Glenn Beck Throws Down the Gauntlet at Ron Paul

Glenn Beck is a little tired of Ron Paul supporters telling him they want him to have Paul on his programs, so he made them an offer (that if Paul’s smart) he shouldn’t refuse:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNEgkAshNnI[/youtube]

Hat Tip: Daily Paul 

So, this is the offer to Ron Paul from Glenn Beck: 1 Hour on Television, 1 Hour on the #3 Radio Show in America, him and Beck 1-on-1. Will Paul take it? He’d better. Some people have been on my blog urging me to support Ron Paul. While I’ve got some problems with him on the issues, even if I agreed with him on everything, this would be a dealbreaker.

You don’t refuse an invite from Glenn Beck. You don’t refuse a forum to spread your views. One Paul supporter wrote in the comments of the post on this at Daily Paul (believe it or not, some people are debating whether their guy should take this challenge.):

I get an e-mail every two weeks telling me to send money. The last e-mail had a panic theme that said “Only 900 hours until the primaries!!” And every time I get one of these e-mails I reach in my pocket and give some money. But money can only go so far. Look at Huckabee. He is not even close to the kind of cash Dr. Paul has but he is 2nd in Iowa and now 4th in NH. You need exposure just as much as you need cash. Like him or hate him you have to admit Beck has an audience. If this campaign is serious about getting Ron Paul elected they have to let him go on Beck. It is FOOLISH not to. Dr. Paul needs the exposure. If the campaign does not allow him to go they are either stupid or don’t really care Dr. Paul winning.

Another supporter was more blunt:

If he doesn’t take this opportunity, he will lose my support as well because of what that will mean.

It would mean either he doesn’t really want to win or doesn’t know how to win. And in either case, I would no longer feel a need to sacrifice so much.

And this guy’s exactly right. Why should Paul supporters give sacrificially while Paul himself refuses to do the basic intelligent thing and take an interview. What? Does he need to appear on Conspiracy Nut Alex Jones for the umpteeth time and can’t squeeze in time for a show (two actually) that’s popular with Republican Primary voters?

Paul said that he got kind of annoyed at the Romney-Giuliani and felt like he didn’t actually get a chance to participate. It turns out that even though, Paul was there, his feelings were justified. While I rarely link Lew Rockwell, their numbers backed what I observed (Hat Tip: Right Mind.):

(RG) Rudy Giuliani – 16:45
(MR) Mitt Romney – 13:39
(JM) John McCain – 11:39
(FT) Fred Thompson – 10:26
(MH) Mike Huckabee – 9:37
(RP) Ron Paul – 7:21
(DH) Duncan Hunter – 4:46
(TT) Tom Tancredo – 3:50

4 minutes and 46 seconds for Hunter, and 3 minutes and 50 seconds for Tancredo? They might as well have not shown up. While apparently allowing all candidates in, some candidates are more equal than others. I think that Huckabee, Paul, Hunter, and Tancredo can all reasonably ask what the heck the organizers were trying to pull, particularly Huckabee and Paul who with respective poll and fundraising success can ask why they’re being treated as second bananas.

My pal David Oatney would be a natural idealogical fit for the Paul campaign, but he has a problem:

I’ve often been asked from the beginning of this campaign why I did not throw my support behind Ron Paul since his ideology is the most closely in-line with my own in this race. Ron Paul’s great weakness is not his views, but the behavior of many of his supporters. They engage in poll bombing, spam wars on the internet, and filling people’s comment boxes with hateful and malicious diatribe. Some have even blocked traffic at intersections while holding up signs, and are known to call those who confess that they won’t be voting for Dr. Paul nasty names. People claiming to be Ron Paul supporters are reported to be the ones responsible for bringing an independent effort to raise funds for Senator Fred Thompson to an early end. Some of these folks have no regard for the basic “unwritten rules” of political and social civility. While it is true that many great people are supporting Dr. Paul, I want no part of a campaign that clearly condones these kinds of tactics. Why can we say the Paul campaign condones this behavior? Because the campaign is doing nothing to stop this wretched band of malcontents from doing their dirty work.

These people are a discredit to a fine human being. What’s more, the kind of behavior exhibited by some of these so-called “supporters” is precisely what undermines the unity needed to win an election. It ought to serve as a warning to the supporters of all Republican candidates: Bad behavior and poor political manners will not only do a disservice to your candidates, but it undermines the GOP as well.

Other than the wisdom of his campaign staff (see example above. Glenn Beck can’t even get the Paul campaign to return his calls.), the actions of some supporters are a huge liability. It wouldn’t be unfair to ask, could some decent supporters do something about it? With so many Paul supporters, it wouldn’t be a small task to have a designated support or four to be annointed as protectors of the campaign’s image by condeming other supporters who are behaving as total jerks. Anyone (supporter or not) who sees a Ron Paul supporter acting untoward can reporter it the Civility Marshalls. The Civility Marshall goes on the blog/forum where the misbehavior is occurring and says: 1) I’m so sorry, 2) This guy’s acting like an idiot, there are a lot of reasonable folks who back Ron Paul, 3) make a reasonable case for Paul, if appropriate. Of course to go along with that, they’d need some type of code of conduct for supporters to define where the lines lie. This probably isn’t the type of thing that would ever come from a libertarian campaign, but still it’s worth a thought.

The Politico declares Ron Paul’s campaign has fractured because rather than raising their goal of $2.5 million today, they only raised $500,000 to put Paul over the $10 million mark. A Paul supporter pointed to one likely reason:

IT is the end of the month. The 30th.. Most people are waiting for checks around the 3rd-5th of the month.

The 30th is just a BAD DAY to Raise money. Nov 5 was great because most people just got checks. The begining of the month will always be better than the end.

In addition, Raising a ton of money on November 30th was never much of a grassroots goal, more of a goal handed down from the campaign committee that the grassroots tried to emulate. The Campaign can’t complain, they asked for a ton and got a quarter of a ton. $10.3 million for two months isn’t bad at all.

As for the campaign and grassroots unity, I won’t deny it’s possible the Politico picked up something, but at this the December 16th Tea Party has 22,500 pledges as opposed to 18,000 for the original November 5th campaign. If Ron Paul and friends don’t raise at least $6 million that day, then we’ll talk.

Chuck Baldwin is challenging pro-lifers to vote for Paul, arguing he’s the most pro-life in the race because of the bill he supports:

Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

The idea has merit and it’s much quicker (if you get it done) than either appointing the right judges or waiting for the Constitutional Amendment. Appointing the right judges is a tricky issue, because figuring out what someone will do is hard and you can’t just look at their record. Indeed, Justice Kennedy was thought to be more conservative than Justice Scalia and the opposite has turned out to be true. As for Constitutional Amendments: 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the States. ‘Nuff said.

Problem with Paul’s idea. The Congress. Liberals would oppose, and as for Conservatives, while they have the power under Article III, section 2, they don’t want to use it for reasons that aren’t fully explained. One, is that perhaps they fear a backlash, or they fear the Federal Court authority will be stripped bare as every bill gets exempted from Federal Court jurisdiction. Some, just want to have the issue federal to win elections. Whatever, the reason, it’ll have few supporters in Congress unless Paul were able to get like-minded folks up there.

The comments on this subject at Daily Paul reveal why the Paul coalition is doomed to break apart:

I also disagree that we need more RIGHT WING/fanatical Christian voters. How about targeting the 30% +/- of registered voters that are INDEPENDANT, or the 6.7 MILLION unregistered elligible voters. These people are very likely disgruntled moderates (more likely pro-choice).

I bet those mostly Conservative Christian homeschoolers backing Paul would love to hear that. Only Paul can gain approval and support from the mix of people he does as a pro-life, pro-border security libertarian. After this campaign is over, the coalition will collapse.

The Arkansas News (Hat Tip: Blogs for Thompson.) meanwhile reports that Mike Huckabee is ready to lose over his support for aide to illegal aliens getting tuition breaks:

WASHINGTON – As rivals who consider Mike Huckabee soft on immigration ramp up their attacks, the former Arkansas governor acknowledged Thursday that his position on the issue may cost him votes.

Huckabee for weeks now been criticized for his 2005 support of state-sponsored scholarships for illegal immigrants. Legislation to provide the tuition aid failed in the Arkansas Senate.

Huckabee admitted his stance is unpopular among a GOP voter base that has made immigration the No. 1 issue of the campaign.

“If it costs me the election, it costs me the election,” he told reporters at a luncheon on Capitol Hill.

But Huckabee said voters should direct their anger toward a government that has neglected the immigration problem.

“Be mad at the government, be mad about immigration,” he said. “I’m mad about it, too. But let’s punish the right people for breaking the law. A 6-year-old crossing the border doesn’t know he’s breaking the law.”

One of his opponents, Mitt Romney, has accused Huckabee of misleading voters when he discusses support for scholarships, but fails to mention he also backed guaranteed in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrants.

And former state Sen. Jim Holt, R-Springdale, said Thursday Huckabee “has his head in the sand” when it comes to immigration policies.

And when describing the scholarships for illegals in the last, he, as he’s done before distorted reality. He argued that these breaks would go to A+ students who’d been in Arkansas their whole life. Fact Check points out:

Actually, the bill Huckabee pushed for in his 2005 State of the Union address did not apply only to “those children who had been in our schools their entire school life.” It required only three years in an Arkansas high school to be eligible. And students did not have to be “applying for citizenship,” but rather they had to sign an affidavit stating their intent to do so in the future. All students who apply for state scholarships must “certify that they are drug-free” and “pledge to refrain from alcohol” if they are under 21, just as Huckabee said. But they certainly don’t have to be “an A-plus student.” The state requires a solid “B” average (a 3.0 average on a 4.0 scale). And the state may reduce that to a 2.5 average if sticking with the higher requirement “would unduly reduce the number of low-income or disadvantaged students who would otherwise be eligible for the program.” That’s a C-plus average.

Again, Huckabee raises these really extreme circumstances, but doesn’t tell us the actual truth of the matter on the bill.

Kathyrn Lopez shares a fairly honest answer by Mitt Romney about his feelings on integration:

GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, actually back in the early part of this or last century until 1970 something, there were not priests in our church who were African-American. I remember the day that that changed – I pulled over to the side of the road and literally broke down. It was so important to me to see that change in my church. My dad had always been an advocate of civil rights. He marched with Martin Luther King. Our heritage had been very strong to protect the rights of all of our citizens. I feel very strongly that discrimination is wrong and I’m happy that my church – actually one of my best friends is in Ghana right now serving as a leader of our church over there, bringing people into our church. It’s a great movement around the world.

Another blogger points to Romney’s personal service. Hat Tip: Scottish Right. He went down to California and helped someone out after the fires, with no media attention. The thankful home owner wrote:

I can really tell that the Romney’s know how to work and to work really hard. I looked over my shovel at one point and sweat was running down Mitt’s face. When I suggested we stop for a breakfast burrito, I got a polite ‘maybe later, gotta get this root out.” Mitt told me that this reminded him of taking out a stump on the ranch with his father.after it was too much his Dad(George Romney) said get some dynamite! Well, Mitt attacked that old stump, cutting as many of the big roots as he could until it was
well time past for he and Matt to leave for their meetings up north. I put a Machaca burrito in Mitts hand and a glass of O.J. I could tell he didn’t like leaving the job partially completed and neither did Matt. But I knew they had “bigger stumps” elsewhere that day.

If true, it’s almost unprecedented and speaks positively to Mitt in ways I hadn’t thought of before. Of course, the e-mail was forwarded about third hand, so take it for what you may. Someone actually suggested to me that Mitt may have done it without the press there because he knew it’d get out that he’d done out with press. It was odd to find someone was more cynical about Mitt Romney than I am.