My Conversation with Rand Paul

We discuss the budget, the Export-Import Bank, the TSA, and presidential war powers, as well as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul. I have some additional commentary at the end.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Sean Kick

    Personally, I was shocked by Rand Paul’s statements in response to your question about his Ted Cruz endorsement. A part of the “very conservative” republican party with some libertarian tendencies? Give me a break, this has been the EXACT problem with our current political system. So they can sell us out once their team gets the presidency? I don’t trust DeMint or Lee.

    We’ll see though. maybe I’m being too pessimistic…  

  • tea-partier

    Rand Paul’s efforts are focused on bringing about as much liberty as possible in the short run. Considering that, it would be a waste of time to endorse somebody who isn’t going to win and prevent Ted Cruz from winning essential votes. You might not see it, but if the senate was full of Jim DeMints instead of McConnells, the country would be a much, much better place.

  • plenarchist

    Tom – If you do have Roderick Long on an upcoming show, I’d be interested in his thoughts on democracy in ancient Athens. As you know, the word “democracy” means literally “the people rule.” Citizens held office and were chosen by lot; not by election. Maybe a modern day Constitutional Athenian-style democracy could create a free state…

    Another good show. Thanks.

  • David Bardallis

    I’ve already gotten used to having some Tom Woods radio in the morning and I’m going to miss it.  I do hope when the real Tom Woods Show comes, it isn’t punctuated by the absolutely annoying nasally government press release reading guy, who forced me to turn the mute on every hour and half-hour. Man, I hate “n00z.”

    Good job, Tom!

  • Liberty Belle

     I couldn’t agree more.  This was a real turn off for me, and more ammo for a case against Rand stepping into his father’s shoes to lead the liberty movement.  It goes without saying that he is his own person and perhaps doesn’t want that role, but I think that liberty-lovers need to be wary about appointing him to be the movement’s front man at any point in the future. 

  • Anonymous

    Rand Paul is no Ron Paul, he’s a watered down libertarian/compromising conservative. I’m really glad Woods made an addendum to the interview, stating that we should never compromise our principles for the lesser of two evils. I bet he felt like asking Rand some pointed questions during the interview but was being respectful and under time constraints.

    Thanks for keeping it real Tom.

  • Anonymous

    G’day Tom

    I stumbled upon a bloviating twit today.

    He’s going to make your blood boil, so if you’re in a good mood -don’t watch!  Man, how I’d love you to put him in his place, or Michael Scheuer for that matter. (secret fantasy)

    Sorry this is o/t

  • Guest

    Just wanted to say you did a great job replacing Peter for 2 weeks. Thanks Tom!

  • Mike

    I agree. Rand needs to grow a pair.

    Tom, seriously…You got balls. If anyone should take up Ron Paul’s mantle in congress its you. You got the brains, balls, and are a tremendous orator. You’ve got all the skills and knowledge necessary to do what is necessary.

    I want someone up their with the guts Ron Paul but would also be a much better speaker. That man is Thomas E. Woods Jr.

  • Mike

     Oh, and is a much better typist than I. lol.

  • J Cortez

    Rand needs to grow a pair? I respectfully disagree, and think you’re being a little harsh.

    Rand and his father are two different people. I will concede that he is not as studied as his father on all the issues. But that said, he is a much better speaker, interviews better, appears to think more strategically and is much more of a pragmatist in terms of pushing issues to the floor, all while keeping an ideology that he isn’t likely to sell out. So while his ideology might be watered-down in comparison to his dad, he is more palpable to the mainstream and doesn’t seem like he’ll budge at all on things that matter. That is VERY impressive compared to how everybody else does things in the senate. I have to admit, in the beginning I was very skeptical, but Rand has grown on me a bit.

    Tom Woods as a candidate? Again, I respectfully disagree. I believe that not only would liberty minded people be better served if he stayed out of public office but Tom Woods himself would be personally better served as well. (For most people, political life is draining and doesn’t come without personal cost.)

    There are two major reasons as to why Tom Woods the politician is not a good idea. The first reason is that I consider it impossible for any political candidate to defend a Rothbardian position in the current state of public discourse. He’d get smashed by all sides for daring to have different ideas. Secondly, consider the case of Rush Limbaugh. To be sure, Limbaugh is an illogical and evil slug, but one cannot deny that he’s influenced political discourse across the country over 25 years. Imagine if someone with ethics and intelligence (like our man Dr. Woods) could do the same? Woods is funny, has academic chops, is logically consistent, and is a great speaker. He needs to build a nationwide audience, but it’s not out of the question to see him in that kind of role. I think, in the libertarian division of labor, his best use is as a writer and public intellectual.

  • Anonymous

    See, I consider this problematic:

    ‘he is a much better speaker, interviews better, appears to think more strategically and is much more of a pragmatist in terms of pushing issues to the floor’

    These are hallmarks of democratic government: compromise, charisma and duplicity, which are superfluous under a constitutional republic, guided by the rule of law.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, and I’m hoarding all my spare change for the first ever Tom Woods 4 President moneybomb

  • Mike

     Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

  • J Cortez

    Respectfully, I think that the US hasn’t been a constitutional republic with rule of law for some time. I have trouble imagining how the US could be called as such when there has been a decade of multiple senseless wars, a TSA that gropes and radioactively porno-scans everybody, and trillion dollar bailouts to banks and other connected interests. I mean you no disrespect, but if the US is a republic, it’s in name only.

  • Sean Kick

     Yes, but he’s saying that those hallmarks are superficial to a constitutional republic, which I guess you were implying that Rand posses over his father. Meaning, I can only assume and I like to think, that we shouldn’t compromise on principle for some temporary political gain. The DeMint’s, Lee’s, and Cruz’s will make no hesitation to sell us down the river as soon as Mitt or some other robot republican is elected.

  • Anonymous

    You’re validating my point.

  • J Fournier

    Dick Morris just endorsed Ted Cruz on Hannity tonight.  That’s not good enough for you Tom?  :)

  • J Fournier

    I watched Hannity so you don’t have to!

  • Anonymous

    Dickie always does what Dickie does best :)