ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 12 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)



The Tom Woods App


RedState: Get Ron Paul Off the Stage

10th January 2012      by: Tom Woods     

RedState tweets: “Why is Ron Paul allowed to Continue Participating in Debates?”

In other words, we need that debate stage to be full of people who are three millimeters away from each other ideologically. That’s all the choice you get, citizen!

So here’s what RedState is saying:

Why would we want on the debate stage someone who, when all other candidates were clueless, predicted the recent economic collapse to a T? (He noted on the House floor in 2001 that the recently burst dot-com bubble, itself a creation of the Fed, was giving way to a housing bubble, also created by the Fed, which would just as surely burst.)

Why would we want someone with $1 trillion in specific cuts? We’ve had so much success with candidates who speak only generically about cutting spending while on the campaign trail!

Why would we want someone who’s never voted to raise taxes? We’ve had so much success with people who raised taxes and then, conveniently, happened to “regret” that decision right around the time they decided to run for higher office.

Why would we want someone who will abolish the Department of Education? We’ve had so much success with “compassionate conservatives” who increase spending on it.

Why would we want someone who criticizes the Federal Reserve for bringing about the business cycle? So what that the great economists conservatives are supposed to admire — e.g., Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek — thought the same thing! Who cares? Who’s even heard of those guys? Dick Morris is the only economist we at RedState need, baby!

Why would we want someone who has to be cajoled into boasting about his record, which he essentially never does? We’ve had so much success with egomaniacs who can talk about nothing but themselves.

Why would we want someone who’s been married to the same woman for 53 years, and is surrounded by children and grandchildren who love him?

Why would we want someone who, unlike Santorum and Gingrich, opposed Medicare Part D?

Why would we want someone who opposed all the bailouts?

Why would we want someone who appeals to the old, long-forgotten noninterventionist foreign-policy tradition on the Right? We need people who support the Hillary Clinton-endorsed foreign policy of trillion-dollar wars against two-bit nobodies, based on ludicrous propaganda that would have insulted a third grader, all in order to install an Iraqi regime whose constitution looks to Islamic doctrine for guidance.

I’d say a better question than RedState’s is this: why do Rick Santorum rallies attract eight people, Gingrich town halls attract 45 silver-hairs, and Ron Paul rallies attract huge throngs of smart young kids who don’t think in talking points?

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • 123dj

    The great Milton Friedman him self was not able to pin point it, in fact in 2006 he said things are going great. I give his example to show that most economists were unaware of what is going on.

  • Kbarr918

    It supposed to read Ron Paul not Romney! Ugh, stupid spellcheck.

  • Kbarr918

    It supposed to read Ron Paul not Romney! Ugh, stupid spellcheck.

  • Kbarr918

    It supposed to read Ron Paul not Romney! Ugh, stupid spellcheck.

  • jen

    In that case, I would drop the RevPac if this cornered Woods into keeping a distance from Paul and spreading his message and defending him effectively and persuasively.  I don’t think PACs are so rigid as Romney must have people on his PACs that heavily connected to mainstream media.

    However, I wouldn’t think being on the RevPac disqualifies him from going on mainsteam shows like Hannity, O’Reilly, etc…to make arguments for libertarianism. 

  • jen

    In that case, I would drop the RevPac if this cornered Woods into keeping a distance from Paul and spreading his message and defending him effectively and persuasively.  I don’t think PACs are so rigid as Romney must have people on his PACs that heavily connected to mainstream media.

    However, I wouldn’t think being on the RevPac disqualifies him from going on mainsteam shows like Hannity, O’Reilly, etc…to make arguments for libertarianism. 

  • jen

    In that case, I would drop the RevPac if this cornered Woods into keeping a distance from Paul and spreading his message and defending him effectively and persuasively.  I don’t think PACs are so rigid as Romney must have people on his PACs that heavily connected to mainstream media.

    However, I wouldn’t think being on the RevPac disqualifies him from going on mainsteam shows like Hannity, O’Reilly, etc…to make arguments for libertarianism. 

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    Hahaha! He had 14 retweets.  You’ve got 107 and counting. :) 

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    Hahaha! He had 14 retweets.  You’ve got 107 and counting. :) 

  • http://www.redstateeclectic.typepad.com AngelaTC

    Hahaha! He had 14 retweets.  You’ve got 107 and counting. :) 

  • jen

    In that case, I would drop the RevPac if this cornered Woods into keeping a distance from Paul and spreading his message and defending him effectively and persuasively.  I don’t think PACs are so rigid as Romney must have people on his PACs that heavily connected to mainstream media.

    However, I wouldn’t think being on the RevPac disqualifies him from going on mainsteam shows like Hannity, O’Reilly, etc…to make arguments for libertarianism. 

  • jen

    In that case, I would drop the RevPac if this cornered Woods into keeping a distance from Paul and spreading his message and defending him effectively and persuasively.  I don’t think PACs are so rigid as Romney must have people on his PACs that heavily connected to mainstream media.

    However, I wouldn’t think being on the RevPac disqualifies him from going on mainsteam shows like Hannity, O’Reilly, etc…to make arguments for libertarianism. 

  • Charles Peterson

    Great questions, Tom, for RedState to consider but unfortunately he’s too busy watching Faux News to worry about such trivial things.

  • Charles Peterson

    Great questions, Tom, for RedState to consider but unfortunately he’s too busy watching Faux News to worry about such trivial things.

  • Charles Peterson

    Great questions, Tom, for RedState to consider but unfortunately he’s too busy watching Faux News to worry about such trivial things.

  • Anonymous

    I wish Red State would get off the planet.

  • Anonymous

    I wish Red State would get off the planet.

  • Anonymous

    I wish Red State would get off the planet.

  • catman1210

    the National debt can never be paid off,you have to get rid of the Fed and or default on paying them off… as you pay off 15 trillion dollars you essentially take that money out of circulation this has the effect of contracting the currency this will cause huge job loss, this is what happened during the great depression contraction of the currency, we have grown the government sector to large,also with our current taxation system getting higher we have chased jobs out of the country,we have increased the debt ceiling and decreased job growth in the private sector, remember government jobs are debt financed not good,so you have a couple of choices and only Ron Paul has the answer, or at least he is the only one talking with understanding,every other candidate does not understand.you have to drastically decrease spending,pay down the debt and then work on getting rid of the unconstitutional fed and default on paying them,cut taxes invite capital back in the country to increase the private sector, balance the budget,also balance the creation of money with the private sector productivity,otherwise to contract the currency alone at this point you will have a greater depression than we had in 1929,if we keep spending you will have hyper inflation and collapse of the currency,the only people who will be safe are people who protect their assets with gold and silver or the 1% who have been in on currency creation, these scenarios the status quo are creating do not include you being successful ( the 99%) think about it..there is a tipping point in this country nobody can predict when that is,we are flirting with disaster.

  • catman1210

    the National debt can never be paid off,you have to get rid of the Fed and or default on paying them off… as you pay off 15 trillion dollars you essentially take that money out of circulation this has the effect of contracting the currency this will cause huge job loss, this is what happened during the great depression contraction of the currency, we have grown the government sector to large,also with our current taxation system getting higher we have chased jobs out of the country,we have increased the debt ceiling and decreased job growth in the private sector, remember government jobs are debt financed not good,so you have a couple of choices and only Ron Paul has the answer, or at least he is the only one talking with understanding,every other candidate does not understand.you have to drastically decrease spending,pay down the debt and then work on getting rid of the unconstitutional fed and default on paying them,cut taxes invite capital back in the country to increase the private sector, balance the budget,also balance the creation of money with the private sector productivity,otherwise to contract the currency alone at this point you will have a greater depression than we had in 1929,if we keep spending you will have hyper inflation and collapse of the currency,the only people who will be safe are people who protect their assets with gold and silver or the 1% who have been in on currency creation, these scenarios the status quo are creating do not include you being successful ( the 99%) think about it..there is a tipping point in this country nobody can predict when that is,we are flirting with disaster.

  • GenevieveforPaul

    Remember how they have tried focussing on paying the debt in previous elections?  People don’t believe it till thay see it anymore, so having the debates only focus on the “I promise to do this and that” doesnt work, as you stated about the labor unions.  They definately need to give more talking time to why the debt is directly linked to he militarism around the world, but the MIC controlled MSM isn’t going to let that happen.  Thats why they will continue to ask stupid questions about Gay marraige, he said/she said, and birth control.

  • GenevieveforPaul

    Remember how they have tried focussing on paying the debt in previous elections?  People don’t believe it till thay see it anymore, so having the debates only focus on the “I promise to do this and that” doesnt work, as you stated about the labor unions.  They definately need to give more talking time to why the debt is directly linked to he militarism around the world, but the MIC controlled MSM isn’t going to let that happen.  Thats why they will continue to ask stupid questions about Gay marraige, he said/she said, and birth control.

  • Anonymous

    They should change their name to Neo-Red State. 

  • Glenn McGuire of Virginia

    Because Ron Paul is the only Republican Candidate calling for real marker based capitalism, and not a crony Government picked winners  & losers capitalism. Only Ron Paul is calling for the government to live within it’s means, others are at best calling for a reduced deficit but a deficit none-the-less. Only Ron Paul is pushing for a stronger military that isn’t spread paper-thin across the globe. Only Ron Paul has the true conservative values of Freedom, Liberty, and constitutionally limited government.

  • GenevieveforPaul

    Beautiful.  Ron Paul seems to be the only one in Washington politics that has his head on straight about Iran.  But when you think about it, it’s common sense.  Why would a nation with a couple nukes use them, just so they could be blown to smitherines by 2 nations that have thousands?

  • Laura

    PLEASE, don’t forget the MIDDLE-AGED PEOPLE who support Ron Paul.  WE are ALWAYS being ignored by everyone, yet we contribute personally thousands of dollars to the campaign!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Jones/1624845227 Steve Jones

    business cycle? LOL As I recall, you were saying to avoid that phrase.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    I think my blog is a slightly more targeted audience than the whole country.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steve-Jones/1624845227 Steve Jones

    The United States has only known 6 years of peace since the beginning of World War II. That alone is proof that our foreign policy is misguided.

  • http://twitter.com/jaimekidv Jaime Shizzle

    I love your single-point sarcasm punches. It lays out the hypocrisy of the Red State writers so well/

  • Austin Holthaus

    Which 6…Cold War began around 1946.  

  • Greg

    not really.  the debt has to be paid back otherwise a lot of people loose, after all the bonds sold by the treasury (the so called t bills) were bought by many many many people.  by cancelling the debt you certainly get rid of it but you also tell millions upon millions of people that they have just lost their savings as well.  notice that t bills are the safest commodity you can invest in so pension funds and other very conservative saving organisations invest into t bills.  

    modern economists are far more aware of these things than you think, the problem is that no one ever listens to economists.  its a great myth created by lefties,paul krugman, amateur-economists-who-read-End-the-Fed  that some how this is all due to modern economists.  if you bother to look at these things in detail you will see that special interests (the iron triangle) writes all legislation and than carries it out, economists are never listened to.

  • http://www.facebook.com/veritas.luminarias Veritas Luminarias

    lol Red State as in COMMUNIST RED FLAG STATE. I’ve ALWAYS hated these Anti-American Free Market hating Neo-CONS!

  • Greg

    actually The Economists ran many special issues devoting hundreds of pages all together to this and at ALL times they said that the fed created too much liquidity and the housing market was not absorbing all this money very well because it had many regulations stopping the supply and the demand from equilibrating. 

    i don’t ever remember Ron Paul saying that 2008 would be the year or anything that specific.  however it is VERY commendable that he found the whole thing very scary and talked about at length all the time.  so yeah, out of the politicians he certainly was one of only few who called it but out of the economics profession (of whom he is not) he was very far from the only one…

    my point is that i don’t like how Woods some what distorts the truth, he doesn’t lie but on the other hand he certainly is milking this point.  i suppose its campaign season. ..

  • Greg

    it is commendable that Paul focused so much on this issue but i would not say that economists got it wrong.  rather that no one listened to them.  

  • Doctor Awesome

    I need to practice it. I’m terrible. My second question is always “Why do you hate people?”, and that gets me nowhere.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    How is anything I said a distortion of the truth?

    No one can or should even try to predict the timing. But that he saw precisely what the Fed was doing vis-a-vis dot coms and housing in 2001? I know of no one else saying such a thing so early.

  • Doctor Awesome

    Not if we have anything to say about it.

  • Chris

    Thanks to you and your friends for supporting the cause. Us poor (or up-and-coming) younger folk appreciate your contribution. We’ll hit the phones and donate what we can, and with higher-income middle aged supporters getting the commercials on TV, we can win this!

  • Greg

    i don’t think there is a conspiracy.  what is going on is this:

    1) most journalists are quite stupid (surprising i know).  they do not understand economics (of any kind) so they would rather focus on something more obvious and sensational: affairs and that sort of thing.  in any case that is what most people want from their news, not a long 3 hour panel discussion with academics but a 3 minute shouting match followed by nascar (or whatever it is that americans enjoy).

    2) politicians do not control the media.  on the other hand they are very good at manipulating them.  they know what information to leak to whom, what particular journalist will most probably ask and that sort of thing.  

    3) people in general do actually care about things like guns, babies and gays (especially the theocrats of the GOP).  people have real worries about gays, guns and babies and since USA is a free country (in name at least) they will focus on this.  people are rationally ignorant about politics and economics.  so we should not dismiss people’s lack of interest in things like debt, the fed etc. 

    Woods half jokingly and half cynically talks about MSM (main stream media) as if it was a giant cabal all the time.  i hope that this joking will not grow into a conspiracy theory in Woods’ mind.  remember that conspiracy theory is a mix of delusion, ignorance and intellectual laziness.

    MSM is ignoring Paul not because there is a conspiracy but because of point 1).  they are not intellectually equipped to either follow what he says or to dismiss him, so they just ignore him.  on top of that he really does not have a good chance (as he himself said) of actually winning, so they ignore him.     

    if anything we should be looking at the people and blaming them for their choices.  democracy gives people what they want, that is why the founding fathers tried so hard to restrict power of the mob by setting up very restrictive constitution.     

  • jen

    I do believe Paul said it was around 2007/2008, so he was in fact right on.  Getting to the root cause and having the political will to rat it out is the appeal in a political campaign.  Solutions and detailed diagnosis is where Paul is slow to reveal as he is so focused on warnnings and high-level messages of the bad nature of legislation that is both bad and good.

    Other candidates, after Paul makes it politically acceptable in mainstream thought, will get on it but suggest small, bandaid solutions and empty rhetoric talk with big, meaningless words provided by their advisors that nurture emotions appearing as if they care without having a track record of solving problems with small government and constitutional principles, but a track record of being pro-taxes and pro-big government/top-down solutions.

    In fact, he predicted doom under Obama as well.  He said Obama was a fraud in the 2008 election.  When Glenn Beck asked how much time the US has left, Paul said the ‘the writing will be on the wall at the end of Obama’s first term’ and something that it would collapse in his next term. 

  • jen

    Now, you have a valid point Greg.  Not enough people listen to him in a timely manner.  And, so it dead ends.

    Libertarians should be diplomatically assertive with mainstream media and package libertarian messages to a mainstream message so that they will listen and understand and importnatly, get off their ass and be concerned.  The critique of libertarians, including Judge N. is that they don’t know how to talk to others beyond their small community. 

    From the Jon Stewart show, you can see a platform was provided with good, detailed questions on libertariansim and the Judge failed to deliver.  He was staying at a high level and was not being practical and really listening to non-libertarians to understand their patterns/concerns/thinking while Stewart was open to considering a different philosophy under fair conditions if the Judge was persuasive.  Again, a missed opportunity that the Judge is not even aware of to improve upon.

  • Anonymous

    Hell, Ross Perot should get involved with the RP campaign buy buying him ad time in SC, FL and NV. Perot was championing the same things RP is now when Ross ran as a 3rd party – he got a decent chunk of the vote then too.

  • http://austriandad.blogspot.com/ Ryan

    Damn, Dr. Woods. Get ‘em.

  • Jacob_snow

    We don’t need ron Paul when the day of the primaries, every large media network tells us that it is a race between Romney and someone else. On January third it was between Romney (electability) and santorium (ideology). Today, January 10th, it is between Romney and huntsman.

    I am no conspiracy theorist! But there is a blatant push in the media to make this a race between Romney and someone else. With Romney beating his media anointed opponent every time. If it continues like this, Romney will be handed the nomination. It wont matter if Romney or Obama wins the general election, it is the very same thing.

    Why? Why would we want to continue down the path of runaway spending, inflation, wars, and the destruction of liberty and our currency? Who wins? Who profits off of that Tom?

  • http://www.facebook.com/luneleger James M Peterson

    You know I was thinking much the same thing about Romney/Huntsman/Gingrich/Perry/Santorum. It is Team Republican Establishment vs Ron Paul and they don’t even like that. No outside voices or alternatives allowed. How nice.

  • Rob Nabakowski

    Well said.  Redstate is, and to my mind always has been, a complete and utter joke. Just some GOP cheerleaders who treat politics as sport.  Morons, the whole lot.

  • Unclemilo

    Did I just read someone suggesting Hillary is responsible for the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Funny, I seem to recall it was George W. Bush who sent us into those two wars. I seem to recall it was Bush who outed a CIA agent and endangered her life just to bypass the evidence she was providing that Iraq didn’t have the WMDS that Bush claimed they did have. I recall the Republican chorus against anyone who opposed the wars that they were on the side of the terrorists and against the troops. Now that Bush’s legacy of war and debt still cripples this economy, you are trying to alter the truth again and lay the blame on Hillary Clinton… who wasn’t even in office for the first SEVEN YEARS of Bush’s bungled and mismanaged wars. Only someone even less educated than a third grader would buy that bull.

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    No, you read only that she supported them, which she did. She’d been serving in the U.S. Senate. And if you think I support George W. Bush, you are beyond hope. Three seconds on this site should make clear what I think about him.

    The point is simply that the pro-war people are bipartisan, and that Ron Paul is the only one who stands against them.

    Man, you sure are protective of pro-war Hillary for some reason!

  • http://www.consequenceofsound.net/author/jhpainter Harry Painter

    Guys, we need Revolution PAC, and Woods is the perfect guy to lead it. They know what they’re doing. You don’t think Woods and Paul have discussed this strategy personally?



Find me on Google