Scarborough says he voted for Paul for spending "his entire public career standing athwart history yelling "'stop' to an ever-expanding centralized state," specifically citing his support for a balanced budget, opposition to government interference in the housing market, and dedication to "dismembering" the "big government beast."
Let's analyze each point in turn:
If Ron Paul were given complete dictatorial control over the federal government, not only would he not balance the budget, he would in all likelihood default on our debt. I know in Republicanland tax cuts for the rich are magically revenue neutral, but here in the real world if you abolish the income tax, as Paul wants to do, it would be mathematically impossible to reduce the national debt, much less balance the budget. Even if he literally destroyed the entire federal government, closing down every public school and highway, dropping every senior from the rolls of Medicare and Social Security, and disbanding the entire United States armed forces, he still wouldn't be able to afford the salaries of the only government bureaucrats he seems to like: career politicians like himself.
Additionally, Scarborough says he likes Paul's grand solution to preventing housing bubbles? I assume he's referring to Paul's policy of returning to the gold standard, an action that a poll of forty mainstream economists, liberals and conservatives alike, unanimously agreed would be bad for the average American.
The argument against it is one of pragmatism, not principle. First, a gold standard would have all the disadvantages of any system of rigidly fixed exchange rates--and even economists who are enthusiastic about a common European currency generally think that fixing the European currency to the dollar or yen would be going too far. Second, and crucially, gold is not a stable standard when measured in terms of other goods and services. On the contrary, it is a commodity whose price is constantly buffeted by shifts in supply and demand that have nothing to do with the needs of the world economy--by changes, for example, in dentistry.
The United States abandoned its policy of stabilizing gold prices back in 1971. Since then the price of gold has increased roughly tenfold, while consumer prices have increased about 250 percent. If we had tried to keep the price of gold from rising, this would have required a massive decline in the prices of practically everything else--deflation on a scale not seen since the Depression. This doesn't sound like a particularly good idea.
And his final point, that Paul is this great anti-government crusader. I can't really argue with him there. From wanting to end Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, to gutting essentially every single regulation ever created, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which he said "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices," Paul is anything but a big government Republican. We all remember when he infamously declared the government should turn away sick people without health insurance, right? Well, in a sick twist of irony, Paul's own uninsured former campaign manager took his freedom to the grave when he died of pneumonia at age 49, leaving his mother with $400,000 in medical bills. Surely Paul's rank extremism is precisely why conservatives' insistence on the evils of everything government are absurd at best and dishonest at worst. Either they don't understand how disastrous society would be without government regulations, or they are willfully deceiving the public with their absolutist, and often demagogic, rhetoric.