Ron Paul on Glenn Beck - Comments

I feel it was the fairest interview Ron Paul has ever received IN SPITE OF Glenn Beck.

....but what was up with that 'french kiss' remark by Beck???

1) It was an attempt to embarass Ron Paul and catch him off guard
2) It was an attempt at ratings
3) (Well, what can you expect of an ex-cocaine addict/alcoholic and rodeo clown?)
4) All of the above

Final thought: consider all these personalities on television and the bizarre unethical things they do....

So how come smart people like us are stuck working in crappy jobs for stupid people and a lot less money? What are we doing wrong????

The "Paul is dead" message during interview was a powerful statement. Was it just "tasteless" television or a threat that we should take seriously?

There are many enemies of freedom in this world. We should speak up and not let them rule over us anymore.

Based on Beck's previous comments about RP supporters and homegrown terrorism, this interview always had a question mark? Now that it is over what is the verdict?. For most of the segment there was an honest question and answer interview without contention and RP was able to make his points without being shouted down. Beck even got RP to say it was a fair interview. So it could be given an 8-9 out of 10?

On the one hand yes, but on the other maybe not so fast.

Beck alleged that he now had to wear a bullet proof vest because one or more RP supporter made threats on him. No proof was given, instead he decided to show the evidence to RP during a break allowing the viewer to think he had real evidence and that this was an RP supporter and not just someone claiming to be a RP supporter.

Now there has been many post here about an article which claimed insider elites were planning to eliminate RP. We have stories and links about Beck calling for the death of Michael Moore in addition to many other diatribes including those about RP supporters. So he comes to the table with dirty hands and yet wants to make a big issue about this alleged threat on him, just as Faux News and many others have made an issue about the $500 donation from a supposed White Supremacist (1 donation out over 50,000) Is Beck signalling to his army that since he is being threatened, it is now OK to threaten RP, or worse?

This segment was then followed up by the yes/no nonsense about 9/11 and if you want to know where Beck stands on that search for the last interview he had with Netanyahu, former PM of Israel and watch how Beck grovels at this feet.

Romney was on Beck a few weeks ago. No questions about 9/11. A softball interview. Romney was on Beck radio this morning. Another softball interview. Could it simply be that the ONLY reason Beck was pandering to RP supporters for an interview was to help RP hit Huckabee in order to help his fellow Mormon, Romney in the lead in Iowa and NH. .

The alleged threats and 9/11 nonsense could have been left out and dealt with quietly. Publicizing these things does not help. Yes, most of the interview was positive, but to the uninitiated and undecided the alleged threats and 9/11 nonsense would leave serious questions and it was meant to be that way.

RP was never more correct to use the quote of Sinclair Lewis earlier in the day about when fascism comes it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, meaning the people spouting patriotism and religion are wolves in sheeps clothing. The real question is who is the true patriot. The person who is a patriot to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution or the one who shouts about the flag and wears his religion on his sleeve? WE know that the true patriot is RP but he is still treated in a third class way compared to Romney and Netanyahu. Why?

I believe Beck,Blitzer, Hannity,O'Reillly and all this mob are wolves in sheeps clothing. Beware!

In the days and weeks ahead observe, for ye shall know them by their fruit.

Some comments are indicating Glenn Beck may have had his best viewing audience in his history. I agree this is probably true, but how can it be measured? If the RP audience can be measured by TV ratings, why are we not showing up in the POLLS? Do they monitor the TV signals so somehow they know what we are watching? can anyone explain this ?

In the last segment of the interview I saw something in Becks face. Look closely, if you have ever seen it before you'll never forget it.
Beck Looked SCARED!!!

I find it very offensive for Glenn Beck to be scrolling the message Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead, Paul is Dead on the bottom of the screen during the interview with Ron Paul.

I think he should make it clear that he wishes no ill will to Dr. Ron Paul. His interview I thought was fair on the surface but he did take the interview into the typical conspiracy camp.

http://www.infowars.com/a...

so, i am not trying to pander to either side, or show a lack of conviction towards my personal beliefs; however, i will say i am falling in the more 'middle ground' of this argument.

first (and shortest) i side with those who contest that beck gave a fair interview, and we shouldn't continue to act hateful towards him; nor should we ever speak ill words of any well know figure head, no matter how vile they are; because, this will ultimately come back as negative propaganda for ron paul himself. while, i agree that aggressive, vulgar, or threatening comments towards these people can be detrimental, and should be avoided... thats where my position on that side of the arguments here ends.

in 'ron paul circles' (such as a forum with threads specifically set aside as a place for ron paul supporters to voice their opinions) we are free to say whatever we like, and we should promote that freedom here. for that reason, i would be within my rights AND good taste to state here that beck is a neocon with abilities that go no further than what is listed on the resume of former sesame street cast member 'back-up singing cow #2, and should, for that reason, find the idea of the federal marriage amendment to be a serious threat to his career. that is my take on the man, and this is the proper place to do that... not to his face, or in a more public forum that doesn't yet know the underlying understanding of disgust with this man.

second, although beck's condor and demeanor were softer, and not projecting his all too vilified nature we paul supporters have come to expect... there was nothing to convince me that his agenda to smear paul's campaign and it's followers has even slowed.

there are three main reasons i found this interview to be a continued, pardon my french, buttf*** from beck. ron paul's ability to be fully aware of his interviewer's flair for demagoguery, along with his courage to continue standing by his convictions, no matter how badly he feels he is being ridiculed by his most immediate audience, was the factor that made the interview come off as 'fair and well executed'. had he played into the traps beck was continually setting infront of him, paul's campaign would have been over. one wrong move would have been plastered on every news station, and brought up in every debate.

if you don't believe me, i will site you my 3 reasons:

1. from the opening sequence, beck is throwing hypocritical lies left and right to appear as 'a good guy'... someone who is kind and understanding of paul's views, as well as the plight of his supporters. as apposed to the slanderous, 'opinion as fact' throwing, uneducated attacker he has been. things like, 'ron paul supporters complain that the [MSM] distorts their candidates views...' '...that ends tonight.' (i doubt anyone here is to believe that nothing said by paul in this interview will never be used against him or his supporters by beck). or when he speaks of being a libertarian at heart, fully supportive of the constitution, and condemns the government's suppression of our civil liberties. wow... what an amazingly compassionate guy, who shares the inspiration behind his guest's message... so, his attacks of paul couldn't be over his ideals... there must be something so hitler-esq extreme about this man to make someone who agrees with his policy denounce him with the passion beck has previously done [/sarcasm]. also, the fact that beck has many times advocated the use of military force against US citizens who question ANYTHING the current white house administration prints as fact. as though the first amendment does not cover 'choice of speech' but rather 'things you may say without paying money for them'.

2. from the first question to the last, beck's inquiries had a very simple formula:

a) a subject addressed in an aggressive anti-paul commentary.
b) a quote from paul that had some connection to said subject in line (a)**
c) ask paul a carefully worded question regarding said subject in lines (a) & (b)

a + b + c = cornering paul into making a potential 'supporting argument' for beck's past 'anti-paul' attacks

** these connections can be as unsubstantial and plain lazy as a matching word

3. there are 2 people who watch/listen glenn beck. those who watch religiously and BELIEVE him, and those who tune in to see how extremely supportive or screwed up his commentary about a subject they are passionate about will be. therefore, the factors of 1 and 2 are amplified. the fact that every question he asked paul had been previously addressed in a beck-stacular attack of paul on his show, in the press, on the radio, etc... meant that he was basically trying to give his 'beck' followers a confirmation to his reasons for attacking paul; while simultaneously, giving paul supporters the middle finger.

thankfully paul saw it coming, and he didn't play into it. he didn't give back that "one screwed up line' that could be taken out of context, then used as a justification of beck's degrading commentary that were nothing more than a forceful opinion of a demagogue dressed up as educated observation.

way to go dr. paul.

This was a great interview. The message was out, and in primetime. No matter who interviews Dr Paul, he will come out convincing. He got his views out. That's important. If ever GB had an agenda greater than what we can see now, it will come out in the next few days. Let us observe GB in the coming days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I posted this as an answer in a previous thread. It is just a little history lesson for those who still havent known about this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello,
i do not know what really happened in 911, but the past actions of similar incidents causes people to rightfully raise questions.

in the Spanish-American War[1898],the "footage" of Spanish soldiers executing Cubans was circulated and caused US public indignation and support for the war. Even on the History channel,they said that it was a "fake" footage shot in Thomas Edison's studio.The whole reason why the US Ship Maine was sent to Cuba, then subsequently blown up,was done thru deceit and fraud.
When the Maine was "blown-up"the war started.Also in the History Channel, it was later admitted that it was simply a "fire". but the war was already in progress.

Lastly, it takes some time before a naval expeditionary force can be set up, let alone sail to the other end of the world.
Admiral George Dewey did just that.He sailed BEFORE there was a cause for war, and was already near the Philippines, 9300+ miles away from the "Crime scene" of Cuba.
When the Maine was sunk,Dewey already made that slow sail to the Phlippines, and was in striking distance of the wooden-hulled Spanish fleet. His was steel. Then he[3 cruisers and some gunboats] sunk them all in Manila Bay.

Does the story ring any bell? These past actions causes suspicion on the current US involvement. How come US and British Forces were already in "invasion" status and were ready to deploy just before 911? Expeditionary forces takes time to plan, arm, and mobilize.
---
Also, the Kuwaiti girl that testified to the US Press in 1991 that Iraqi soldiers took babies from their incubators and threw them, was also not true. read about it.
Like Pearl Harbor, it all seems suspect. So, 911, an inside job or not, deserves the attention and the proper investigation.
This after all,is the PRIMARY reason stated over and over that costs US lives and money.

COMCAST cable "Censored" all of us in one way or anther: by showing "a comcast special" mine was two ladies preparing a house for "house guests". That was here in TN, others parts of country had other dirty tricks played by Comcast.

I'm looking at switching to DirectTV or something else right now.

p.s. needless to say i wasn't surprised to hear some guy was unable to record the Glenn Beck show with his Comcast box. Enough of supporting Freedom haters. Down with Comcast

using my Comcast Digital Cable's DVR box, and both times the show didn't record... What up with that??? But I guess I better SHUT UP now because something happened to me that insinuates a media conspiracy and we here at Daily Paul only believe in Paul Approved Conspiracies and nothing else!

http://infowars.com/artic...

Did somebody hack the system?

A coworker I have been working on described him as "timid" in the interview. He said he saw clips of Ron Paul and liked what he saw but that on Beck's show he seemed unsure of himself. Now he says he can't win. I didn't think that but I may be so biased as to miss that. Maybe Dr Paul does need to work on coming across more "presidential". People were commenting he needed to smile more and he started doing that but I think he is letting that slip again. In debates and in coverage on the campaign he seems in his element but I didn't think this Beck show was one of his better performances. I really liked the time he got to express his views but apparently the general public is really influenced by how the candidates present themselves more than by content or by character.

I watched it all three hours.

Our socialistic, big government takes away our humanitarian emotions. It is suppose to take care of the social needs, it takes a major portion of our charity money, then it does a terrible job of taking care of the poor, it perpetuates the dependence and removes self-pride and self-promotion.

I know people who act that way on a personal level. They take it upon themselves to make sure everyone around them acts the way they think they should act. Left alone, people are extremely charitable and will help a person far better than a government can. When people are helped by government, they feel no human warmth from it, it does not make them emotionally better, but instead worse and therefore they cannot take steps to get themselves into a better place.

In my opinion, Ron Paul did fine on this interview, Glen Beck on the other hand had some errors in his thinking when it came to things like what Ron Paul's stance was on things like the United Nations. Glen obviously has been listening to the wrong people when it comes to Ron Paul.

I had serious reservations about Ron Paul going on his show, but all in all it seems to have turned out fine.

PS: whoever the nuts are that are going after Glen Beck they need to stop!!

Ron Paul is for peace not some wack jobs going around threatening people.

http://www.lewrockwell.co...

I don't always agree with Glenn Beck, and I don't particularly like or dislike him. In this case he gave a very fair interview, and gave Dr. Paul the full hour in prime time.
Glenn was actually speaking fairly highly of Ron Paul when he introduced him etc.
Remember that it was Ron Paul who ditched an earlier interview on Beck's program, so it's not like Glenn Beck has tried to ignore Paul.

I thought every thing was quite fair. The 9/11 questions allowed Dr. Paul to clear up any misconceptions that he endorses the conspiracy theories.

Dr. Paul did well and I think the whole thing was a positive for the campaign. We should write Glenn Beck a thank you. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Honestly some folks won't be satisfied with any interview that's short of a lovefest.Just be happy that this was a fair interview, and gave Dr. Paul a great deal of national exposure.

Overall I think this was one of the best interviews that the MSM has done with Ron Paul. I still think that Glenn Beck is a total worm who kisses ass one moment, and then spouts off the next. Had Glenn Beck retracted what he said last month and would have done what Bill Maher did and say "Y'know I was wrong about you and now I've seen the light".. Instead he acted like he and Ron Paul were Batman and Robin which is annoying.

Beck is over the top and he plays things up wayy to much, for example the "threatening of his life"? C'mon I mean that was over played drama, and the other thing is why does the MSM always have to say 9/11 Truthers are "dangerous" and "crazy"... This annoys me because there is enough loopholes and things that don't add up that there is NOTHING WRONG with questioning things, people like Beck make it sound like "Elvis is still alive wearing a tinfoil hat"... and nothing could be further from the truth. What is wrong with asking questions with things that don't add up?

I'm, sure that some 9/11 people will feel betrayed by Dr Pauls answers, but the truth is Ron Paul is not one to speculate about things and to do such a thing would be political suicide, so I believe he handled these questions honestly and truthfully., I mean remote control plans into the towers? Who in the hell believes that???? I suggest he read a little David Ray Griffin.....

The other thing was the "i'd french kiss you on the IRS issue".,. THAT was just over the top fluff for his quest...

In the end this was a great interview and while I feel Beck is a worm, I do give him respect in the sense he never cut RP off and most imortantly that interview probably converted many many many many people who otherwise would never actually listen to Ron Paul or his message...
Regards,
David F
www.myspace.com/asymptote

I don't see why it was a big issue with not knowing Sutton's name? I will admit I didn't know it either and I have been keeping myself on the up and up with the situation as late. I think it was drawing a big blank on a lot of people when he mentioned Sutton.

As for the 9/11 questions, I don't think that was appropriate. I think it was a little attempt by Beck to lump Paul in with the group of "9/11" nutcases. I'm glad Paul handled that professionally and then told Beck that "I don't have to answer these questions." They were pointless IMHO.

I LOVE GLENN BECK! I LOVE RON PAUL!

" Be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi

Spread the love!

very good. In my area, the Glen show is re-played again at 8 p.m., so this actually gave Ron 2 hours of prime spots, with a fair playing field. Ron Paul's intellect is not to be toyed with, and you could sense Glenn was not going to push the issues too far, because of Dr. Paul's obvious command of history, and experience. Can't you just see all the other candidates rushing to the library to brush up on history? Most don't have a clue about the real story behind some of our Country's history in warfare. They only know what they've read in the papers. I'd like to see Ron ratchet up on the 'history lessons" for the wanta bees.

Watch out: The neocons are pushing Huckabee awful hard. Can you imagine if Ron Paul's son hung a dog? I think the overall plan is to serve Huckabee up for an easy kill for Hillary......and of course they'll throw Huck a big bone to chew on......that's all he really wants anyway. We've got to keep the grassroots growing!

Glenn Beck was on a local talk show; KSEV Houston this morning. The hosts are a pair of bigoted ignoramuses absolutely opposed to Paul. They made a big deal about the Sinclair Lewis quote; can't possibly be going fascist in this country; shows what a kook RP is; the usual. The cross in the background of Huckabee's Christmas ad was a coincidence; no sublimnial message there.

Beck was not the puppy he was on the interview; more like a weasel I would say. The main issues were RP not immediately recognizing the name "Johnny Sutton", who is the Federal Attorney who many believe railroaded several border agents into prision, two of whom shot a border jumping dope smuggler in the butt. It's a big issue with local folks. Anyway, not immediately recognizing the name demonstrated how 'out of touch' RP is; how ignorant, etc; the other issues were RP's dangerous fringe supporters and how he will not repudiate them; supported by skin heads, pimps and prostitutes, willing to take their money, etc. Ended by recalling how Hitler was elected by his fringe supporters. Beck is very 'in' with these guys (only one was on the show this morning).
Do we trust Beck? Not hardly.

Coldcut in Galveston.

Regardless if you like Glenn Beck or not, his interview was balanced and fair.I think the interview was positive for Glenn and Dr. Paul. Glenn may very well become the #1 TV talk show. In defense of Glenn, at least he gave Dr. Paul a solid 1 hour interview. I think many issues were cleared for Dr. Paul and Glenn. I say Glenn is much better than Hannity! I like Glenn's show though I don't always like his guests or agree with Glenn. I thank Glenn for coverage of Dr. Paul. I don't feel Glenn attacked or smeared Dr. Paul at all. Thank you Glenn Beck, and go Ron Paul!

Talk about subliminal messages, what is this?
http://www.nolanchart.com...

but I KNEW that the Beck interview was going to be a slam dunk. Hell, if Ron was actually in the studio he would have had to physically beat Beck off with a stick. :)

Dr. Paul is doing just fine without my advice, but I can't resist giving some anyway.
I don't recall the exact words, but at one point he talked about how Republicans had promised to reduce the size of government, but then "we" ran up huge deficits instead. I understood that by "we" he meant the Republicans as a party, but I cringed at the thought of somebody who knows nothing of Ron Paul's record getting the idea that he voted for deficit spending himself.
I much prefer the approach he took a couple of debates ago. After McCain said that "Washington changed us," Dr. Paul responded that, no, Washington hadn't changed him, and then he went on to make it clear that his own conduct has been consistent and principled.
In short, IMHO, please be careful with that word "we."
That said, I thought the Beck interview was just a grand slam for Ron. An extended one-on-one is a disaster for other candidates because it exposes the shallowness of their one-liners. Our humble Dr. Paul, on the other hand, really shines when he has a chance to explain his pro-Constitution, pro-liberty ideas in the detail they deserve. This man is amazing.
Bring on Russert!

Glen was respectful, let Ron Paul answer, and did not try to steer the comments in a predetermined way. Ron Paul gave clear thoughtful answers and didn't dodge questions.

We'd all be better served as voters if every candidate could be interviewed, and then answered questions, in this way. Not that I'm holding my breath.

and give nothing. Not true. A true libertarian realizes that being charitable would be most selfish. Which means he would favor it.

Why you ask?

If we were to eliminate poverty, then we would never revert back to this socialistic, altruistic, downward spiraling, anti-capitalistic, death seaking society that we have become. And the recipients, a large portion of them, will realize the truth, because with our charity we will teach.

Those that truely believe will be the most charitable. But they will give, not be taken from.

Paul did great!
here is the interview:
part1 http://youtube.com/watch?...
part2 http://youtube.com/watch?...
part3 http://youtube.com/watch?...
part4 http://youtube.com/watch?...
part5 http://youtube.com/watch?...

I thought Glenn Beck was VERY fair and pro-Ron Paul on a lot of issues....That interview was great