Business

Why Did Ron Paul Sign a Letter Pledging Support for the Super Committee?

[Author's note: the title of this article is meant to be an honest question. Given his past disapproval, why do you suppose Ron Paul signed the letter?]

Ron Paul has signed a letter addressed to members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “super committee”) that recognizes their “unique opportunity and authority to act” and pledges to support their efforts in slashing the deficit.

The letter reads as follows:

We write to you as a bipartisan group of representative from across the political spectrum in the belief that the success of your committee is vital to our country’s future. We know that many in Washington and around the country do not believe we in Congress and those within your committee can successfully meet this challenge. We believe that we can and we must.

To succeed, all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table. In addition, we know from other bipartisan frameworks that a target of some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy and assure America’s fiscal well-being.

Our country needs our honest, bipartisan judgment and out political courage. Your committee has been given a unique opportunity and authority to act. We are prepared to support you in this effort.

Line 62 on the list of supporters is “Paul, Ron (R-TX).” As the headline of this article asks, why would Paul sign this letter?

First, this would appear to be a very rare moment of inconsistency for Paul. Back when Congress passed the Budget Control Act, he came out with an official statement that read:

. . . [the] bill . . . assumes large tax increases in its revenue projections, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2012 calculated into the “baseline” numbers.  This assumption will make it very difficult politically for Republicans to extend current tax rates beyond 2012.

He then directed very specific criticisms at the “Super Congress:”

This is nothing more than a way to disenfranchise the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform.

It cedes power to draft legislation to a special commission, hand-picked by the House and Senate leadership.

The legislation produced by this commission will be fast-tracked, and Members will not have the opportunity to offer amendments. Approval of the recommendations of the “Super Congress” is tied to yet another debt ceiling increase.

This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission– even if it includes tax increases.  This provision is an excellent way to keep spending decisions out of the reach of members who are not on board with the leadership’s agenda.

Later, during a Fox interview, Paul continued his criticism of the Super Congress.

“Where in the world did that come from and where is that going to lead to? That is monstrous. I keep looking and I can’t find any place in the Constitution where we have the authority to create such a creature as the super Congress,” Paul said.

Even Business Insider had this to say about the “Super Congress”:

The worry of un-debated — and potentially unconstitutional — tax increases could be only the beginning of the powers exercised by the 12-member special congressional committee. In this process the “Super Congress” could potentially circumvent any number of congressional procedures under the guise of its $1.5 trillion budget-cutting mandate.

While there’s no reason to necessarily leap to the conclusion that the “Super Congress” is a government attempt to crack down on the right to keep and bear arms, for example, it does smell more than a bit fishy.

Later, Judge Napolitano weighed in on the constitutionality of the committee’s duties and responsibilities:

Now given Paul’s documented disapproval of the committee, and all the other criticisms it has received, why would Paul sign a letter that acknowledges its authority?

Of course, several things need to be said about the letter before that question can be answered.

First, it is important to note that although the letter stated that a large deal was the necessary to stabilize the nation’s debt, it doesn’t say anything more than that.

Second, and in the words of Deirdre Walsh of CNN, the letter is “deliberately thin on details on what the signatories believe amounts to a ‘tax hike’ versus new tax revenue.” In fact, the letter says practically nothing at all. If anything, there may be some implied meaning in the last line of the letter where it says, “We are prepared to support you in this effort.”

As Walsh speculates, this line might be a “signal to those on the panel that there will be cover from across the political spectrum if they sign onto a deal larger than the $1.2 trillion they are charged with finding.”

Maybe the letter is a subtle way of saying, “Let us work with you. You don’t need to do this by yourself behind closed doors.”

On the other hand—and could be a real option—perhaps the signers of the letter are honest-to-God serious about the nation’s financial debacle. For instance, when asked his part in drafting the letter, North Carolina Rep Heath Shuler said that he was ready to lose his seat over a vote on a deal to slash the deficit.

“I am willing to give up anything, including my next election, if what we are doing today gives us that opportunity for success for tomorrow for the next generation,” he said.

If that’s the case, and all of the signers are truly committed to getting America back on fiscally sound footing, then that would be a very welcome change of pace in Washington.

Otherwise, one is left wondering how Paul went from claiming that the Super Congress “disenfranchise[s] the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform” to signing a letter that he reads, “Your committee has been given a unique opportunity and authority to act. We are prepared to support you in this effort.”

What do you think? Final Super Committee Letter

(h/t John Galt)

Update: This article has been updated to reflect better this author’s intent. Due to this author’s unclear writing, some passages in the earlier version appeared to claim that Paul was supporting the committee’s authority. This would be an unfair claim. The letter says nothing more than he recognizes their authority and supports their efforts to balance the budget. But can they and what part could he play in it?

Comments (58)

  • DanBrogan
    Posted on November 6, 2011 at 12:48pm

    I think that Paul understands that if you cannot get rid of the super committee, the least you can do is offer bipartisan support with the issue, that way you can at least make some headway with real budget cuts (that includes entitlements and military too). It sounds like Paul just wants the committee to know that if they are given this opportunity and power for the budget, then they also have the power to do real, serious cuts. I don’t agree with the existence of the super committee, but if it has to exist for the moment, then we can at least assure that serious cuts will hopefully be made.

    I wouldn’t call this inconsistency, that word is very misleading.

    Report Post »  
  • RepublicanMomof2
    Posted on November 5, 2011 at 1:18pm

    You are right about one thing–it is VERY RARE to see Ron Paul have any inconsistency. However, I agree with him that the Super Committee is a bad idea and reducing 4 Trillion is a terrific idea. B/c I agree with those ideas, I don’t really see a problem with what you call an “inconsistency”.

    Report Post »  
  • Thurston Bell
    Posted on November 5, 2011 at 12:55pm

    This all explains why I cannot get my comments on this site in regards to Abortion, Money, Taxes and Tax Law, and now even Ron Paul.

    Suppression of comments also helps the New Controlled Media show that there are no Ron Paul Supporters.

    TheBlaze and Pat think that this mess we are in is somehow sustainable and correctable.

    Evidence of more of the same Diseased Thought, we are in the 3rd-4th Generation of.

    Report Post » Thurston Bell  
  • mr.goodvibe
    Posted on November 5, 2011 at 8:34am

    The Paul apologists are out in full force. If he signned the pledge without reading or understandind it then he is a typical politician, he signed it after he questioned the constitutionality of it he is a hypocrite, if he was just fooled by it then he is just a fool. But he still maybe the best fool.

    Report Post » mr.goodvibe  
  • Pigpen
    Posted on November 5, 2011 at 5:14am

    Adams wrote: “[Author's note: the title of this article is meant to be an honest question. Given his past disapproval, why do you suppose Ron Paul signed the letter?]”

    Puh-LEASE, Mr Adams, what kind of manipulative cr@p is that? You must think we’re pretty dumb. How about these other “honest questions” to hurl at Ron Paul supporters:

    “Why did Ron Paul leave medicine and abandon his patients to become a politician?”
    “Why does Ron Paul wish to hurt Seniors by destroying Social Security and Medicare?”
    “Why hasn’t Ron Paul publicly denounced kiddie porn?”
    “Why blah blah blah blah blah…?”

    YOU are the professional journalist, Mr Adams, why don‘t you stop surfin’ the ‘net and PICK UP THE PHONE and ASK either Ron Paul or his people why Ron Paul signed this letter. Hmmmmm?

    Report Post » Pigpen  
  • OKConservative
    Posted on November 5, 2011 at 4:15am

    For most of the past year I have been hearing “Where is our Washington, our Lincoln our Reagan”? It finally hit me when Judge Napolitano was on GBTV last time. I had to overcome my bias on Ron’s position on foreign policy and start listening to everything else he was saying. Who else during the debates even talks about the constitution? It’s more of the same – When I’m elected this is what I will do. I spent over 40 years living my life the way I saw fit. Wow did I get a lot of it wrong. I think it’s time we start believing in what made us great – our constitution and the liberty it provides to everyone. I think I just became a Ron Paul voter in the past 2 weeks. I’ll put my faith in someone that puts their faith in something other then themselves.

    Report Post » OKConservative  
  • TeaPartyanimal
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:45pm

    Paul signed….eh. no biggy.

    He is a Senator. Thats what Senators do…vote and sign for things. How does he campaign? Not very well. This country needs a leader, not a Senator. We have one of those in the WH now.

    He can be Cain’s Treasurer and audit the fed to his hearts content.

    Report Post » TeaPartyanimal  
    • mr.goodvibe
      Posted on November 5, 2011 at 8:35am

      Animal he is a rep.

      Report Post » mr.goodvibe  
    • garygromele
      Posted on November 5, 2011 at 10:33pm

      Ah, He’s a congressman, Not a Senator. I am also changing my opinion on Dr. Paul. I believe his unwavering support of the Constitution and, his unyielding disdain of the Federal Reserve, has convinced me that he is the only candidate I truly respect, Michele Bachman comes in second. Now, if Glenn would run then he’d have my vote. Period.

      Report Post » garygromele  
  • GadsdenGurl
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:33pm

    He was probably ill advised and confused on what it said… there is so much double speak in DC you can’t imagine it.

    Report Post » GadsdenGurl  
    • Squ33
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:54pm

      I agree. If you look at the 3rd paragraph it says “ALL options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenue must be on the table…” That would make me sign it.

      Report Post » Squ33  
  • glasspar
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:25pm

    I really beleive this is the time of Ron Paul. Glenn always talked about the one man that would emerge as the next George Washington. Glenn also talked how we need a man that speaks the truth, even the unpopular truth. Someone that knows the issues and is a firm champion for the constitution. Someone that doesn’t really want to be in charge but feels obligated to do what was to be done. I like a few others in the repubs but no one comes close to knowing the issues and is willing to speak the truth that we have to stop these horrible wars and get out of these other countries. Glenn doesn’t agree with everything that every founding father wanted to do. He all too well knows that no one gets everything they want. Mr. Paul would never get all of his beliefs through and that is okay. But we need to do these drastic things that Mr. Paul calls for as far as our foreign policy and our fiscal policies or we will pass this on to our grandchildren. I try to listen to everyone with an open mind. I vote for the man not the party. For me and my friends we stand with Ron Paul.

    Report Post »  
  • Mr. Oshawott
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:53pm

    Okay, so Ron Paul signs a pledge to show that he‘s serious about slashing the government’s outrageous spending spree. I even have to question if the question that Becket bought up really is “honest” as he claims it is. Yes, Ron Paul did express criticism towards the Super Congress, as he should, regarding the fact that it’s un-Constitutional. But he’s also realistic – he has no control over this “super commitee.” No wonder why I’ve always viewed The Blaze as nothing more than a joke. What a real disheartenment.

    Report Post » Mr. Oshawott  
    • Vunks
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:30pm

      Yeah Becket should issue an apology for the wording of this post. The blaze seems dead set on ******* off constitutional conservatives.

      Report Post »  
  • TeaPartyDragon
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:29pm

    This man is a career Politician.

    Cain 2012!!!

    Report Post » TeaPartyDragon  
    • Mr. Oshawott
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 11:10pm

      @TeaPartyDragon

      Despite the fact that Herman Cain is a former employee of the Federal Reserve and has no intention of ever auditing it, the fact that he supported TARP and the bank bailouts, and the fact that he is “90 percent OK” with George W. Bush’s freedom-crushing “Patriot” Act?

      No Need to Audit the Federal Reserve According to Herman Cain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk
      Herman Cain Supported the TARP Bailouts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol45PnAIFRU
      Herman Cain Would Trade Liberty for Security: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSjMF1ouPH0

      Report Post » Mr. Oshawott  
    • Mr. Oshawott
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 11:44pm

      @TeaPartyDragon

      Despite the fact that Herman Cain is a former employee of the Federal Reserve and has no intention of ever auditing it, the fact that he supported TARP and the bank bailouts, and the fact that he is “90 percent okay” with George W. Bush’s freedom-crushing “Patriot” Act?

      Herman Cain and the Federal Reserve: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiAkeFJXwUk
      Herman Cain and TARP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol45PnAIFRU
      Herman Cain and the “Patriot” Act: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSjMF1ouPH0

      Report Post » Mr. Oshawott  
    • Mr. Oshawott
      Posted on November 5, 2011 at 12:12am

      Yes, it seems that The Blaze expresses sheer intolerance towards any statements that expose the truth about any GOP establishment candidate they’ve been devoting excessive coverage to nowadays. It seems that Glenn Beck’s website stands for the truth only when it favors the GOP establishment, which pretty much explains why I’ve lost all favor towards him. How very disheartening indeed.

      Report Post » Mr. Oshawott  
  • obamabirthcertificate.net
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 8:30pm

    Why indeed?

    Obama’s birth certificate alleges “where” he was born and his parent’s citizenship “when” he was born. Now these equally vital “facts” can’t be altered or hidden! Unless fake, his Kenyan father inescapably precludes eligibility as a natural born citizen by not being born within US jurisdiction to TWO US citizen parents.

    Candidates for President, each having “legal standing” are obligated to sue Obama for failure to qualify as a natural born citizen, or be dismissed as untrustworthy!

    Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 1, “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible … .”

    Exempting a “citizen” from being a “natural born citizen” proves they aren’t equal, or no exemption was needed. Being not less than nor equal, a NBC must be more than the minimum requisite for citizenship then, which was US birth to a US citizen parent. Only US birth to US citizen parents (plural) is greater, thus defining a natural born citizen.

    The Supreme Court agreed in Minor v. Happersett, 1874. “The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens.” – Donofrio, JD.

    http://www.ObamaBirthCertificate.net

    Report Post » obamabirthcertificate.net  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:23pm

      obamabirthcertificate.net
      I guess no thread is too off topic for you to refrain from running this same nonsense over and over again. You know perfectly well that the Supreme Court made it very clear in their decision on Minor v Happersett that they were NOT setting a precedent by establishing a complete and exclusive definition of natural born citizen,

      “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

      And that there is no definition in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court finally settled the issue in 1898 when they said that anyone who was born here is a natural born citizen, and that has been the law of the land ever since. And you should know that even if you were right on the legal theory, no candidates are going to sue, because they know that no judge can rule against what the Congress and the Supreme Court say the law is.

      Report Post »  
    • obamabirthcertificate.net
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 11:50pm

      @ Chet Hempstead

      Chester the Molester of truth’s motto:
      “The Constitution, don’t examine it too closely.”

      Sadly, some people avidly avoid or disavow the truth. Unfortunately self imposed ignorance seldom dissuades deceitful political pontificating, no matter how subversive. In the absence of any facts supporting your opinions, and in light of further failings such as an insufferable lack of intellectual integrity and irrational refusal to acknowledge facts presented by others, you’ve long ago been dismissed you as a troll. There is no value in any discourse with you. Your comments are worthless and unwelcome, cease and desist from stalking my posts.

      Dr. Savage, Ph.D., was certainly right when he wrote:
      “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”

      Lamentably truth rarely accompanies liberal political bias. As a courtesy to those sympathetic to the need to diffuse unfounded liberal attacks, first let me say that I consider such attacks to be a complementary gauge of one’s effectiveness in thwarting the anti-American intentions of progressive socialist democrats.

      Second, to avoid restating the facts in my prior comment, all those wishing to quickly understand Obama’s ineligibility are invited to visit http://www.ObamaBirthCertificate.net where you‘ll also see what’s being done about it and how you can help.

      Report Post » obamabirthcertificate.net  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on November 5, 2011 at 1:23am

      obamabirthcertificate.net
      I want people to examine the Constitution, that’s the only way they will know that nothing in it supports your claims about what it means. You should get a motto of your own, like “The Constitution, I’ll tell you what it should say.”

      You talk about truth and deceit, yet you have never been able to demonstrate the imagined untruth of any statement I have made, nor have you ever shown the existence of any law or court decision backing up your contention that some citizens born in this country are not natural born citizens, or that the phrase natural born citizen has ever meant anything other than a citizen by birth. The only source you have ever shown for your erroneous belief that being born of two citizens is a requirement for the status of natural born citizen, is an irrelevant Supreme Court decision that both predates their 1898 ruling, and plainly states that it is not setting a precedent or establishing a complete and exclusive definition of natural born citizenship, as anyone with the reading comprehension level of a fourth grader can easily see.

      Report Post »  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on November 5, 2011 at 2:04am

      By the way, if anyone is surprised to learn that Michael Savage has a Ph.D., it is true. He holds a doctorate in nutritional ethnomedicine, and I will respectfully yield to his greater expertise when it comes to any opinions he might express on that subject.

      Report Post »  
  • Trading_barracuda
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 8:10pm

    Hey Becket, I have an idea. Why does Herman Cain tell us he is not a politician? He ran for senate and the presidency. He was senior economic advisor to the Bob Dole presidential campaign in 1996.
    Cain sells himself as the anti-polit­ician. He is anything but. It takes far more political skill and seasoning to navigate one’s way into the chairmansh­ip of a Federal Reserve Bank than most offices.

    Why does Herman Cain Herman Cain represent the same interests as Barak Obama?
    Why is Herman Cain an apologist for the debt slavery & tax bondage imposed on ALL Americans since the Federal Reserve Act of 1913?

    Why does Herman Cain tell the OWS to get a job?
    Americans are approachin­g the state of awakening required to throw off the shackles of a cabal of a few priviledge­d banks and corporatio­ns (the Federal Reserve Shareholde­rs) who dictate the degree of slavery each of us lives under.

    Why doesn’t Herman Cain see that the unrest we see beginning to manifest is the spirit in each of us that hungers for Liberty?

    Is Herman Cain here to pre-empt the Anti-Slave­ry, Anti-Fed/I­RS Complex uprising?
    Barack Obama was installed by the very same forces that are putting Herman Cain up to compete. Both puppets of the 1%.They are both here to protect the interests of the globalist elite and continue the bondage of the masses.

    Report Post »  
    • jaylew
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:36pm

      Why are you discussing Herman Cain on this your favorite politicians very own thread? This is starting to become an annoying habit of the Ron Paul crowd. You finally get a news story with Ron Paul’s real name in the headline…and you starting ranting about Herman Cain…..it’s preposterous…save the Cain rants for threads that are discussing Cain. Surely Ron Paul can explain his position on this thing well enough without having to bring Herman Cain into it…so why do you bring Cain here? It’s annoying as he!! frankly and completely unnecessary. We get it…many of you all love Ron Paul. We get it. We’re not as think as you dumb we are.

      Report Post » jaylew  
    • TeaPartyanimal
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:33pm

      beautiful F’n Beautiful

      Report Post » TeaPartyanimal  
  • gldncat
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 8:06pm

    Ok Ron Paul supporters…what do you say to this? If he has signed this, you need to question a lot! This is a compete and total failure of Constitutional law. Rep. Paul has said he is for the Constitution but supports this complete surrender of Congressional oversight to a 12 member “committee”? Totally unsupportable and just goes to show that Mr. Paul is not all he says he is. In fact, why does he also align himself with Code Pink????

    Report Post » gldncat  
    • Trading_barracuda
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 8:21pm

      I don’t know about all the rest but I know Ron Paul likes pink. It reminds him of his hobby of raising tomatoes.

      Report Post »  
  • Okie from Muskogee
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 7:30pm

    If the Blaze had actual journalists besides copy cat journalists then we would all know why Ron Paul signed this article because REAL journalists would get off that fat lazy duff and go ask Ron Paul. Of course the Blaze journalists do not do that. 

    Considering the fact the super committee is something that Ron Paul cannot change and considering the fact Ron Paul supports cutting the budget by 1 trillion and 5 departments I‘m sure he’d support all the cuts the super committee would give us. Beckett Adams apparently does not. 

    Yes he criticized such committee but reality says there is nothing he can do about such committee.  Being a REP he has to try to influence such committee. This letter does just that. It’s better then doing nothing, like Blaze “reporters”….Beckett Adams must not comprehend well. 

    Out of all the things you could report about Ron Paul and chosen not too and simply ignore him and now Beckett Adams decides to report this. The Blaze sucks. Totally sucks. Not biased right…What a joke. 

    Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • Becket Adams
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 8:10pm

      Dear Sir,

      A) Here are Paul’s contact numbers. Hope your luck is better than mine: DC, (202) 225-2831, Lake Jackson, (979) 285-023, Galveston, (409) 766-7013, Victoria, (361) 576-1231.
      B) You caught me. I don’t want any spending cuts. Spending cuts are icky.
      C) In regards to influencing the committee: first he said it was unconstitutional but now he supports it. Does this mean that he supports unconstitutional behavior? Wouldn’t that fly in the face of the oft-repeated line that Paul is the “most consistent politician in the history of the universe”? Let me know if I’m going too fast for you.
      D) In regards to “ignoring” Ron Paul, consider the coverage he has received compared to other candidates including Huntsman, Bachmann, and Santorum (and these are just a handful):
      Ron Paul Raises $2.5 Million in Just Five Days in Latest ‘Money Bomb’ Fundraiser
      Ron Paul Calls TSA ‘Jack-Booted Thugs’ in Response to Highway Checkpoints
      Ron Paul Releases His Economic Plan
      Ron Paul Relives Witnessing Late-Term Abortion in New Pro-Life Ad
      Ron Paul Wins Values Voter Summit Straw Poll, Followed by Herman Cain, Rick Santorum

      Please, for the sake of adult debate, no more tantrums. It’s tiresome and I’ll be forced to put you in timeout.

      Cordially, T. Becket Adams

      Report Post » Becket Adams  
    • cous1933
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:50pm

      T. Becket,
      You are incredibly smug and condescending in your response to Okie. When you write an article that is disingenuous at best you should expect some negative feedback.

      Here is an example of your insidious “journalism”;
      Otherwise, one is left wondering how Paul went from claiming that the Super Congress “disenfranchise[s] the majority of Congress by denying them the chance for meaningful participation in the crucial areas of entitlement and tax reform“ to saying that he was ”prepared to support“ their ”unique opportunity and authority.”

      The letter does not say that he was “prepared to support” their “unique opportunity and authority” as you wrote.
      First of all, the term “prepared to support” was used as follows; “we are prepared to support you in this effort” meaning that the signers of the letter would support the committees efforts if they would put all spending and revenue on the table. “Support you in this effort” is not the same as “support your authority” I’m quite sure that Dr. Paul will always remain consistent in his disapproval of the formation of a “super committee” but he still has to work with them.
      Second, the term “unique opportunity and authority” was used as follows; “your committee has been given a unique opportunity and authority to act”. This doesn’t imply approval of that authority, it only acknowledges that the authority has been given.

      Your attempt to make Paul look inconsistent is either lazy (as

      Report Post » cous1933  
    • cous1933
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:53pm

      continued

      … is either lazy (as Okie said) or dishonest. Your reply to Okie was childish.

      Report Post » cous1933  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:55pm

      A) Try again. Leave a message. 

      B) never spoke of what you did or did not want. ? Tantrum…….

      C) (1) it is unConstitutional. He was right. (2) No he does not “support” unconstitutional behavior, see point 1. (3) No it means Paul has a brain and realizes he cannot change this unconstitutional committee and that encouraging them to cut is his only option. (4) Arrogance is ugly and anything else you need help comprehending, just ask. I’ll keep it at your pace for your benefit. 
       
      D) The Blaze does ignore Ron Paul, quite often. If you have not the honor to admit that, ok. Sure, the first two article were posted, his economic plan was shuffled into the business section only that no one reads by you while other candidates were filed in both politics and business and every other category. I will go thru the Blaze and count the articles for each candidate and post the results shortly. 

      Please, put me in time out. It will only prove the point you silence those who do not agree with you. 

      Okie

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:59pm

      >OPIE. For crying out loud…

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • Vunks
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:02pm

      I am against the wars but I support the troops. It is the same concept we need to slash spending the only way right now is the super Congress whiile I do not agree with the idea of the super Congress I support them in their task to cut spending.

      Report Post »  
    • cous1933
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:02pm

      You have got to be kidding me. I posted a reply to T. Becket that addressed his reply to Okie. My post appeared for a few seconds then was gone. My post was civil (in fact far more civil than about 90% of Blaze posts) but it completely ruined T. Beckets silly, disingenuous article’s attempt to make Paul look inconsistent. Then I got a message regarding The Blaze’s comment policy. I guess the policy should add “If you expose a Blaze article as dishonest, your post will disappear”.

      Report Post » cous1933  
    • cous1933
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:03pm

      Now my reply is back.

      Report Post » cous1933  
    • Vunks
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:27pm

      Becket some advice don’t get smug with libertarians or else you end up getting completely embarrassed like you just did.

      Report Post »  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:40pm

      Becket Adams

      Any “good” journalist would know articles over politicians are filed under politics, so I sorted the articles by politics and here are the results just thru page 6:

      Cain 32
      Romney 4
      Perry 6
      Paul 1
      Gingrich 1
      Huntsman 2
      Santurom 1
      Bachmann 3

      Weird that you tout Huntsman and Bachmann as examples but if you notice they have more articles then Ron Paul filed under politics……

      Do you purposely not file Ron Paul articles under politics? Or do you just not know how to double categorize? It is one of the two…You decide…

      Have a great night….

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
    • Becket Adams
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 11:31pm

      Dear Sir,

      So it’s not that The Blaze isn’t giving enough time to Ron Paul, as you originally claimed, it’s that the stories are, in your informed opinion, incorrectly categorized?

      Rejoice! This is a victory for the freedom-loving spirit of libertarianism! Who are we to put lovers of the constitution into one category? This is about freedom to be in any category we want. It’s our right!

      No one puts baby in a corner.

      Cordially,
      T. Becket Adams

      Report Post » Becket Adams  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 10:52pm

      >VUNK. You folks actually reduce yourselves to cartoon caricatures and that is why a realistic America (at least realistic Conservatives and Moderates) generally don’t give you the time of day, let alone someone like Ron Paul. You and you alone are your worst enemies.

      Your comment on smugness (”don’t get smug with libertarians”) is exactly why you are held in contempt just the same as the Obama elitists for your arrogance and self importance. The rest of us have to live in the real world and I suggest you all do a little soul searching and realize that this is exactly why the GOP and most of America will never take you seriously. Libertarians tend to out-smug even the Liberals… it’s not an admirable feat if you think about it.This is exactly why you look like nothing more than thrifty Liberals in the eyes of realists.

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • Okie from Muskogee
      Posted on November 5, 2011 at 1:04am

      Good try Becket but no cigar! 

      Yes, you ignore Ron Paul, you do not report enough. The few articles you do report on Ron Paul are filed in the locations no one reads. So it is both and thanks for pointing that out. 

      Example: the Clinton article you just put out is filed first under business but also shows up under politics, yet, this Ron Paul article only shows under business. Hmmmmmm…..

      Now why would an article over a Presidential Candidate not show up under politics? Can you articulate why and how YOU chose to distinguish Bill Clinton article as both categories and Ron Paul only in the one though being a political article? 

      Are Ron Paul supporters not appreciated and valued by the Blaze?  Do Ron Paul supporters voice on wanting more fair and visible articles over Ron Paul not matter to the Blaze? Does the Blaze prefer Ron Paul supporters not use the Blaze? Seems that is your attitude. Is it? 

      Don’t back a pit bull into a corner expecting not to be bitten.

      Cordially,
      Okie

      Report Post » Okie from Muskogee  
  • hikinggussie
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 6:46pm

    maybe Rand Paul could run. at least he seems coherent

    Report Post »  
  • JustPeachy
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 5:23pm

    Why doesn’t someone ASK Ron Paul why he signed this letter? Ask HIM for clarification and his reasons–see what he says.

    Seems pretty simple to me rather than speculating.

    Sigh.

    Report Post » JustPeachy  
  • Vunks
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 5:16pm

    We must cut spending and right now the super congress is the only way. But if you look at Ron Paul’s voting record he never votes for tax increases.

    Report Post »  
  • Blackhawk1
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:23pm

    I see 33 Republicans that will be looking for a new job next year. Evidently they believe that according to paragraph 3 “To succeed all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and REVENUES must be on the table”. So they are just like the liberals who believe higher taxes will solve the problem. How many times do we have to tell these idiots, WE DON”T HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM IN WASHINGTON! You can’t spend 1.6 Trillion more than you take in you idiots. If you confiscated all wealthy peoples money it would NOT be enough to cover Liberals spending. Ron Paul the earmark king loves to spend other peoples money.

    Report Post » Blackhawk1  
    • YepImaConservative
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 5:52pm

      Not only do the people in Ron Paul’s District adore him (his district is about as informed as Pelosi’s), to his spinning and spamming faithful… he’s “old faithful”, and to the Wild American Shrimp… Paul’s the money bomb.

      Report Post » YepImaConservative  
    • KidCharlemagne
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 7:13pm

      At least somebody is making noise about printing up and subsequently spending trillions of dollars to subsidize the welfare/warfare state…

      If that’s the only option (even if it is unconstitutional) available to slash the budget, then more power to him.

      “Glenn Beck: Ron Paul is the closest to our Founding Fathers”
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyyI1EC5i2U

      Report Post »  
  • IndyNWguy
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:17pm

    The Blaze asks and answers its own question. He signed it because he’s serious about cutting spending. Everyone on the planet should be pretty clear on Mr. Paul’s position on spending, especially since he’s the only Rep. candidate who has bothered to offer a serious plan to cut it.

    Once again, this article becomes another in a long line of Paul related articles posted by The Blaze that call into question the integrity of the folks running the site – all the way up to Glenn.

    Very disappointed in these guys once again. Glenn’s objective was to change the media, and The Blaze is an excellent example of how that might be easier said than done.

    Report Post » IndyNWguy  
    • NadePaulKuciGravMcKi
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 5:04pm

      orders from AIPAC Neocons

      Report Post » NadePaulKuciGravMcKi  
    • survivorseed
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 5:39pm

      Heres a conspiracy theory for you. Beck NEEDS Obama to get re-elected or its the end of his brand. He deals purely in outrage and fear and if the people he has been advocating to run the country actually get elected, he has no reason to be there. How do you think his ratings are going to go when he comes on every night and says “6 O’clock and aaallllllllls welllllllll.”, he’ll be forgotten as quickly as he arrived.
      Watch for more stories subtely discrediting the GOP candidates before this is all over.

      Report Post »  
    • Scooter123
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 7:14pm

      Used to be a big fan of glenn’s, until I saw the episode where he counted down to reveal the puppet master. When he revealed soros as the puppetmaster I was extremely disappointed, and began to wonder how much it took to keep glenn from revealing the whole truth. Soros is a mid-level puppet himself and because most people do not do their own homework as glenn suggests he has done our country and his viewers a huge disservice allowing the global banking families to remain behind the curtains. The fact that glenn and his staff seem to continually try to discredit Paul and marginalize his message shows that glenn is bought and paid for as much as anyone else in the media. It is shameful because glenn is dividing conservatives and constitutionalists when our lives may very well depend on us sending a unified message to the globalists. Glenn is more dangerous to the constitution than those who openly despise it because he claims to love the constitution but will not expose those who are truly attacking and undermining it, while understanding the devotion of his viewers to his message he is still unable or unwilling to expose the real puppet masters. Until the complete truth is brought to his followers and the rest of the world the liberty movement will remain divided and more easily conquered. I will pray that the Lord opens your eyes glenn, but I think you already see, so I should probably pray that He opens your mouth.

      Report Post »  
    • mr.goodvibe
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 9:45pm

      It’s those damn Jews I tell ya!

      Report Post » mr.goodvibe  
  • Tubman2010
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:03pm

    I disagree that Ron Paul doesn’t know what he is saying most of the time. The problem is he knows to well. Unfortunately he never gets enough time to explain it to the less educated schlubs that are most of the population apparently. They are the ones who don‘t understand what he’s saying and that‘s one of the reasons this country is in the mess it’s in. Most people don’t understant the concepts of sound money and other economic issues, or what Constitutional authority really means. This letter he signed means nothing and I’m sure he knows that. It’s just a letter encouraging them to DO THEIR JOB for once.

    Report Post »  
    • ozchambers
      Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:30pm

      I do not fault Ron Paul on signing this letter. The die has been cast and the committee is in place whether he (or we) like it or not. He’s probably encouraging them to perform a miracle and actually come up with truly meaningful and DEEP cuts. Unfortunately, I think this particular game is rigged and the progressives will demand massive tax increases and will refuse to cut ANY entitlement programs knowing full well that if the supercommittee cannot agree upon the budgetary solutions, the default is for most of the cuts to come from Defense. When the more conservative members of the committee refuse the unreasonable leftist solution, the Dems and Obama will scream that the right wants to play political games with our boys and girls in uniform during a time of war. It’s a win-win for the left if they stand their ground. The only way the left loses is by actually compromising.

      Report Post » ozchambers  
  • A Conservatarian
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:01pm

    The supercommittee is a fact of life in Washington.
    The letter is expressing the only way success can be had; did the author of the article wish to see something to the effect of:
    “Even though the supercommtitee’s existence is unconstitutional and we have to swallow what decisions your deliberative body finds, we are prepared to work with you in order to succeed and the only way this can happen is if all options are on the table to slash 4 trillion dollars.”

    If Paul hadn’t signed the letter, I could easily imagine an article stating “Paul didn’t sign letter to slash 4 trillion in deficit reduction!”

    Report Post » A Conservatarian  
  • imbiasedtowardstruth
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 4:00pm

    Ron Paul understands the constitution better than any elected official I know. If he backs the unique opportunity of this committee to cut the nations out of control spending, than so do I. If the nation can ever recover from spending more than we make, I‘m sure he’ll sign the letter pushing to have this super committee disassembled. This is real leadership.

    Report Post »  
  • garyM
    Posted on November 4, 2011 at 3:48pm

    Ron Paul probably didn‘t know what he was signing just like he don’t know what he says after he gets through talking, most of the time, no one else does either!

    Report Post »  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love