Glenn Beck Interview with Ron Paul

[fossten]

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/15343

Here are my thoughts:

1. Beck was generally fair, although awkward and weird at times, and gave Paul a chance to answer questions fully.

2. Beck agreed with Paul on nearly every issue, at times even gushing (flirting?) with Paul over issues they agreed on.

3. Beck did NOT nail Paul to the wall on his foreign policy. Not even close. He did disagree with him, but Paul did give a good, rational explanation and Beck did not destroy him.

4. Beck's "tongue-kiss" comment was awkward, embarrassing, and unprofessional, as was his apparent attempt to smear Ron Paul by associating him with the death threats he claims to have received. It is clear that whoever is threatening Beck in Ron's name is certainly not trying to make Ron Paul look good, ergo they are trying to make him look bad. Occam's Razor. Paul's obvious discomfort at the Beck "kissing" faux pas made him look presidential while Beck looked buffoonish.

5. Beck's questions about "9/11 truthers" were out of line and inappropriate. He even acknowledged that he already knew the answers to the questions, but he wanted to air them anyway. Why would he do this, except to smear? Again this came across awkward and contrived. Even my wife, who does not have much interest in politics, was rolling her eyes at this point. Paul was appropriately annoyed that he should have to answer those questions. He did a good job of pointing out that his emphasis has always (correctly) been on the admin's INEPTNESS over 9/11, and that he does not believe in a conspiracy.

6. Ron Paul did something in the interview that Mike Huckabee did not (in a similar format with Beck): He answered questions directly and honestly. He also had a good grasp on the issues he was asked about.

 

[MonsterMark]

I watched it. Haven't formed an opinion yet.

Glenn Beck was incredulous at some of the comments made by Paul re: IRS, etc..

 

[MAC1]

Beck needs to be a bit more professional when he conducts interviews. I found his little joke about being “in love” with Mr. Paul and therefore if he were a women he would be willing to have sex with him to be juvenile. It was a very awkward moment for Mr. Paul, to say the least.

 

[Calabrio]

Beck was pretty clear that he was providing Ron Paul an opportunity to express his opinions freely. It was not an adversarial debate, but there were a few subjects that Beck subtly demonstrated Paul was way off on.

Paul said that we should eliminate personal taxes, not only eliminating the IRS, but he was also against the Fair Tax AND the Flat Tax. He said that we could go back to an 19th century form of taxation, generating revenue from tariffs. And then when pushed, he mentioned user fees, such as those on gas taxes. Paul's in a fantasy land on this one.

NOT IN PRINCIPLE, but when applied to the dirty reality. Users fees are a classic libertarian way of financing government. But it presumes we'll be able to eliminate the culture of entitlements and pork barrel within only four to eight years. But it won't work. The reason for the income tax was originally to finance the military. I don't think it's practical to think that we'll be able to generate enough money in tariffs to finance the military.

Beck didn't "destroy" him on foreign policy because Beck didn't engage in an adversarial interview. But the ridiculousness of Paul's foreign policy was abundantly clear. The idea that by quickly withdrawing from the Mid-East, radical Islam will be pacified is absurd. What Dutch military engagement was Theo Van Gough involved with before a Muslim mutilated his chest with a knife?

The tongue kiss JOKE didn't work, but Beck considers himself a humorist, not a journalist or a pundit.

And he did not attempt to smear Paul by association by mentioning the threats he's gotten. It's no secret that Paul has lunatics vigorously supporting him.

It's indefensible that Ron Paul will go on that lunatic Alex Jone's radio show.

There's no conspiracy here, Beck wasn't trying to "make him look bad"- Paul has a group of supporters who love to misquote Jefferson and preach about the coming "Revolution."

Beck provided Paul a good opportunity to distance himself from those lunatics. Which was good, because the crazy label of some of his supporters rubs off on him.

But Paul DOES NOT have a good grasp of the issues. He has firm convictions and a consistency, but his grasp on issues was weak at best. He operates in the realm of theory, not the real world.

 

[MonsterMark]

The idea that by quickly withdrawing from the Mid-East, radical Islam will be pacified is absurd.

He kind of had a Freudian slip there when talking about the U.S. maintaining 14 military bases and a huge embassy in Iraq. He basically said that made us easy targets for Al-Qaeda but if we closed them, they would have to come here to get us.

He basically admitted that what he understands is that if we don't fight them there, we'll be fighting them here but he really doesn't grasp that his policies would lead to that direct result.:slam

He is an isolationist and would prefer the battle to be waged on OUR soil vs some other country. His foreign policy is his biggest problem. I think I heard someone say that R.P. is another R.P. (Ross Perot...how quaint) without the charts.

 

[Calabrio]

Beck: how do we get out? Your -- if I understand it, your idea is just unplug from the Middle East. How do we do that?

PAUL: We just went in. We should just leave. You know who it was that committed us to Saudi Arabia? It was FDR during World War II because we wanted to secure the oil. But because of that persistence, that was one of the greatest annoyances to Osama bin Laden, our troops in Saudi Arabia. That is what motivated them to really motivate enough people to commit suicide terrorism. And we have to understand that. It`s so important.

Or is it more likely that if we immediately withdraw from the region, it will be seen, and spun, as a victory for Islam. That it will reinforce the image of the U.S. as a paper tiger, enboldening them to attack us here.

As we immediately withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq, turning over those regions of the country to anarchy, don't you think the intensity of the assault on the West will increase?

Even if it doesn't mean an attack here for a couple years, Islamonazism that will aggressively spread through that region, then through Europe.... yet Paul would have us believe that we wood be safely isolated from that?

Good men can be bad Presidents. And idealists make for great conversation, but sometimes it's best if they not actually make the hard decisions.

But it's all irrelevant he won't win the primary, and he would be destroyed in the general election. The public IS NOT ready to roll back the leviathan. Incramentalism isn't the course because it's nice to do things slowly, or because we have a lot of time. But because this massive nanny-state and culture didn't happen over night, and the masses will reject it if it's thrust upon them too quickly during a time or prosperity.

 

[Calabrio]

But- a lot of what he said was really great and refreshing to hear... I hope he doesn't go away after the election is over.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/18/gb.01.html

 

[MonsterMark]

Here is the transcript part from GlennBeck.com

BECK: But there is a -- there is a global movement within Islam that would like to see -- I mean, I`ll show you the pictures of it. I`ve -- you know, I`ve met with the people here in New York City. And, you know, I`ve -- I detailed them in a book that I just put out where I show the pictures of the Islamic jihadist flag flying over the White House in, you know, in a Web site. They have every intention of taking this country and turning it over to Sharia law.

Are you really serious? Do you believe that this is just about us being over in Saudi Arabia and in the Middle East?

PAUL: No. Yes, I think that`s a motivating factor. But I think everything you said is true. But you`ve got to put it in perspective.

You`re talks about several hundred people. Maybe now thousands since we`ve been over there. Al Qaeda has been recruiting much better.

BECK: Well, it only took 19 to take two down of the biggest towers in the world.

PAUL: That is the reason, because we have to put that in perspective. You know, we stood down the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. We had Khrushchev pounding on the desk saying we will bury you. He was capable of doing it.

The al Qaeda does not have an army, they don`t have a Navy, they don`t have intercontinental ballistic missiles, they don`t have weapons of mass destruction, they don`t have a country. They`re very, very weak people in that sense.

But they have determination. The determination comes from being provoked. And they have to have some reason to galvanize enough hatred to come here and do what they have done.

So, no, it`s not going to be -- if I bring the troops home overnight, it`s not going to eliminate what has been going on for quite a few decades. But I`ll tell you what, it`s going it be a lot better. And if we think that they only come here because we`re free and prosperous, we will never solve this problem.

We are going to be under threat because if we -- let`s say the fighting quits in Iraq and we keep those 14 bases and an embassy as big as the Vatican and think that won`t annoy people? It will be a thorn in their side and we will be under as much threat.

We are an easy target over there and they`re quite satisfied for killing Americans in Iraq.

BECK: OK.

PAUL: But if we`re no longer an easy target, they`ll come back here. That is what my fear is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul says "That is what my fear is". Hell Ron, that's is exactly what your policy encourages our enemy to do.