Tom Woods recently interviewed Scott Horton on his podcast.  The topic was the Iran deal and Rand Paul’s reaction to it.  You can listen here: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-448-the-iran-deal-and-rand-pauls-response/

Scott Horton first does an excellent job of summarizing the situation with Iran.  Most of the Iranian people actually like Americans, or at least want to get along with them.  They don’t like the U.S. government.

The politicians in Iran are not much different from politicians you find everywhere else.  Actually, for all of the accusations about the leaders there being nuts, they are probably a little more sane than most U.S. presidents of the last 100 years.

Woods and Horton then discussed Rand Paul’s reaction to the Iran deal and his lame reasons for opposing it.  They both agree he is taking a stance that is just plain wrong, especially from a moral standpoint.  But Woods also points out that it isn’t even that smart politically.

Rand Paul is not the opposite of his father politically speaking.  I mean, someone like Lindsey Graham or Hillary Clinton is the opposite of Ron Paul.

But Rand Paul is just about the opposite of his father when it comes to playing politics.  He has basically shown to have little principle.  It seems that every move is calculated.  He is trying to walk a tightrope right now.  He is trying to keep the libertarian camp on his side while also not alienating the establishment.  It is an impossible tightrope to walk and he is going to fall off.

Tom Woods interviewed Brian Doherty just a few weeks ago, and they also discussed Rand Paul and foreign policy.  You can listen to that here: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-437-rand-paul-foreign-policy-and-2016/

I found it odd that Doherty was basically complimenting Rand Paul on the fact that he would receive emails from the Rand Paul camp taking a fairly hardline libertarian position on certain issues.  Doherty found it encouraging that Paul at least realized he needed to act a bit more radical in front of his father’s followers.

Doherty also had his criticisms of Rand’s flip flopping, so I don’t want to make it sound as if he was really bad in the interview.  But what Doherty admired about Rand Paul, I find disgusting.

When Rand Paul is on national television, he tends to be far less radical, at least in a libertarian direction.  He will typically sound similar to Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio.  He doesn’t usually sound like a libertarian in any meaningful way.

Then, when he is talking to a libertarian crowd, or his camp is sending out emails to names from his dad’s email list, then all of a sudden he sounds more libertarian.  He sounds like he is taking principled stands.

This is a sign of dishonesty and a lack of principle.  His lack of principle  really is the opposite of Ron Paul.  What would we get from him if he somehow did make into the White House?

He would obviously still be better than Hillary Clinton and probably most of the other candidates, but I am not going to waste any time and energy supporting him.  And if he did win and took these stances of basically maintaining the status quo, then the establishment will be quick to blame libertarianism for the continued problems, even though he won’t be enacting a libertarian agenda.

I am always quick to remind people also that it is extremely rare for someone to act more libertarian once in office than what was shown in the campaign.  It is usually the opposite.

I think Rand Paul is taking his father’s supporters for granted.  In fact, I would almost say that he is taking them for fools.  He thinks he can just occasionally throw in some “libertarianish” (his word) language and his father’s supporters will have to support him as the best choice.

I know I speak for many libertarians when I say that I don’t have to support anyone.  There will be a Libertarian Party candidate and if I don’t like that person, I probably won’t vote.  Or maybe I’ll write in “Ron Paul”.

It is kind of silly of Rand Paul to not use his dad’s name more often.  If he were Rand Smith or Rand Jones, he wouldn’t be a senator right now.  But he thought his strategy for getting elected in Kentucky will work to get in the White House.

I noticed in the past that Tom Woods, many contributors to Lew Rockwell’s site, and other hardcore Ron Paul supporters did not talk about Rand Paul a lot.  Many of them are friends with Ron Paul and, of course, they don’t want to insult his son.

I have seen that change in the last couple of months.  People like Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell are generally very respectful anyway, except when going after the worst characters in government.  But they have been less shy in criticizing Rand Paul lately, while still remaining somewhat polite about it.

I have a great amount of respect for Ron Paul and what he has done and what he is continuing to do.  He is about to turn 80 years old and he is still working as hard as ever to educate people on the benefits of liberty.

Unfortunately, his son opted to go into politics and he is not doing it to educate others, or at least his actions speak otherwise.  He is seeking political power.  Therefore, he is open to criticism like everyone else.  He will draw more criticism from me because there are still many libertarians supporting him, and I want to make sure they know what they are supporting.

This means no disrespect to Ron Paul.  His son is seeking major power and he is open to criticism because of that.  I would rather not have to criticize a close member of Ron Paul’s family, but that is just the way it is now and I have to tell things how they are.

Rand Paul is opposing the Iran deal for political purposes and he isn’t even doing a good job of playing politics.  It looks like we are going to avert war with Iran.  But if something does end up happening, then Rand Paul can live with that on his conscience in opposing peace with Iran as a sitting U.S. senator.  For that reason alone, I cannot support Rand Paul.  He should know better based on his roots.  Unfortunately, he probably does know better and he is choosing politics over peace.