Ron Paul on the Glenn Beck Show

On December 18, presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) appeared for an hour on CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck Show.

Click on the image below for about 10 minutes of highlights:

Conservative vid site Hot Air summarizes the exchange thusly: "Glenn Beck just about kisses Ron Paul."

Comments

[sage]

My wife had the foresight to tivo that for me. I don’t really care for Beck, but I thought that it was a good interview. Allowing Paul to speak about economics reveals quite a passion for the subject and a lot of knowledge as well.

[ed]

I believe Paul cited Bastiat at one point and yes, it sailed well over Beck’s head.
Is there any–any–pundit or host out there with even the most rudimentary qualifications to properly interview Ron Paul?

[Lance Braga]

Is there any–any–pundit or host out there with even the most rudimentary qualifications to properly interview Ron Paul?

I dunno, but at least Beck seemed…fair-ish. Which is odd, because I have heard him with my own ears bashing Ron Paul on the radio.

I wonder if Beck is also popular with the “Lou Dobbs for President” crowd.

[Cesar]

Yeah, I was surprised how fair Beck was. He usually comes across as a paranoid, authoritarian bed-wetter.

[JL]

It’s clear that Ron Paul is on a much higher level than Beck intellectually, but at least he gave him the opportunity to share his positions on the air more thoroughly.

It was actually kind of amusing…the few times Beck tried to corner him, winding up empty handed and appearing foolish every time.

I was impressed by RP’s handling of the silly 9/11 conspiracy questions. I’m glad he alluded to the fact that the questions were unreasonable; making beck cower a little.

For someone who said he had some significant disagreements with RP, beck sure had a hard time pinpointing those disagreements. or maybe he just had a hard time backing up his side of the arguments.

[Mad for Ron Paul]

The sad part is that Beck will probably still be hosting his show long after everybody but the faithful have confused Ron Paul with Ross Perot and can’t quite pin down the year he ran or for what.

[Ali]

Yeah, I was surprised how fair Beck was. He usually comes across as a paranoid, authoritarian bed-wetter.

I don’t know, but Beck focused on all these negative associations. Anyone walking away from the show would associate Paul with “some sort of terrorists”, “supremacists”, and being “anti-Israel” and incapable of fighting the war on terror. I thought Beck was really mean.

What an awkward moment (to Beck) when he said he’d kiss Paul on the lips. You know, I like the man, but kissing him on the lips. Yuk!

[Chucklehead]

I caught the whole thing, having been forewarned on another site.

Beck was fair, I guess. Still came off as a “paranoid, authoritarian bed-wetter” to me though. It was my first (and last) time watching him however, so YMMV.

[Neu Mejican]

Beck: I agree with all of Paul’s positions, but I think they are unworkable and crazy.

Let’s here from the genius crazy man himself.

Why are your wonderful ideas crazy and unworkable?

Can I french kiss you?

[Neu Mejican]

I will note that Beck misspells “hear” when he talks.

[adrian]

beck says paul’s ideas except for war on terror are pretty much perfect. so who will beck vote for? Romney obviously.

[Bingo]

Houston chronicle interview is pretty good too if anyone hasn’t seen it!

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/The_Houston_Chronicle_Video_Interview_of_Ron_Paul

[Rattlesnake Jake]

“What an awkward moment (to Beck) when he said he’d kiss Paul on the lips. You know, I like the man, but kissing him on the lips. Yuk!”

He said the same thing about Obama when Obama was leading Hillary in the national polls. I’m beginning to wonder about Beck.

[Guy Montag]

ed,

I believe Paul cited Bastiat at one point and yes, it sailed well over Beck’s head.
Is there any–any–pundit or host out there with even the most rudimentary qualifications to properly interview Ron Paul?

Those with radio shows:

G. Gordon Liddy
Rush Limbaugh
Tammy Bruce
Christopher Hitchens

Those without radio shows:

William F. Buckley, Jr. trumps all.

[Ugly Stepssiter]

Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens (talk about an ironic first name) qualified to interview Ron Paul? You’ve got to be kidding. He’d take RP’s opposition to the Iraq war as a personal insult, start ranting at him, and never get to any questions. Whatever his intellectual qualifications might be, his personality disqualifications would override them.

[ed]

I’ve watched many Hitchens performances and I can honestly say I’ve never seem him rant. Perhaps “rant” has different meanings to different people, rendering the word meaningless. His typical method is to quietly and logically disassemble his inferiors bit by bit, leaving them resorting to ad hominem and other childish tactics, similar to the way his critics react to him here and elsewhere.

[Taktix?]

Rush Limbaugh doesn’t do interviews, but if he did, I bet no War on Drugs questions would come up… [/snark]

[Steve Verdon]

I believe Paul cited Bastiat at one point and yes, it sailed well over Beck’s head.
Is there any–any–pundit or host out there with even the most rudimentary qualifications to properly interview Ron Paul?

From the sounds of it, no. Most, if not all, pundits fall into the pitfalls that Alex Tabarrok laid out in his article on stupid voters.

[creech]

John Stossel.

[massadvj]

Based on my somewhat limited observations of Beck over the past few years, he seems to be evolving toward libertarianism and away from religious fundamentalism. Or is it just me?

[Warty]

Oh my, that Hot Air comment thread is precious.

[Cesar]

Based on my somewhat limited observations of Beck over the past few years, he seems to be evolving toward libertarianism and away from religious fundamentalism. Or is it just me?

Unless hes given up his “World War III” (or is it IV?) shtick lately, its just you.

[Elemenope]

Bingo —

I agree that that interview was a great deal more interesting than the normal electoral pablum; the camera angle was very odd, though, and it made him come off slightly shifty-eyed or autistic. His answers explained quite a lot of my unanswered questions about where he was coming from on some things (I was particularly intrigued by his talking about how the experience of War through the decades radicalized him.)

I nearly fell right out of my chair, though, when Dr. Paul started talking about economics and mentioned his belief that “the true satisfaction of man comes from producing something.”

The most famous person of modern times who said *exactly* that was…Karl Marx.

The normal Reason crowd reaction, I’ve noticed, is “OMFG, it’s a Marx reference, get in the car!” but it is interesting just how far certain ideas echo, even through the minds and halls of ideological foes.

[Bingo]

Elemenope:

Yeah, I think that is one of his struggles in this election is that he is an intellectual rather than a demagogue. He’s not going to be great at busting out bumper-sticker quotes during debates or interviews with the cable infotainment networks. But when he gets involved in a casual discussion rather than a “30 second buzzword answer” debate then he comes across as very reasonable and well-thought out.

[Taktix?]

Glenn Beck has to be one of the strangest of all the Right Wing Radio family.

At times, he comes across as rather thoughtful and anti-government, but then, in the next breath, start spewing neo-con talking points.

Maybe he’s not with the “in” crowd on the right, and is trying to break in, or maybe it has something to do with his show’s target audience.

I don’t really know what to think of him, other than the fact that he has done some pretty funny stuff before.

(One year, 2004 maybe, he did a parody of all those top-40 stations that turn over to Christmas music in December. It was hilarious. He even brought in some girl co-host named “Candy Cane”)

[Ugly Stepsister]

I’ve watched many Hitchens performances and I can honestly say I’ve never seem him rant. Perhaps “rant” has different meanings to different people, rendering the word meaningless. His typical method is to quietly and logically disassemble his inferiors bit by bit, leaving them resorting to ad hominem and other childish tactics, similar to the way his critics react to him here and elsewhere.

Actually, I was referring to a dinner party he was at (sorry, no longer have the link) where he went on and on about how people were opposed to the Iraq war just to prove him wrong, and when someone tried to question him gently on the matter, he blew up, called them some names, and walked out of the party. It was pretty widely blogged about at the time. I wasn’t trying to say and more or less than that his position on the Iraq War tends to blind him and reduce his capabilities…

[Neu Mejican]

Cesar,

Glenn Beck starts his RP interview by self-identifying as a long-time libertarian.

But….

[alan]

I’ve watched many Hitchens performances and I can honestly say I’ve never seem him rant. Perhaps “rant” has different meanings to different people, rendering the word meaningless. His typical method is to quietly and logically disassemble his inferiors bit by bit, leaving them resorting to ad hominem and other childish tactics, similar to the way his critics react to him here and elsewhere.

Quietly? Logically? Is this some bizzaro world version of a man named Christopher Hitchens of whom I am not aware? I ask this because, the Hitchens I’ve read can be best described as ‘resorting to ad hominem and other childish tactics.’

Here, http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/

you’ll find the words, ‘fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud’ to describe the person who is the subject of his attack, and that is just in the title. If you bother to read the article you will find quite a few other personal attacks, like this: ‘(cult of) a mediocre human personality’.

Hell, it is the ad hominem content that makes it a fun article to read. I’m sure it is not the delight of Schadenfreude when hated subjects are skewered that attracts Hitchens fanboys to his writing in the first place, now is it?

And that logic you speak of, ‘She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction,’ Any libertarian on this board can point out the fallacy on display here, given the careless use of the word, ‘only.’

[Les]

It’s a shame, really, that more level-headed people aren’t willing to call Mother Teresa a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud, because she really was all those things. When Hitchens does it, people (understandably) assume he’s nuts.

[alan]

There was good material in that Hitchens article (I never read the book he did on MT) on both Mother Theresa and the Catholic church; it is certainly worth the read. I just think it is extraordinaire someone would throw stones labeled
ad hominem and childish from a glass house when defending Hitchens.

[crimethink]

The great thing about that Hitchens article is that, in the same paragraph, he mocks Mother Teresa’s admittedly questionable opinion about war being caused by abortion, and then proceeds to blame her work in Calcutta for world poverty. I would say that he should remove the plank in his own eye, but…

[ed]

No glass house here. Throw whatever stones you possess, alan. I read Hitchens’ delightful undressing of “Saint”* Teresa (no “h” in Teresa, alan) and laughed out loud.

*Is she officially a saint yet? She certainly is on the fast track. Why is that? The sense of urgency from The Vatican perplexes. Hitch tells it like it is. What are you afraid of?

[crimethink]

Are you guys reading the same article I did?

From what I can tell, Teresa’s sins according to Hitchens are that she opposed abortion and had some wacky (again, according to him) beliefs about poverty and suffering, which she had no power to force anyone else to abide by.

If Mother Teresa is personally responsible for world poverty because of her opinions about it, then Christopher Hitchens is personally responsible for every Iraqi civilian and American soldier who plopped dead in the sand because of the war he vocally supported, no?

[Ron Paul, now accepting money]

I wonder if Glenn Beck discussed the $500 donation from the leader of the Stormfront movement, you know the one that Ron Paul said he refuses to give back. Ron Paul is a nutcase, and I hope to God he doesn’t get over one percent of the vote anywhere. And please don’t tell me about the Neo-nazi canard concering Paul’s campaign. He blatantly refused to return the donation. What a guy.

[crimethink]

^
|
|

????

[Eric Dondero]

If you all haven’t heard yet, there’s a photo breaking all over the web news sites of Ron Paul and Nazi StormTrooper leader Don Black (and his son) at an event in Florida in September.

This is bad. This is really, really bad.

[crimethink]

Dondero,

Hmm, I don’t see it anywhere. You got a link?

[crimethink]

Dondero’s claim looks dubious to me.

[alan]

“Saint”* Teresa (no “h” in Teresa, alan)

Thanks for the spell check. My sister is named Theresa (with a ‘t’), so that one tends to slip by.

[alan]

er, ‘h’.

[alan]

fair question, though,

What are you afraid of?

Mountains mostly. After more than a decade of climbing mountains, I developed an anxiety towards them and now I don’t like to see them. I guess I have issues with the immensity of the damn things (yet, I’m cool with skyscrapers). I’ll have to figure it out one day.

Spiders, I loath more than I fear, but when they touch me, I will screech like a little girl. I was once bitten by one (never identified the type) and nearly lost a leg, but truthfully, I’ve had a strong visceral reaction to them before that occurred (yet, I’m down with the snakes).

No social organizations or people make my list though.

[Eric Dondero]

Just Google “Ron Paul Don Black” in the Blog section.

LGF broke it late last night, and has the two photos up. They were originally confused as to who the 3rd person was in the photos. Turns out it’s Don Black’s son.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com

[Eric Dondero]

The problem for Paul is not so much the photos. It’s the timing.

This comes literally two days after the Paul Campaign issued a release saying they were “keeping the Don Black $500 contribution.”

I’m no Ron Paul fan, as you all know.

But even I gotta say, that this probably isn’t coincidental.

Somebody was perhaps sitting on these two photos, giggling their ass off, waiting for the precise right time to release them.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

Don Black probably supports Ron Paul because Ron Paul is neutral concerning support for Israel. I also support that position of Ron Paul’s as well but for a different reason than Don Black would. Don Black would support it because he hates Jews. I support it because I don’t believe our country should have entangling alliances with any country and should not be economically supporting any other countries. Our military is for supporting Americans, our tax dollars are for supporting Americans.

[SG]

So Ron Paul got money from Don Black. So what? Why doesn’t the media cover Hillary’s contributions from LaRaza, the hispanic racist organization?

[eric rittberg\'s hemorrhoid]

If y’all haters want Don Black to get 500 bucks, why don’t you just give it to him yourself?

’tis the season, after all.