27 votes

Rand Paul Talks To Glenn Beck About His Vote For Hagel

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
psnow's picture



"I just want to live in a free country" - Dr. Ron Paul

Rand is a severly compromised individual

That cannot be trusted.


Thanks for posting! Glad Beck at least talked to Rand. But seriously, Beck and his cohost are major morons. Why would Rand deplete all his political capital on something that is inevitable. What part of that does doofus not get??

Did anyone else notice...

...that GB's only posters were of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? Of all presidents, the "libertarian" Beck picks two of the most tyrannical presidents in history to decorate his walls?

Could you imagine Lew Rockwell hanging pictures of Lincoln in the Mises institute?

Could you imagine Ron Paul holding Theodore Roosevelt up as the paradigm of what a good president should be?

Glen Beck is a snake--Snake--SNAKE.

The fact that Rand cozies up to him is highly problematic.

The co-opting of this movement is well underway.

Rand, how hard is it to vote "no"? How hard is it to vote your conscience? How hard is it to stick to principle?

Your father often did it as the only dissenting voice out of 435.

Take a lesson from your old man. Please.

Yea, I noticed...

...not only two of the most tyrannical, but two of the most bloodthirsty. TR's war against Philippine (and Cuban) independence was a moral calamity on par with Lincoln's Civil War and Bush/Obama's War on Terror. Of course, neocons like Beck praise such mass-murderers (unless they're Democrats like Obama) as exemplars of strong Presidential leadership.

Some libertarian. Glen Beck doesn't have a clue.

Wall of shame

I say he can keep them if he labels it the wall of shame.

For those who've held public office...

I'd like to hear only from those who've held public office, any public office (including local board or appointed positions): is Rand's approach opening more people's minds to liberty and the Constitution, even compared to Ron's approach? Does Rand's approach win enough votes to get people elected to higher office than Representative in Congress?

I ask for responses from public office holders because I know how easy it is for people who've never been in the same situations that Rand and Ron have been -- in committees and public office -- and then be publicly questioned and held responsible by the media and the public for their votes and statements, with their reputation on the line. Only people who've held office, any office, really know what works and what doesn't in actual legislative or executive public positions.

We forget that Ron was never able to be elected beyond his Congressional District -- not for US Senate in 1984, not for President the 3 times he ran for that -- while Rand was able to be elected to the US Senate his first time out. Yes, his father helped in his campaign, I'm not claiming that "he won that campaign all on his own" (although they were voting for Rand not Ron), I'm just comparing the messaging and actual policy differences between them. Realize that Ron wasn't even able to win the majority of his Congressional District's Presidential Primary votes, though they re-elected him to the House 11 times.

While you may think those re-elections were only because Ron was so constitutionally consistent and uncompromising, perhaps the people of his district also liked his earmarks for projects in the district and his staff's ability to help constituents get other things owed to them by the government and of course preferred him over the other Congressional Candidates (especially the Democrat).

We can have a hypothetical debate about whether Rand's approach WILL work if he runs for President, but is it possible that Rand has already achieved wider electoral success than his father -- Senator (of a 6-district state) vs Representative of one district.

Just those of us who have held public office: is Rand's approach more successful than Ron's?

Glenn Beck?

You know what? I had it with this guy. I won't even watch it this time. I refuse to even give Glenn a youtube view.


I was about to mention the same thing.

Frankly, he is a very boring man imo.


The way I see it

Rubio or Cruz & Republicans lose. Becks marching orders are to hijack Libertarianism & the Liberty movement & steer it's momentum back to NeoConservatism and to do what he does best,set up & trash Liberty candidates. Looks like the Democrats will win another one in 2016 !

Ron Swanson


I could not even listen to all of it. I wish Rand had some balls and would say that Hagel is a breath of fresh air and a complete reversal of Cheney and the neo-cons. NOTICE, they NEVER talked specifics or about foreign policy issues. NO WAY. This was Rand trying to kiss the ring of Glenn Beck and it made me sick.
Why cant anyone stand up and say Iraq was wrong. And I admire Hagel for standing up against it. Ron Paul agrees with Hagel that the USA can be a bully in the world. But Rand ran for cover and never took the bull by the horns.
Where are the people that have convictions?

If I was a Senator it would

If I was a Senator it would be a tough call for me to vote for or against Hagel's confirmation:

Hagel made some statement's against the Iraq war after it was started, but he voted YES to authorize the use of military force in Iraq in 2003.

Hagel is an internationalist and supporter of the UN and other international organizations (especially NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, IMF and World Bank), but he "agreed with the statement that 'America is seen as a bully...' around the world". (agreeing with that statement is a pretty light weight accusation against Hagel, and pretty light weight evidence that Hagel is a step in the right direction for liberty and the rule of law)

Hagel made some statements about being "a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator". That took some guts, for sure, but has he actually followed that idea up in any vote he had to take that related to Israel? Perhaps Hagel had been voting against the status quo and that's why he was challenged with questions about Israel and other things. I have not seen that evidence yet, but I would like to.

My main point is that just because someone makes (or agrees with) statements that sound good, if they don't follow it up with reality -- in the case of a Senator, votes or legislation -- it doesn't matter in reality, only in debates among easily deceived people.

In the end, without knowing more specific details about Hagel's voting record (and specifically the reasons for his votes) or the trade-offs needed in the Senate to stop someone worse, like Brennan, I think Rand's thinking is as good as any I can come up with at this point.

Yes, as a Senator, I would have explained in the interview exactly what I just wrote. Rand was catering to Beck's audience more than I would have. But I would not say that I agreed with Hagel's positions if they were just a few statements and agreements with statements (slightly out of context) and not actual votes and policy.

Screw Glenn

Rand needs mindless Beck fans vote but don't forget Beck is pseudo-intellectual wannabe gatekeeper.
Becks operatives are watching and subverting this site.

lets call a spade to spade...

Glen asked rand some tough questions. Just remember that many of us here were blind at one time. If he continues this leading into the elections of 2014, then we may have a partner in liberty. Only time will tell....

Elections of 2014 you say...

When you say "leading into the elections of 2014, then we may have a partner in liberty" I hope you mean that Rand's strategy may help elect more liberty members of Congress. Because that is what I'm more concerned about right now, rather than the 2016 election of President.

If we don't have a sizable liberty caucus in both the House and Senate in Congress, no liberty-oriented President will have a chance at successfully turning the government around. If we can't win Senate and Congressional races for liberty in 2014, we won't be able to turn the narrative in our favor by 2015 (the start of the 2016 election cycle) and no liberty Presidential candidate of any party affiliation will have a real chance in 2016.

For those that don't like Rand, that means that you should be working your tail off to elect someone better to statewide office in the next 2 years -- governor or US senator -- if you want to have a credible Presidential candidate to campaign for in 2016.

In case someone brings him up, Gary Johnson was last elected governor 14 years ago in a small state (New Mexico), if he wants to have credibility enough to win the Presidency as an 'independent' in 2016, he needs to win an election as an independent governor or US senator in 2014.

someone else is probably best placed to start

the thread but does anyone else notice the rebranding/hijacking/co-opting of 'libertarianism' going on.

Beck, Jacqueline Hunter, Rand, Paypal
Ron, Lew, the libertarian party, most of us on here

The first group don't mind watering down things because they feel the second group are too intransigent and extremist and thus aren't electable. Wow where have I heard that one before.

Honestly bring on the revolution.

You are free to think even in 2013

But if you do not think rationally, the result wont produce a value.

Your "most of us" is lame since there is no collective unity here. While Ron Paul himself tried to stay within progmatism of Ludwig von Mises and borrowed only limited portion from Rothbard, Lew and some others are open anarcho-capitalists. But anarcho-capitalists failed to demonstrate validity of their thoughts, they simply assume thier idea as a belief (not unlike Marxists belief in a miracle of historic dialectics.) Same with religious Libertarians - they stuck with miracles and beliefs, then use rational faculty to rationalize their dogma. Austrian economists like Hayek and Mises did not argue for freedom on moral ground, only based on utilitarian expediency.

The only rational consistent theory of LIBERTY comes from Ayn Rand. Since she exposed religious morality as being the same as the one of socialists, she is hated by the left and the "right" alike.

I think you've missed my point.

The first group (esp. hunter) have specifically targeted this site saying it is full of conspiracy theorists etc. It's they that have generalized the users on here not me. I'm happy to acknowledge that the dailypaul isn't just a bunch of 'conspiracy theorists' however people jike jack, beck are not and they are trying to marginalize this site and replace it with their own homogenized, watered down version.

Glenn Beck -- "What about Israel?"

Hey GB, How about you flippin MOVE your ass there?!!


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Treg, Glenn is an open supporter of Israel

If Arabs were advocating capitalism and free society while Israel Sharia Law, I would too support Arabs.

Gallup poll last year confirmed that although majority of Americans are collectivists they still prefer Israel over Sharia Law.

80% Republicas support Israel.
71% Independents support Israel.
65% Democrats support Israel.

But then again,

a majority of US sheeple voted for obama, does that mean you did too? Or that is the best thing to do?

LIBERTY2ME's picture

GB mumbles maybe the people

GB mumbles maybe the people or press will wake up this time...Really? It would have been nice if Glen Beck woke up last time.

Glen Beck thinks, or at least

Glen Beck thinks, or at least says, that he "woke up" already. I don't see enough of a difference in thinking from Beck 2013 compared to Beck 2008, so I would encourage people who care about Beck's opinions to call in to his show and try persuading him or his audience themselves, instead of just being "armchair quarterbacks" from afar.

Learning is a continual process and wise people find that total wisdom and knowledge aren't "arrived at" in one moment, but continually improved on over a lifetime. Beck doesn't concern me, I watched this clip to see what Rand would say, since he's a US Senator whose campaign I supported (financially and rhetorically). Speculating from afar on whether someone is "awake" or not isn't as helpful as doing what you can to inform them or others in the audience.

If I cared about Beck's opinions I would call his show and make the basic point that the government's policy is not identical and interchangeable with the opinions of the people of the country, be it America or Israel. That is the basic mistake in his thinking on "the issue of Israel" or anything else he talked about here. Perhaps he would distinguish the difference between government economic policy or federal reserve monetary policy as different than the opinion of "the American people". That may be how to show that disagreement with government policy isn't identical with being "anti-America" or "anti-Israel", whether Beck hears it or not, listeners in the audience may be worth trying to reach.

Like I said, those who care about Beck's opinions could try that; I don't care so much and have plenty on my plate to do in the various party, organizational and neighborhood office positions I hold to bother with calling into Beck's show.

If Beck really wants to gain some credibility...

he'd take that stupid picture of Lincoln the Tyrant off his wall and replace it with the large blank area directly behind it or a flag or something.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Dude ....worse than Lincoln would be Roosevelt

I think he first needs to take down that picture of Roosevelt

Tell you what BECK you NEO-CON, War-mongering, MURDERING...

...piece of CRAP.

Hagel WAS the right choice here.

Just because BECK wants to kill Muslims and Arabs night and day DOESN'T MEAN WE WANT TO.

And Why doesn't Rand just be HONEST and say that to Beck???

The war-mongering, Neo-Con, Israel-First, U.N.-second, Federal Reserve-third, USA-fourth, Arab-hating, MURDERERING GOP is showing their colors again.

And Beck is one of their top poster-boys.




Does Rand think his DAD CARED???


"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Glenn Beck didn't say

Glenn Beck didn't say anything about war in this interview.

It is a perverse mutual

It is a perverse mutual conspiracy of silence. Beck doesn't want his low-information listeners to know that Hagel actually agrees with Rand on key foreign policy issues. Rand doesn't want them to know either because he is trying to build an unsustainable coalition between libertarians and Beckian warmongers. This mutual conspiracy can't work in the long term, of course. If Rand pulls "another Hagel" this papered over coalition will finally tear completely.

I disagree. The coalition is

I disagree. The coalition is not with the "people" who are warmongers - its with the masses that follow everything the mainstream party says and "us". I think he can sustain it, but it will be one of the trickiest things in the last 100 years.

Since when is Hannity and

Since when is Hannity and Beck (who Rand works overtime to cultivate) conduits to the "masses?" They are better described as conduits to an aging, and declining audience, of nationalistic yahoos.