Why won’t Ron Paul go on the Glenn Beck show?

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Nov 30 

This caught my eye today:

Why in the world won’t Ron Paul go on Glenn’s show? He’s got millions more radio listeners and TV viewers than watch the debates and many of those folks probably agree with much of what Dr. No believes. Let’s hear from some of our resident Paul Peeps on why they think he’s avoided Glenn’s shows.

Comments

  • Liz

    If glen beck wants me on the show I’ll tell what I know about Ron Paul. Glen has 24 hours to accept my offer.

    And I am completely unbiased because I have not donated even 1 cent to Paul’s campaign.

  • Troy La Mana

    I have come to the conclusion of who is my new #1 candidate.

    Principled
    And
    Unbiased
    Leadership
    ’08

  • Troy La Mana

    After seeing those clips then it’s obvious why Dr No is just saying no. Beck really did call him and his followers terrorists.

  • Promise Kept

    As with many neo-con spokesmen, I have often found points of agreement with Glen Beck on conservative moral issues, and have heard him give some sound historical and constitutional reason for taking some of his positions. Unfortunately, that makes the betrayal of those principles all the more grievous.

    I may share the same low expectations of Al Franken with you, but at least we wouldn’t be surprised by his lack of accountability to the truth. A recent scan of the local dial gave me a shockingly even-handed, substantive interview with Ron Paul on Alan Colmes radio show. I’m afraid I’ve come to expect much less from Hannity.

  • Jason Wright, Editor

    I’m curious, if you don’t like Beck, why are you even an “occasional listener to his radio show?” I don’t like Al Franken and I never listened to a single second of his “show”.

  • Promise Kept

    “I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere, but I missed it because your opening point was phony.” Phony, eh…

    I will admit to having never heard of any prior requests for having Ron Paul on his show or how those invitations were answered. As only an occasional listener to his radio show, and next-to -never to his TV show, Becks’ lament on your video was the first I’ve heard of any failure to connect.

    However, with his willingness to play fast and loose with the facts in the video I’ve cited, to purposely skew a story to destroy the truth of it, how much weight should I give to his words of here?

    I’ll leave it to your speculations about The View, but Swinton and Beck definitely appear to work for the same pimp.

  • Jason Wright, Editor

    I’m sure there’s a point in there somewhere, but I missed it because your opening point was phony.

    “as though the invitation had been lingering long or rejected, when at the point in time of your posting this, it was less than a day old.”

    Yes, the video was a day old, but Glenn’s invited him many times over many months.

    “Unless you believe that Becks’ offer was a desperately needed life-line for a floundering campaign, isn’t it kind of presumptuous to assume that not having jumped at the chance to do so was the same as having deciding not to?”

    Ah, no, it wasn’t presumptuous. See above.

    Again, the video offer may have been recent, as you correctly pointed out, but he’s been trying to get Paul for months and either been told no, or booking it but then not showing.

    And seriously, if Glenn Beck is a media whore, what in the world would you call the women of The View?

  • Promise Kept

    Jason, you asked, “Why in the world won’t Ron Paul go on Glenn’s show?”,…

    as though the invitation had been lingering long or rejected, when at the point in time of your posting this, it was less than a day old. Unless you believe that Becks’ offer was a desperately needed life-line for a floundering campaign, isn’t it kind of presumptuous to assume that not having jumped at the chance to do so was the same as having deciding not to?

    That having been asked, allow me to refer back to an article you posted several entries ago, “Brothel owner endorses Ron Paul”, and juxtaposition that with an article about John Swinton,(1829-1901), on the independence of the press. Its relevance will soon be obvious.

    “The(se) remarks were apparently made by Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, probably one night in 1880. Swinton was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

    ‘There is no such thing, at this date of the world’s history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it.

    There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

    The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

    We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.’

    (Source: Labor’s Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979.

    In your prior article, CNN was quoted as stating: “Paul, a Libertarian and devout Baptist who does not condone prostitution, is uncomfortable with the unconventional support, according to his campaign. They counter that it is “the price of freedom.” “If you’re going to have a constitutional government, you’re going to work out these kinds of issues at the local level, as the constitution intends. Then sometimes you’re going to have to put up with things that make you uncomfortable.” The campaign added that if Paul were a local Nevada lawmaker that he would vote against legalized prostitution.”

    John Swinton described himself and other journalist of his day as “intellectual prostitutes” when they would, “destroy the truth,… lie outright,… pervert, … vilify,.. fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread”

    Does Glen Becks’ recent attempt to pervert Ron Pauls’ supporters successful “money-bomb” as anything other than a peaceful strategy to blow a hole through the media gauntlet, represent an outright lie for the purpose of vilification?

    Watch it again for yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=71kLtw6uibA

    The movie, “V for Vendetta” was not even mentioned, though RP supporters made it clear that it was its message of the masses peacefully standing unified against tyranny that motivated them to “remember, remember the fifth of November”, not the actions of Guy Fawkes.

    All that being said, Jason, which is more potentially hazardous to Ron Pauls’ campaign: the endorsement of Dennis Hof and his brothel, or free face-time with a successful media whore? Glen Beck comes off sounding fair and sincere in the video clip you posted, but the clip that I posted shows him “working the streets” If he walks like an intellectual prostitute, talks like an intellectual prostitute, he’s probably…

  • Lazlo

    Uh oh, I said the current View hosts have journalistic integrity. That was a bit of a slam on Rosie (although I’m glad she has her own show).

    What I didn’t know was that Whoopi is now on the View.

    Okay, so the current View hosts (except Whoopi) have journalistic integrity. I don’t dislike Whoopi, but I know she is as opinionated and bullying as Rosie.

  • Lazlo

    On the View? Great! The View will likely give Ron Paul a decent opportunity to discuss matters.

    Elisabeth may drink the neo con koolaid, but she has good intentions…and, like all the *current* View hosts, Elisabeth has enough journalistic integrity to give a decent interview.

  • DhaMan

    As said earlier, Paul is supposed to be on the View December 3rd.

    Hoping for a slew of new articles soon especially on Romney and the state of religion speech.

  • Josh

    He’s really not going to get a hour of “free face time” because Glenn Beck is only going to allow Paul to say what Glenn Beck wants to hear, which of course will not be representative of Paul’s platform at all, thus giving him absolutely no more credibility among the general public than he already has. Of course, if the general public decided not to be completely ignorant and actually did some researching i.e. looking at voting records, looking at bills sponsored/cosponsored, etc., rather than listening to the MSM sock puppets, they might actually learn stuff about the candidates.

  • Toby

    yup. must be it. Candidate with enthusiastic grassroots support but low name recognition and little traction in the polls won’t take an hour of free face time because he doesn’t like the interviewer.

  • Lazlo

    Doesn’t this sound like a trap?

    Yeah, I know Beck has agreed with Paul in the past, but Beck has proven himself to be a complete sleezeball part of an agenda. When sleezes say things like “I can promise a fair interview” they mean the opposite.

    What Beck really means is I’ll spin and mock everything you say for an hour.

    Gee, why wouldn’t Paul jump at that?

    BTW: Paul has written books about why he has taken his various stances…and how his ideas would be implemented.

    Generally, I like the idea of candidates giving details. But none do give details, because every detail you give will be spun against you.

    It is about who do you trust: lying liberal flip-floppers…or someone with a consistent conservative record?

  • Lazlo

    It was extremely courageous for Paul to put up with the dirty tricks of the neo con and other liberal media propagandist shows. While other candidates hid behind staged events, Paul has gone into hostile environments for decades. Now he finally has the money and the means to get his message out without such shows.

    Recently, Beck sees that ‘talkin’ Paul’ equals to ratings. So he goes back and forth, praising Paul and his supporters, then bashes them. Now he wants to ‘debate’ him.

    Whatever.

    Last month these shows were ignoring and ridiculing Paul…but Paul saw it necessary to be on these shows. Between the lies and hostility, Paul message got through. Now the tide has turned…now Paul now have the option to ignore these shows.

    I hope he does. These kinds of shows have been the beach bully for too long…they need to dry up and blow away. And I include all biased media: democratic and republican media. And that is precisely what the media fears…this is beyond the war, taxes, etc. The movement that includes Ron Paul is about reducing what we will allow our government and media to get away with.

    Video killed the radio star.

    Internet killed the video star.

    BTW: I will donate alot of money (again) to Ron Paul on December 16th so he can campaign without going on such shows.

  • Liz

    Ron Paul is a hiding. I’ve never heard him speak for longer than maybe 30 seconds. Maybe, he can’t. Maybe he has asthma. The public will never know now, will they?

  • Phil

    AndDru1: As I said above, my view of Glenn Beck was entirely based on small clips – I’ve never watched the show as a whole. If your description is accurate (and I’ve no reason to doubt it), then I hope he does go on.

    Dec. 16th is the next planned money bomb (“TeaParty07″, because it is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party), with significantly more people pledged to donate than were prior to the Nov. 5th effort (far fewer than actually did donate, though).

  • AndDru1

    What’s supposed to happen December 16th?

  • AndDru1

    I’m going to stay out of this one for the most part. Glenn Beck is no O’reilly. I like both O’reilly and Beck, but they have very different styles and formats. Glenn’s show will often pick one or two issues and talk about them for the entire show. He doesn’t have a history of yelling over his guests like O’reilly and he would give Paul a fair forum.

    Also, this idea that Paul shouldn’t go on Beck’s show because he had been critical of him in the past is ludicrous. First, Paul would greatly benefit from being on Beck’s show. Second, for someone to get their feelings hurt over one comment and choose to not go on a show for that reason seems a little thin-skinned. Paul has the right to do whatever he wants, but going on Beck’s show would only further his cause.

  • Keith

    I’d like to see him on Glenn Beck, but I’m not going to speculate as to the reason as a method of reinforcing my current opinion. I don’t think I’ve seen one speculation posted here that is backed up by anything other than a desire for it to be that way.

    As for those who have been unable to witness his entire platform, it has been recorded in several venues. These are all in-depth discussions, not sound bites.

    NH Telegraph
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA

    WMUR
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCoDbFVaJ8

    PBS News Hour
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA7jHaowNME

    Google Video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg

  • Phil

    Toby, you’ve completely twisted what I said. Being able to “handle” someone, and being willing to spend your time going to a forum they completely control, when they are hostile, and with little expected return on investment are two completely different things. Not going on the show is emblematic of his belief in letting the individual choose what to do.

    His entire platform is out there, and lots of people do know it, and, as expected, disagree with portions. That’s not at all unusual – you’d be hard pressed to find a candidate who you agreed with across the board. People respect his integrity, and support him anyway.

  • Toby

    if Paul can’t handle Glenn Beck, he certainly can’t handle being President. I think its already quite clear that he CAN’T handle being President, but this is just another example. I can understand not wanting to legitimize someone like Beck by appearing, but that is a frontrunner option. When you have people giving money to your campaign, and you can’t poll above single digits, you have an obligation to take every opportunity you can.

    The truth is that he benefits from low face time and impassioned sound bytes. As soon as Paul’s entire platform is revealed, his campaign crashes and burns, leaving only a significant portion of Republicans who hate whoever the nominee will actually be.

  • Phil

    I’d have to assume that Ron Paul hasn’t gone on Glenn’s show because he has very little to gain from appearing with someone who has a confrontational attitude and is willing to call his supporters “terrorists” for choosing Nov. 5th as a moneybomb date.

    My impressions of Glenn Beck are, admittedly, not from watching or listening to his shows as a whole, but only from seeing small snippets. If I’m correct about it, though, then it would likely be like when he was on The O’Reilly Factor – the face time is worthless if he can’t present his views, and without having them shouted down / misrepresented by a host.

    IMO, I think it’d be a good thing to go on, especially with this video making the rounds.. but hardly necessary, for the reasons above.

  • Toby

    in other words, the choice isn’t between the Constitution, and voting for a candidate other than Paul. Barack Obama was a teacher of Constitutional law at Colombia. Some of the other candidates have spent decades in the actual system of legislating outlined in the Constitution. Dennis Kucinich carries a copy with him at all time.

    Its a false dichotomy to claim one must choose Paul to choose the Constitution.

  • Toby

    when its convenient, Paul invokes his interpretation of the Constitution. Sure, it ignores the fact that Jefferson himself basically argued against strict constructionism and a slavish devotion to a generations old Constitution over the ability of the people to govern themselves…

    if you believe that so much is done that is unconstitutional, feel free to take it up with the SCOTUS. It happens frequently, and people are often vindicated.

    That being said, Ron Paul’s interpretation of the 14th amendment, necessary and proper clause, etc. aren’t the only ones, nor the inherently correct ones. Welcome to the conversational nature of our politics. Its part of the liberty that Paulians so love to go on about.

  • Troy La Mana

    Maybe a Gravel vs Keyes debate should be on the BET Network?

    The “fringy” parts as you describe them is where Ron Paul upholding the Constitution comes in. You know, that lil piece of paper that our military fights and dies for?

  • Josh

    His little face time is what keeps him from being able to talk about his positions. Unlike McCain, who somehow rabbit-trailed from taxes to ripping into Ron Paul’s foreign policy, Ron Paul, as a principled individual, is not going to do the same thing, and therefore, unless he’s given a chance to express his views on other positions during a high-profile event, it’s just not going to happen. Of course, going on the Glenn Beck show would give him that opportunity, but, obviously, for whatever reason, he has chosen not to. And whatever reason he gives, if he gives one, I’m sure it will not be some rash, illogical nonsense based on absolutely no objective evidence whatsoever spoken purely out of opposition, unlike the previous response by our friend Toby here.

  • DhaMan

    There is a thread on Daily Paul with about 75% (my take) wanting him to go on.

    Even though how fair Beck will be remains
    to be seen.

    My take is he should go on and he would do fairly well.

    Dr. Paul is supposed to be on the View on the
    3rd. That should be fun.

    Alan Keyes should have been at the last debate.
    He would have added to teh insanity.

  • Gary Russell

    Well stated, Toby.

  • NewYorkStateConservative

    I am admittedly surprised that almost everyone I tell about Ron Paul likes him (that doesn’t mean they all become supporters, but a number do), and I think going on the Glen Beck Show would be a great opportunity.

    I believe Dr. Paul is capable of explaining some of his more detailed positions and that this will be a perfect way to introduce him to millions of new voters, and have contacted him telling him so.

  • Texas Little El

    Actually, he went on the Bill O’Reilly show and good ole’ Bill didn’t want Ron to actually talk.

    He didn’t want him explaining how our foreign policy got us into the mess in the Middle East and now Russia. Bill kept belittling Rep Paul at each question.

    Glenn Beck has done the exact same thing to others who have come on the show, demagoging instead of asking questions and allowing the guest to answer.

    Other than Rep. Paul being in a masochistic mood, what reason would he have of going on the Glenn Beck show and putting up with that type of abuse?

    As to Toby’s response, keep ignoring the problem with our monetary system, our overspending and our flagrant involvement in other nations affairs.

    Not one presidential candidate beside Ron Paul is talking about the down turn in the economy, or reducing the size and scope of our government. Hopefully you have a portfolio that is diverse enough to survive a recession, a home that is paid off or no debt. It will be the only way people will survive our governments stupidity.

  • Dr East

    Um, because Glenn Beck called Ron Paul and all of his supporters terrorists on national TV and never apologized?

    I certainly wouldn’t go on his show after that.

  • Toby

    because, despite what his rabid followers claim, Ron Paul is more politician than principled individual. He knows his only shot in this primary is to talk a little about taxes and states’ rights, a lot about the war, and not at all about the rest of his positions. His little face time in the debates is his strongest asset, as he can speak passionately about the war, get in a few well publicized tussles with the frontrunners and be seen by an increasingly discontented and anti-war country, but never have to talk about the more fringy of his positions. Ron Paul knows he can’t win on the gold standard, or his main platform, so he won’t go and talk about those things except to sympathetic audiences.