18 Jun 2011

Glenn Beck Endorses Ron Paul

Ron Paul 41 Comments

Does anyone know the full context of this? (HT2 EPJ) Like, is Beck really telling people, “I want Ron Paul to be the Republican nominee,” or did he say something three seconds later like, “It’s just too bad he comes off as a doddering old man and could never beat Obama”?

Anyway, my point in relaying this is to say that I have noticed first-hand that there’s not as much resistance in “right wing” circles to talk about Ron Paul. Back in the 2008 campaign, I could still tell that most self-described conservatives thought Ron Paul was persona non grata. But I think more and more of them are realizing that he has been consistent, and that–gosh–maybe we just don’t have the money to be policing the world right now.

41 Responses to “Glenn Beck Endorses Ron Paul”

  1. Ben Ziomek says:

    I happened to hear this part of his show when driving around town in my car and I can say that Beck definitely was genuine in endorsing Ron Paul. His radio partner was scrutinizing Ron Paul’s views, but Beck backed up Ron Paul on almost every issue. It was great to hear Beck getting on board with Ron Paul! If he keeps endorsing him on his show this could be great news and hopefully the tea party jumps on board too.

  2. Dave B says:


    I found a clip from Jan 25, 2010. He said something just like it before he brought him on for an interview on his radio program. This clip may be too new and not in his transcripts yet.


  3. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I know some people do think of him as a doddering old man, but I never thought of him as “crazy”. He’s simply wrong on a lot of important issues, and where he’s right I’m not even sure he’s taking the best approach to the points on which he’s right.

    Take the wars. Yes, we should be out of Iraq. We never should have been in Iraq. Still, simply leaving rapidly probably will make life more hellish for Iraqis. So let’s get out of Iraq, but not grandstand about a withdraw that is well-paced. Guantanamo and Afghanistan are different. We should be in Afghanistan, although we should actually have goals defined because we shouldn’t be there forever. We should hold terrorists we have evidence against until major military operations against their compatriots are over (or we’ve tried them). We shouldn’t violate their rights while they are there, but we shouldn’t just empty the prison or feel we need to try all captured combatants like criminals either. So Paul is looking in the right direction on all of this – Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo – but why should we feel the need to embrace someone that isn’t proposing the best approach to putting it into action, and at the same time is wrong on so many other things? I’d rather have someone that’s sensible on foreign policy and economics than someone heading in the right direction on foreign policy and wrong on economics. It’s not a matter of “crazy old man” at all. The same goes with libertarians in general – they often say to me “oh you must just think we’re crazy whackos”. Nope. I don’t think you’re crazy at all – just wrong on a few key questions, and at least heading in the right direction on other questions.

    • bobmurphy says:

      DK, that’s fine, but the problem in the last election wasn’t me trying to convince Keynesian-sympathizers to vote for Ron Paul. 🙂 The problem was convincing avowed opponents of Keynesianism to vote for Ron Paul (in the primary) instead of voting for people who would actually put in place Keynesian policies (as well as maintaining a military empire).

      That’s what is frustrating with the treatment Limbaugh et al. gave Ron Paul in the last cycle. Except for foreign policy, he is the epitome of the type of candidate they keep claiming to want, and yet they were dismissive of him.

      • Brent says:

        This is a great point. The most frustrating part is always that – if you are paying attention – you know for absolute certain that Tim Pawlenty et al. are not going to be the least bit conservative in the domestic policy sphere… I mean, c’mon!!

    • Dan says:

      So who is the candidate you think wants an end to these wars in the manner you want it done? Talking about this grand ole way to withdraw makes me laugh. Obama is expanding the wars and other than Ron Paul or Gary Johnson no other candidate wants to end them. Our wars will end just like the wars of all empires when we go broke. Unless, of course, Ron Paul wins.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Obama I think is the best available. I’ve said for years now – long before Obama was on the stage – that we needed a more substantial presence in Afghanistan, do the job, and get out. And I’ve said since the very beginning we shouldn’t be in Iraq.

        Obama has focused more attention on Afghanistan and the Pakistani border and it’s paid off (Bush was headed in this direction too, of course). He’s also pulling out of Iraq at a measured pace – first out of the cities, and presumably that will continue to wind down. It seems to me that that’s the right way to do it. I don’t particularly care if we have troops there for a while. Maybe that’s smart. I care if those troops are entering people’s houses and engaging in combat.

        Obama isn’t perfect, but I see no better option.

        • RFN says:

          Oh, so you’re a warmonger! Heh, I just wanted to sound like an idiot lefty for a second. I didn’t mean it. However, there is no reason we should be in Afghanistan anymore. There is nothing to gained there. And the only difference between Obama and Bush is that Bush started the wars. But, it sounds like you agreed with him in regards to Afghanistan, anyhow. Obama is simply following Bush’s plans for Iraq. There really is little difference between the neo-cons and run of the mill statists. Maybe in detail, but not in ideology.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            re: “However, there is no reason we should be in Afghanistan anymore”

            This may be the case – I really don’t know the situation well enough to say one way or the other. I don’t know the current condition of terrorist networks in the country and the border – real threats to us, rather than just warlords. I also don’t know what will happen if we withdraw in certain ways. Like Iraq, I could see it being appropriate to stay there but pull back to certain bases and refrain from engaging the populace. Ultimately I just don’t know, and I feel uncomfortable saying “we shouldn’t be there” since I don’t know. Certainly it would be nice if we could just not be there anymore.

            • Blackadder says:


              If you don’t know whether we should be in Afghanistan, then why say “We should be in Afghanistan”? Why cite it as an example of where Obama has things right and Paul is going about things the wrong way if, for all you know, Paul’s way is the right way and Obama is making a mistake.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        But this is largely my point – the way Ron Paul would end the war would likely be worse than the way Obama is ending it. Ending the war doesn’t mean a large exit necessarily. It means getting the job done and drawing down safely. I’m not entirely sure Ron Paul is willing to do either, and the fact is having it done right matters to me.

        • bobmurphy says:

          DK, what is “the job” you think will get done in Afghanistan?

          • Dan says:

            You stole my question.

          • RFN says:

            He’s going to make them all free marketers of the western tradition! Never mind that it is entirely imcompatible with that strain of Islam. We can do it! Bah. BTW, I am no fan of Bush, but Obama, at least in regards to Iraq, is simply following the Bush timeline. He’s escalating in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Oh, and don’t forget the brand new war in Libya.

            • Joseph Fetz says:

              Don’t forget Yemen, we’re killing people there, too.

              Hmm, I wonder how many continents or nations have to be involved before it becomes a world war? Thus far we are in hostilities on 2 continents and 5 nations that we know of.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            “The job” is the spreading of Clintonista style democratic socialism and Keynesianism to multi-ethnic third world countries where it will be an even worse disaster than in western countries with a history of private property and respect for others of differing views.

            These Republicans obviously hate the troops and love Hillary.

            • Daniel Kuehn says:

              Keynesianism has absolutely zero to do with what I think of our appropriate policy towards the middle east. Nothing at all.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            I always tell my red state Dubya loving Texas friends that the purpose of US foreign policy is to bring the joys that the Federal government brought to Detroit to the third world. That usually shuts them up for awhile (if only because they don’t know what I mean by “the third world”.

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            I would imagine eliminating any terrorist networks (not necessarily eliminating the Taliban, although as we continue to engage terrorist-sympathizing warlords its nice to knock them out).

            I also think we need to maintain the stability of the country to prevent future problems with this. I would have guessed that this doesn’t mean a major presence or a combat role at all. But I’m no expert in this stuff.

            • Blackadder says:


              Why is it preferable to have terrorist networks operate out of Pakistan instead of Afghanistan?

            • Dan says:

              Do you think that when we go and kill a terrorist but also kill innocents that it is a great recruiting tool for terrorists? For example, if China went and killed a known terrorist in the US but also took out a bunch of innocent Americans that might cause a little blowback for them, right? Why would it be different for these third world countries who are losing innocent men, women, and children in our noble cause of ridding the world of terrorism?

              Also would you support drone attacks or a military presence in China, France, Italy, etc if there was a strong terrorist presence in their countries or can we only do that in third world countries?

        • John Becker says:

          The Status of Forces Agreement the US signed under Bush has our forces withdrawing from cities, which they’ve done, and fully leaving by the end of 2011. Hopefully he honors the agreement we made with the Iraqis.

          • Joseph Fetz says:

            That agreement only applied to Iraq, and I highly doubt that our presence there will be eliminated, we have a billion dollar embassy that we erected there, remember? The timeline has changed before, it will change again. If you think that US forces don’t still pull patrol in Iraqi cities, then you apparently haven’t talked to those currently serving in Iraq. Also, the Green Zone and the Baghdad Airport are still considered International Zones, but are supposedly under Iraqi control. If you want to know who controls these zones, just look who has “presence” and who administrates their operation. Do you think Air Force 1 (or, any other Allied flight) would land at an airport under Iraqi control? Come on….

            Further, we have opened 3 (4 if you count Somalia) new theaters of war, none of which include nations that have ever attacked US interests. One could make the case that Somali pirates attacked US commercial ships, but that would be to entirely disregard the entire reasoning, history, and logical implications of that entire phenomenon.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          Good question, Bob. I am also curious as to what this “job” is that he is referring to. I remember when I joined the military the job that I thought that we were pursuing was to get those who had attacked us. Well, it seems to me that waging a war on the Afghani civilians, propping up a corrupt government, and keeping the heroin flowing is not related to that “job” at all. Considering that OBL is dead, and the supposed Taliban that backed him are also dead. Today, over 80% of supposed Taliban fighters that we catch are just simple civilians.

          People in America have this convoluted idea that because we go into someplace and destroy their world as they know it, that our continuing to stay there somehow is helping things, or that we can impose our way of life and governance upon them. It this were the fact, then the civilians of A-stan wouldn’t be so adamant about us leaving. We are doing nothing more than making ourselves a bigger thorn in the side of the Afghani people, and there is no fixing that by continuing our presence there.

          The easiest way to look at it is to act as if we were the people being occupied; would we want a continuing occupation so that our occupiers could get their “job” done (whatever that may be)? I doubt it.

        • Joseph Fetz says:

          By the way DK, you do realize that we are killing real people, that those people will never get their lives back, and that their families will forever have to deal with that loss. This isn’t a movie, a video game, or some sort of make-believe; we (America) are killing real people, most of whom have never done a thing in their life against us. For what? So that we can complete some “job” that is undefinable, and more than likely unachievable?

          We have already made ourselves more hated in the world than you will ever know because of our actions, to continue those actions only invites more bloodshed. Except, we’ll just call those people terrorists rather than what they really are: people seeking vengeance for our past actions on them and their families.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Paul’s “we just marched in, we can just march out” approach IS the best course of foreign policy action. Humming and hawing is the wrong course of action. Nobody should be forced to pay for wars they don’t believe in. I and many others are not sacrificial animals to be milked so that random people we’ve never met are not at a higher or lower risk.

      Second, you’re wrong on economics so often that I actually giggled out loud when I read you saying Paul is wrong about economics.

    • Blackadder says:

      We should be in Afghanistan

      Going into Afghanistan to get bin Laden made sense. Why we are still there ten years later (with bin Laden being dead) is mystifying to me.

      • RFN says:

        Exactly. But the neo-cons and the left are alll Wilsonians, so there you have it.

  4. Bob Roddis says:

    Completely off topic (except as to Ron Paul’s war on Keynesianism) but I didn’t want to lose track of this one.

    King MMTer L. Randall Wray using coconuts as an example:

    You hire me to collect coconuts from your trees, I hire you to catch fish in my pond. You own the coconuts, I own the fish—due to our property rights in our respective resources; as workers we only have a right to our wages. (Ain’t capitalism grand?) We each work 5 hours at a buck an hour. We record these on our balance sheets on the big rock: on your balance sheet, your financial asset is my IOU; my financial asset is your IOU. At the end of the first day we each had income of $5 (recorded on our asset side) and we each issued an IOU to pay wages of $5 (recorded on our liability side). (On my balance sheet I hold your $5 IOU as my asset; and I have issued my IOU to you in the amount of $5, which I record on my liability side. And vice versa.)


    Every Monday starting a few weeks ago, Wray will be giving us a short and concise lesson in MMT that will be easy for bright people to eviscerate.

    • MamMoTh says:

      Bright people will notice the difference between using coconuts as an example of an exchange in a modern monetary economy like Wray did, and as an example of a primitive non-monetary economy, like Murphy did. Of course, you can’t tell the difference.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        No. The problem is with the intellectually challenged who are too dim-witted to figure out that the logical progression in examining the concepts of trade and exchange must begin with discussions about barter and then move on to examining exchanges that involve money. It’s pretty simple stuff and only a fool would have (or pretend to have) a problem with it.

        • MamMoTh says:

          Everyone who knows some basic economics knows that the logical progression from a barter economy to a modern monetary economy is through the emergence of debt, and money as debt.

          However, those who can’t realise that no one produces more coconuts than he consumes in order to save coconuts any more, is intellectually challenged and cannot grasp the full implications of what a modern monetary economy is about.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            Real money is a commodity like other commodities and which has its own unique characteristics like all commodities. Bank notes for specie are a form of debt. Funny fiat money is a monstrosity and will disappear once people realize it is the cause of their misery.

            • MamMoTh says:

              Wrong on all accounts. You won’t see fiat money disappear. Keep driving.

  5. Louis B. says:

    Good stuff, too bad Beck’s relevance is rapidly dwindling.

  6. NadePaulKuciGravMcKi says:

    7 Nation Army couldn’t hold Ron Paul back

  7. Bob D says:

    Ron Paul is the only one that you can be sure will get us out of wars and policing the world. W. bush promised a humbler foreign policy. His excuse for becoming a neocon warmonger (9/11) was fatuous and misdirected. Obama promised peace. He lied. Plan is to keep troops around the world in the hundreds of thousands for the forseeable future. No politician other than Ron Paul ever even bothers to lie about that. I don’t know who is more of an idiot, The politicians for thinking they can continue to fool the american taxpayer or Daniel Kuehn for being fooled.

    • RFN says:

      So you’re saying that somebody died when Obama lied? JK, I know what you’re saying. I really can’t see a difference between Bush and Obama.

  8. GSL says:

    Even odder than Beck’s endorsement is this full-throated one from, of all places, the San Francisco Chronicle.

  9. Bob Roddis says:

    Ron Paul is doing a good job getting people to focus on military waste and the wars and a decent job on bringing the drug war to the forefront.

    However, his number one goal must be to get average people to understand that general price inflation is caused by funny money and the Fed and it not “just one of those things” that just happens. No one is going to understand malinvestment unless and until they understand money dilution. I still think 97% of the populace hasn’t a clue about the cause of inflation even though the statists explicitly admit it is caused by the Fed while cry out for more.

    I believe that once people understand that inflation is caused by intentional money dilution, the game will be over and we will win. Most people have “conventional notions of prudence” and they are not going to believe the counter-intiuitive BS put forth by the Keynesians or the MMTers. Ever. Spend $5 million on a CGI cartoon that explains inflation and money dilution in pictures so that no one can get it out of their mind. We need to get to a point quickly where the bubble-headed bleach blond on the evening news automatically blames the Fed as a matter of course for inflation at the hair salon.