I do to, but since he has been backing Paul, his commentary seems to be farther afield than they used to be.
Yeah...I like a lot of what he says, but he has a strong strain of loon when he starts pontificating about the Constitution...a lot of things he says are law are actually just his opinion, the hard-over Libertarian interpretation, and do not track mainstream long-settled Supreme Court cases (And I'm not talking hot-button social issue stuff, more like relations between the States, Feds, and People, or between the three branches, or limits of Executive power). You never know whether he's actually talking about settled Constitutional law, or just how Libertarians think "It 'posta be" when he goes off on a tear about what the Constitution says. Well, unless of course you are a lawyer with some experience in Federal practice, anyway.