the only politician who is not lying when his mouth is moving.

  • DJ, I think of you as a pretty smart guy but I am sure even you know the points against Ron Paul are intellectually dishonest. I can understand that someone may dislike Ron Paul as a candidate but to ignore reality in attacking him only makes you lose credibility. It is laughable to say Dr. Paul is an advocate for price controls over the Free Market or he wants to create a housing bubble when he is the only politician talking about abolishing the Fed. You don’t have to agree with him but to intentionally misrepresent someone is not something we should encourage on this forum.

  • Joe, DJ is no idiot, maybe a bit misinformed on Paul but not an idiot.. with all due respect.

  • MD Russ


    I would not expect you to know the difference between the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The former had nothing to do with the housing bubble and, in fact, was instrumental in controlling inflation during the creation of the bubble by keeping interest rates low. The latter were doing the bidding of the Democrats in Congress under Chris Dodd (D-Countrywide) and Barney Fwank (D-Citibank). They largely created the housing bubble.

  • Stewie

    Ron Paul wants to inflate another housing bubble? April 1st came early this year. Paul was one of the few politicians warning about the bubble created by artificially low interest rate policy of the Fed. He has been consistent in his call for allowing the bad debts be liquidated as the best solution to the financial crisis. The author is supremely uninformed at best, or intellectually dishonest at worst.

  • Misinformation = propaganda

  • Pat Mason

    What in God’s name is this author babbling about!? There is so much either wrong, skewed, or a half-truth I don’t know where to begin to refute it. However, many Libertarians and Conservatives will – no doubt – descend upon this ridiculous article and do just that once it makes the rounds. Did Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum have a hand in writing this hogwash!?

  • @MD Russ, not sure which Socialist School of Economics you attended but low interest rates from the Fed is exactly what increases inflation!

  • Dither

    This is an absurd bunch of nonsense. A tax credit is not going to re-flate the housing bubble. The housing bubble was a result of easy credit from the Fed, coupled with government backing of Fannie and Freddie creating a moral hazard, plus the Community Reinvestment Act outright forcing banks to make bad loans.

    Ron Paul always opposes tax increases. He doesn’t like government social engineering and recognizes that tax credits are sometimes used for this purpose. But he always supports lowering taxes. His way of fixing the moral hazard of a tax credit is to extend the break to everyone rather than taking it away.

    And Ron Paul opposed Medicare Part D, unlike the big-government Republicans fighting him for the nomination. All government intervention into health care is harmful. The damage was done by creating these programs. It is downright dishonest to attack Paul as a supporter of “price controls” because he voted for a tweak in the program intended to save the taxpayers money. I suppose the big-government Republican line is that Medicare Part D was a “free market solution” before government was able to negotiate prices. Nonsense!

  • Glen Litsinger

    MD Russ,

    I think Amit knows a lot more about economics than you do. The notion that the Fed had nothing to do with the housing bubble is just ludicrous. Keeping interest rates low — too low — is what tempted people to believe they could afford just about any price for a house, and tempted many others to game the market by “flipping” houses. With the artificially low interest rates that the Fed promoted, they were able to bid the price of houses up past the limit of real affordability all over the country and then *POP*, the bubble burst and the selling panic started. Five years on and housing prices are still falling, and the Fed started it all with artificially low interest rates.

    One last point: It was Alan Greenspan who famously urged Americans to go out and buy houses that were more “affordable” due to his lowering of interest rates. Remember who he worked for?

  • Eddie

    Md Russ,

    Can you tell me were Fannie and Freddie got all that money to loan out? I’m pretty sure that when the Fed keeps rates low it incentives bad loans, the type Fannie and Freddie specialize in. Didn’t they have to print that money, or atleast say they had it? Printing money IS inflating the quantity of money, inflation. That’s the definition. Rising prices are just a result. Have you heard of QE 2? All business cycles are the product of government intervention into the market place. Take the time and listen to somebody who dedicated his life to the study of economics…..

  • MD Russ

    Amit and Glen,

    Low interest rates cause inflation? Really?

    The Federal Reserve has kept the discount rate below .5% for what, about six years now? And what has been our inflation rate over the past six years? On the other hand, the Fed discount rate during the Ford and Carter Administration was in double digits. And what was the inflation rate then?

    You guys went to the same School of Economics that Obstetrician Ron Paul attended. Grow up.

  • samsonsimp

    Really? This is pretty sophomoric D.J.

    I love how the phony-conservatives are going into freak-out mode trying to convince people that they aren’t actually statists.

  • ELM

    This is a conservative site? BULLSHIT

  • Thomas Conway

    @DJ – i’m not even going to waste my time to point out the many discrepancies in what you said – suffice to say you are either an outright liar, or a complete idiot – go read a book!

  • MD Russ

    Two more highly intellectual critiques of your post, DJ. Tell me, do you also enjoy teasing dogs by pretending to throw a ball and then hiding it behind your back?


  • MD Russ

    Make that three more…

  • Reader

    First and last visit. Credibility shot in one post filled with silliness – RP wants to have the Fed gov’t use its monopoly power in healthcare – lol.

    Read it for the lulz.

  • Have you read anything by Ron Paul? Have you listened to a real uncut, undistorted interview of Ron Paul?

    Do some homework before you write such nonsense.

  • Frank

    The word “incoherent” comes to mind after reading this blog post. Really?!?!

  • It is sad to see that so many can not accept the logical economic consequences of Dr. Paul’s policies that I have described above, and I appreciate that attacking the messenger because you don’t understand the message is an instinctive response, but the policies are the policies, and the consequences are the consequences.

    Allowing the government to use its monoppoly/monopsony power to set prices in health care is dangerous, period, even if Dr. Paul wants to do it – his correct opposition to Medicare Part D notwithstanding.

    A tax credit that distorts the housing market to create demand that would not otherwise exist is the definition of market manipulation, and yes, it would have reflated the housing bubble by artifically raising housing demand and housing prices. Moreover, “targeted tax credits” like this were a mainstay of the Clinton Administration’s plan to increase government power via the tax code. That is not a model we should follow. I am just noting that Dr. Paul chose to do it anyway, and in a place that needs government intervention like a fish needs a bicycle.

    I did not say Dr. Paul *caused* the housing bubble.

    To date, no one has even bothered to specifically refute that Dr. Paul would keep everyone 26 and older stuck in the current entitlement morass.

    These are three *critical* issues, and Paul’s record is far from the limited government purist that so many accuse him of being or believe him to be. None of the candidates running are perfect, and that includes Paul.

  • Mr. McGuire posits that the way to small government is for the government to throw as much money as possible away whenever government is providing a service. Dr. Paul’s view is negotiate to reduce costs.

    On the healthcare issue, Ron Paul’s position more clearly and unequivocally than any other candidate is that government should get out of the healthcare business, and, to the extent that it’s in the healthcare business it ought to reduce its costs as much as possible. To label that as making Ron Paul a price discriminating monoposonist, when with every fiber of his being he opposes and fights the putative monopsonist, is somewhere between stupid and ridicuulous.

  • Thanks to all the Lew Rockwell folks visiting and drinving our hit count up. We appreciate it. And, for the record, this is a conservative blog. It’s not a libertarian blog, which is why you will find we don’t worship Ron Paul over here. Although we do have some contributors, like Amit, who like him.

  • UncleSim

    Those aren’t price controls, that is called ‘smart shopping’ where I come from. They don’t manipulate the entire market, only what Medicare pays. That Medicare may control the market indirectly is a separate issue.

    If you’re into agreeing to contracts to pay whatever the other party says you should pay, I’d like to do business with you 😉

  • Ben Muniz

    Although I’ve been a registered Republican in VA for ~10 years, I have to admit that I never heard of this website until it was mentioned on Lew Rockwell. Some interesting content here in general, but I am not particularly impressed with this article, as it is poorly researched.

    WRT the comment that Ron Paul wants the govt. to influence price and services in the health care market, he has said he wants the opposite. Of the two candidates who made the Virginia Republican ballot, he is the only one who is on record taking the position that the federal government should get out of the health care business because its involvement is unconstitutional, as well as ineffective. In fact, he has taken great political heat by calling for the eventual elimination of Medicare and Medicaid:

    And D.J. McGuire on one hand criticizes Ron Paul for his refusal to support the Rep. Paul Ryan’s govt-subsidized Medicare reform-in-name-only, but then also says “No one has even bothered to specifically refute that Dr. Paul would keep everyone 26 and older stuck in the current entitlement morass.” I won’t hold my breath for info that Ryan’s plan liberates those 26 and older.

    Although not talking specifically about health care, Ron Paul summed up their ultimate difference in philosophy: “(Paul) Ryan doesn’t reject (the) notion (of a government-run welfare system). I do.”

    While trying to keep from being electrocuted on the 3rd rail of U.S. politics, at least Ron Paul is taking the position that people should be responsible for their own health care planning, saying “I really want to promote these medical savings accounts so people can put their money aside and get it off their taxes, and buy their own insurance and pay cash to their doctors.”

    BTW, this position is similar to the solution put forth years ago by Milton Friedman:

    For all the arguments otherwise, the well-known position of the other Virginia Republican candidate on this issue is not appreciably different than the Obama administration’s — which cannot be classified as “conservative.”

    WRT MD Russ’s comment re: inflation: “In mid-2002, at the depth of the recession, after registering a new low of just over one percentage point (1.07%), the inflation rate crossed back up through its moving average, indicating that the disinflationary period ha d ended and inflation was increasing again. (See Brown Trend Lines). From there the inflation rate began a ***6 year up trend*** [emphasis mine], with consumer prices generally increasing primarily due to the central bank increasing the money supply.”

    MD Russ’s attempted insult that “you guys went to the same School of Economics that Obstetrician Ron Paul attended” ignores the fact that Rep. Paul has in fact spent decades studying economic issues, discussing them on congressional committees, and written several books on the subject. Lack of a college degree does not mean lack of knowledge. Although Dr. Paul’s degree is in medicine and not economics, I’d bet “real money” 😉 that he’s the only candidate so far to mention _The Law_ by Frédéric Bastiat during a campaign speech. And Ron Paul’s admiration for Bastiat and Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises was shared by a colleague who did have a degree in economics — President Ronald Reagan.

    Lastly, do think the comments by Glen Litsinger and Amit Singh (whom I supported in his campaign a few years ago) are spot on. They made reading the rest of this worthwhile.

  • For the record, conservative in what sense, Mr. Schoeneman? I don’t think anyone worships Dr. Paul. Admires, trusts, will vote for — but not worships. Your use of that word suggests a certain envy for the for Paul’s small state, constitutional message, and its popularity among many republicans, libertarians, independents and young people. That handful of Senators and Congressmen who have been echoing Dr. Paul’s message are rising stars. Statist, status quo republicanism isn’t going to hack it for the future of the party. I think you know that even better than I do!

  • Kyle

    Looks like a classic example of being bought off…

  • So, uh.. DJ, want a third party to guarantee Obama wins? Keep these kinds of articles coming. You and Ken are marginalizing a new generation who know how serious these times are and they are not sitting down like our generation did and allowing the grownups take advantage of them kids. Good on them! They know what fiscal suicide looks like and now they are beginning to taste it as they enter the work years.. Many are reaching their prime earning years and sobriety in these times leads their rationalization for fiscal restoration of this country.

    Alienate them, I dare ya.

  • ral

    Thanks for the article. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see http://?www.LibertarianInternation? , the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization

  • Karen, conservative in the sense of the Goldwater/Reagan style of conservatism that has been the backbone of the Republican party for the last forty years.

    This is not the libertarian, isolationist, proto-anarchist philosophy of folks like Ron Paul. It’s a solid smaller/smarter government, low taxes, personal responsibility model that we believe in over here. We’ve got a handful of libertarians who push to keep the rest of us honest, but we represent the full spectrum of conservatism over here on Bearing Drift.

    What I find funny is that instead of actually refuting DJ, most folks who came over here from Rockwell’s site have just insulted him and the blog. If that’s the depth of the argumentation skills the average libertarian possesses, it’s no wonder you guys have never succeeded as a third party.

  • Ben Muniz

    [My apologies for reposting part of my message, but the URL’s did not come across.]

    …In fact, he has taken great political heat by calling for the eventual elimination of Medicare and Medicaid:

    …their ultimate difference in philosophy: “(Paul) Ryan doesn’t reject (the) notion (of a government-run welfare system). I do.”…

    …the solution put forth years ago by Milton Friedman: …

    … with consumer prices generally increasing primarily due to the central bank increasing the money supply.” …

  • “It’s a solid smaller/smarter government, low taxes, personal responsibility model that we believe in over here”

    ….. which of course, with the exception of low taxes, which were never translated into lower expenditures, is not what the Bush administration actually did.

    I laugh when Bushies claim to be in the Reagan mold. George HW Bush fritttered away Reagan’s legacy and George W Bush repudiated it.

    Truth be known that Reagan only temporarily decreased taxes — then he reformed taxes by broadening the base, simplifying the tax code, eliminating loopholes that had accrued during two decades and increased receipts. Where were you on tax reform George W Bush? Social Security and the Federal Retirement system were reformed to extend their solvency multiple decades under Reagan — GW Bush accomplished nothing in this area, he only accelerated the bankruptcy of Medicare. Reagan negotiated a reboot of the immigration system that his successors, including GW Bush, failed to follow up on. Reagan rolled back or reformed regulations a hundred times over compared to GW Bush. Reagan stood up to organized labor, unlike GW Bush. Reagan negotiated with virtually all his enemies instead of merely calling them names. Reagan believed in the common man or woman, not the expert technocrats, not like GW Bush with his TARP and other components of compassionate conservatism. And Reagan didn’t believe in wars or invasions that lasted more than 48 hours, unlike GW Bush’s two decade long conflagrations. And Reagan took the bloom off disruptive government interventionist monetary policy, a policy which sadly re-rooted and flourished in the administration of George W Bush.

    You are no supporter of Ronald Reagan. The differences are stark.

  • Yes, the differences are stark, as is the world Reagan led and the world Bush led. Different times result in different ways of governing. Neither Reagan nor the Bushes were perfect. No one is saying they are.

  • Yes, I will acknowledge that a world where there was double digit inflation simultaneous with double digit unemployment, a world where we were minutes away at any moment in time from nuclear annihilation delivered via ballistic missiles, and a world where a President had to govern his entire administration with a House of Representatives that was Democrat controlled, presented different, more foreboding challenges than anything that GW Bush ever had to encounter.

  • I don’t think the time periods are comparable.

  • It’s fairly obvious by way of recent blogs and endorsements that Bearing Drift is not a true voice of conservatives, but that of the status quo which includes both Democrats and “Republicans” among its ranks.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.