Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: Ron Paul and Iowa

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?

Reprinted with permission from TomWoods.com.

The Best of Tom Woods