Video: Why won’t Ron Paul do Glenn Beck’s show?
posted at 11:48 am on November 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Beck’s post is making the rounds this morning but Paul actually addressed the question last month. Here’s the footage, as recorded by Dave Weigel of Reason. Perhaps America’s Greatest Patriot is waiting to coordinate his appearance with the launch of … the blimp?
Note that they’ve already got almost $100,000 in pledges for that abortion. High time we climbed aboard that gravy train. Perhaps an “Only neocons use fiat money” t-shirt with the “e” in “neocon” in the shape of a swastika?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Ron Paul, the neo-Nazi racists best friend…Pretty much says it all doesn’t it…
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Wow, they already have 98K donated to get that stupid blimp!
Target practice in my neigborhood!
conservnut on November 25, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Yeah, he’ll go on Beck’s show when the conjunction of the moon and stars is right and if the numerology for that date and day of the week coincide.
opusrex on November 25, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Listening to him is like listening to a liberal, he just doesn’t get it. He has no clue where the threat to our country is coming from and his approach to Foriegn Policy is mind bogglingly dangerous. With the Primaries coming in a couple of months, please tell me I can forget this senile old fool exists in about 90 days.
trubble on November 25, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Why do against the grain candidates like Ron Paul and Ross Perot all attract the fringe nut groups?
paulsur on November 25, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Nope, sorry Ron Paul is like some certain STD’s once you have contracted them, well it’s almost always fatal. Ron Paul isn’t and especially his followers (funny how much Ron Paul’s followers have in common with Jim Jones followers, way too late to tell them don’t drink the kool-aid) have no intention of allowing any minor reality like his not getting the party nomination stop them from their presidential ambitions.
doriangrey on November 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Ron Paul is a terminal cancer.
Griz on November 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Because they have been pushed aside by the major parties. Maybe some Pro Life voters will go 3rd party if Rudy is the nominee.
Perot got about 19% of the popular vote–while acting like a nut, having no government experience, dropping out of the race, picking Stockdale. Perot’s supporters may have been misguided, but 19% isn’t a fringe it is almost 20 million people.
dedalus on November 25, 2007 at 12:40 PM
In other news you can donate $600 to me and ill get “Ron Paul 2008″ engraved on the back of the iphone I buy with your donations.
Promise.
triple on November 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Thanks, I was looking for a good cult reference and Koresh didn’t quite fit. Paul and his minions have the very same look in their eye as Tom Cruise talking about psychaitry to Matt Lauer. Their eyes a little too wide, the kind of people I don’t want to argue with, I just want to get away because they just ain’t all there.
trubble on November 25, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Pity that’s true about O’Reilly. He talks over everyone even MKH! Oh well.
Spirit of 1776 on November 25, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Unfortunately, in the general election the GOP candidate will need the votes that are going to be wasted on this effing numbskull in the primary, even if those voters are retarded.
What to do…
Jaibones on November 25, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Beck and Paul should get together and debate just how much of a religion of peace Islam really is.
Blimps, ahoy!
profitsbeard on November 25, 2007 at 1:36 PM
As with other posters on HA I’ve been seeing home made “Ron Paul for President” signs here in Arizona. One of them claiming Maricopa (the town I live in) firefighters endorse Ron Paul for President and another saying Maricopa Police endorse for Ron Paul for President. I’ve seen these signs in the last two weeks posted along highway 347.
It’s obvious the signs are home made and I seriously doubt they have the endorsement of both the Maricopa firefighters and police departments, but hey, since when did the moonbats ever deal in “truth” or “facts” in any way, shape, or form?
I would like to pose this question to other HA posters as I am not familiar with campaign rules enough to know, but it would seem to me that unless you actually have an entity or groups’ endorsement isn’t it illegal (not to mention deceitful and immoral) to say you have their endorsement when you really don’t?
Please let me know, thanks in advance.
Liberty or Death on November 25, 2007 at 1:46 PM
There really is no excuse for complaining about how O’Reilly steps on people during his show. He’s been near or on the top for, what nearly ten years now? He has a reputation which includes habitually talking over people (sometimes legitimately as they are either spinning or off-topic) and Mr Paul should have known this going in.
I’ll give the same response I gave over at the “FNC is mean to Fred” thread: Wah!
Weebork on November 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Liberty,
I would say yes to your answer, but unless it gets problematic or endemic I doubt the city will put any man power towards this. It would be a waste of resources for a few signs. The more signs there are, the more other people will complain, the more likely the city will make some official statement.
Yeah, moonbats vs reality, indeed. Reality always wins!
Weebork on November 25, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Personally I had always saved the Jim Jones comparison for Alex Jones, it just fits, but since Ron and Alex are such pals, it works for me.
abinitioadinfinitum on November 25, 2007 at 2:18 PM
A Ron Paul blimp? Rosie is a Republican??
andycanuck on November 25, 2007 at 2:55 PM
My little brother’s says the word wacadoo fits Paul
KBird on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Glenn Beck is another armchair warrior blowhard.
MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 4:11 PM
He’s the opposite of a liberal, who views the expansion of government as the means to a better world. He probably sees the growth of our own government beyond the bounds of the constitution as as much of a threat to individual freedom as a foreign enemy.
Republicans might want to reconsider the recent expansive nature of executive power if they hand the keys over to Bill & Hill in 2009.
One can disagree with Ron Paul on the following, but one can’t call him an LBJ-style big gov liberal.
-Pro Life
-Favors death penalty
-Favors individual opt out of social security
-Opposed voting rights act
-Opposed campaign finance reform
-Opposes universal health care
-Opposes federal subsidies for oil and gas industry
-Opposes eminent domain
-Opposes nation building
-Opposes rigid federal separation of church & state
-Pro Gun Ownership
Paul might be a cranky squeaky Texan, but H. Ross put the first Clinton in the White House in 1993.
dedalus on November 25, 2007 at 4:41 PM
A new one from American Thinker
The Odd Alliance Supporting Ron Paul
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Probably as much as Ron Paul is.
Buzzy on November 25, 2007 at 4:57 PM
Ron Paul Supporters Caught Operating Phony Websites for Other Candidates
Connie on November 25, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Please don’t slam him for pointing out that fiat money always leads to economic disaster when the dollar is collapsing and gold is surging. It’s like making fun of the guy telling you the Titanic is sinking. On this issue Paul is the closest to having it right.
Bill C on November 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM
actually, his pro-life creds are suspect. the last 3 years, NARAL has given him ratings of 65%, 75% and 65%. If he’s going to claim federalism, even though Roe made it a federal issue, then he contradicts himself when he, rightly, voted to ban partial birth abortion.
he’s also against the death penalty, says its the “use of force” by govt. that is wrong and why he’s against it and a pacifist appeasing loon on foreign policy.
jp on November 25, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Thanks for the correction on the death penalty. It looks like a recent change. I see it now.
On abortion, I think his position and Fred’s are more conservative than those wanting to amend the Constitution or see the power go to the federal government. It’s a question of priority. If you give the federal government a new responsibility every time you want something done, pretty soon you end up with a lot more government.
dedalus on November 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I can appreciate Paul’s disdain of the United Nations, but I could never vote for him.
SouthernGent on November 25, 2007 at 7:43 PM
I love how everyone says that Ron Paul isnt a republican because of what he stands on. I forgot that to be a republican nowadays you have to support:
Bigger government
More taxes
More foreign entanglements
Apparently in the last ten years or so, the definition of republican has changed drastically. One must support the patriot act, support wars overseas in random countries, support increasing government spending. Is it that whatever Bush does is instantly considered “republican”? Gosh, I always seem to remember being taught in school that a republican stood for pretty much everything that Ron Paul stands for, but again, I guess that has changed recently. I guess I never got the memo.
muyoso on November 25, 2007 at 8:32 PM
I just spent the holiday weekend in Pensacola and drove back here to New Orleans. There is stretch of I-10 through Alabama that is literally littered with Ron Paul “banners” that look like somebody’s momma is going to be mad when they find out that all their good bedsheets have gone missing from the linen closet.
This, to my mind, perfectly describes the Ron Paul “candidacy.” Bedsheets strung up on interstates and a cadre of increasingly annoying bloggers who claim this leftist has a shot because he calls himself a libertarian instead of the more apt description of neo-socialist. Even Glenn Beck’s program is far too mainstream for this idiotic “campaign.”
highhopes on November 25, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Reagan is the definition of a republican, and Reagan would be a imperialist and a fascist using Ron Paul logic. Paul is a kook, and is not a Goldwater/Reagan in anyway.
sure you can pick out a tree or two, but in doing so your ignoring the forest.
jp on November 25, 2007 at 9:05 PM
@ jp on November 25, 2007 at 9:05 PM
The “definition” of a republican is as follows:
Smaller government
Government out of peoples lives
Less Taxes
Pro second amendment
Pro death penalty
anti abortion
Where on these issues does Paul dissapoint? Reagan was a GREAT president, the best in my lifetime. Awkward for you then that he approved of Ron Paul, something none of the other candidates can say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yuzMYIXhTE
muyoso on November 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Ron Paul is the complete opposite of the Reagan foreign policy, complete opposite. And Goldwater too, who campaigned for Nuking the North Vietnamese.
as for domestic stuff, Paul is AGAINST the death penalty and not really Pro-Life at all. He’s a contrairian fool
Conservatives and Libertarians United against Ron Paul
jp on November 25, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Ron Paul IS pro life
He IS against the death penalty
And his foreign policy is basically to draw it back
He is HARDLY a fool. Other than the death penalty thing, i dont understand why he shouldnt be considered the pinacle of conservatism. Why should we get involved in tons of foreign wars/conflicts? I would MUCH rather have the money I am paying to the government go to something that actually helps the US like secure the border. Also, I dont trust ANY of the other candidates on gun rights. I for one like the constitution and everything it stands for, although it seems as though most of the republicans running for president could care less about it.
muyoso on November 25, 2007 at 9:50 PM
What are the Ronulans going to name the blimp, the Anti-Warbird?
ReubenJCogburn on November 25, 2007 at 10:03 PM
BTW, the site you linked to is INCREDIBLY dishonest. They are outright LYING, I SURE hope you dont believe their drivel.
Not that you are interested in knowing his true stance on issues, but please read up on him here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Also read up on other candidates there as well. Its a god site.
muyoso on November 25, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Fixed that for you. The need to tie bedsheets to random objects is apparently dictated by the Constitution, and can be found in Ron Paul’s super-secret personal copy of it. I think it’s right after the part about getting in bed with Truthers.
ReubenJCogburn on November 25, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Pro-Life?
for reference, Duncan Hunter, Tancredo, McCain, Thompson, Brownback…..all have consistent 0% NARAL ratings. This should tell a thinking person a thing or two about Paul.
He can claim that his pro-abortion votes are about Federalism, but then why did he vote to ban partial birth abortion if that was the case. an obvious contradiction, which Roe made it a federal issue. The guy is a contrarian fool, constantly contradicting himself…..and 75% of the time empowers NARAL’s Pro-Choice agenda. In the real world this makes him pro-choice more often than being ‘pro-life’
jp on November 25, 2007 at 10:33 PM
See the “American THinker” link above, why do you suppose Communist and Fascist are supporting Paul emphatically? there’s a simple answer, he’s a useful idiot at best.
me too, which is why I detest Ron Paul who is lying about what it says and means. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, ALito….these are real Constitutionalist or Originalist……RP is a crank literalist, who cherry picks what he wants to believe it says and ignores other parts that don’t fit his appeasement desires. Same with history
jp on November 25, 2007 at 10:39 PM
muyoso on November 25, 2007 at 9:28 PM
I’ve seen that clip before of Reagan applauding Paul. RP isn’t asking for my advice, but if I were him, I’d run that as an ad all day long.
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
That’s why I love seeing her on his show; she has no poker face; the best part of her being on there is watching her face while he tramples all over her points and she has to start over 3-4 times. She seems to take it in good humor…haven’t seen a full eye roll yet.
austinnelly on November 26, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Because Ron Paul has enough support and media coverage already. Just ask his supporters about his online poll numbers!
There’s a homemade ‘Ron Paul 2008′ billboard on the highway near where I live. This one was high budget…plywood and 2×4s, not bedsheets.
James on November 26, 2007 at 9:57 AM
Partial-birth abortion is barely abortion, considering that you’re killing the fetus (or baby) outside of the womb. I consider it infanticide. I have no problem with a federal ban on infanticide. That’s well within the federal government’s scope.
Let’s not forget the things that used to be required of Republicans but have now fallen by the wayside: solidly pro 2nd Amendment (oops, Romney and Giuliani aren’t), solidly anti-abortion (oops, Romney and Giuliani aren’t), willingness to serve in the military (oops, Romney and Giuliani are draft dodgers), strong on border protection (oops, Giuliani operated the largest sanctuary city in the country, Romney supported amnesty for illegals).
He hasn’t done Glenn’s show. That doesn’t mean that he won’t.
Mark Jaquith on November 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Spirit of 1776 on November 26, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Reagan would never applaud his foreign policy views, being one of the most “interventionest” Presidents we’ve ever had. And that is what he’s campaigning on, being an Isolationist, appeasing Fool. Reagan’s time for choosing speech at the Goldwater pres. convention says it all.
jp on November 26, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Comment pages: