I just don't see that at all.
He couldn't come up with any remotely sensible reasons not to support Ron Paul in 2012, and so he fell back on some ridiculous claim about him having been in a committee with other congressmen, some of whom had some connection to George Soros. That's not straight shooting. That's fishing for anything at all he can say to avoid whatever his real reasons are. Same thing with how he bent over backwards trying to paint Newt as so much worse than Romney, and how supportive he was of Santorum. None of these things fit with the positions he had been claiming to have been drawn toward over the previous years. They were just ways for him to help Romney while still maintaining the pretense of not supporting him.
Um... none of what you just said is true.
Beck loves Ron Paul on most everything EXCEPT the Middle East, and Beck (not me) considers Ron Paul's Middle East understanding to be so misguided as to be in effect suicidal for America. Beck (not me) always said that it was Ron Paul's willingness to allow self-described jihadists to arm themselves even with nukes if they want (in the case of Iran) which made Beck (not me) think Ron Paul was being so naive that it was opening America and its allies up for attack.
Beck sees jihadists who call for our destruction and then take willful action to acquire weaponry to carry out that destruction analogous to madmen at the door loading pistols. Beck believes that the non-aggression principle and an official, constitutional declaration of war allows him as a libertarian to fire at madmen at the door who load pistols since they, in his view, pose an imminent threat. Beck does not believe jihadists who call for our destruction are merely seeking nukes to defend themselves against outsiders (he instead says he takes the jihadists at their word: "their complete words"), which is why he said he could never support Ron Paul since Ron Paul said it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for them to have nuclear weapons and "it's only natural for them to want nuclear weapons."
In fact, here's the very moment Beck (not me) officially ruled out voting for Ron Paul ever:
http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=19155493 (watch the entire video, but be aware it's easy to misunderstand Beck since there's a more conservative dude next to him and since they're also referencing other things they've talked about elsewhere in that show, i.e. "Marxists"). Later on (not shown in that video clip), Beck (not me) goes on to explain that Ron Paul's misunderstanding of Bin Laden is partially understandable due to the fact that Ron Paul is looking at Osama from a Western view and also looking only at the statements of Osama Bin Laden written for his Western audience; Beck (not me) then explains that the statements of Bin Laden written for Muslims (different from his Western statements) include quite a bit more information which make it clear that Bin Laden would have attacked on 9/11 and elsewhere regardless of American occupation or intervention.
For Beck, who agrees with Ron Paul on most everything else, the Middle East issue is such a big deal that Beck said time and again he could never vote for Ron Paul because of that alone. Nothing about George Soros, no fishing expedition, just an honest disagreement about the motivations of OBL and what a prudent American response should be to those foreign threats like OBL who actively seek to kill Americans.
I obviously voted Ron Paul; but Beck was a straight-shooter on why he couldn't in good faith support Ron Paul despite their agreement on most every issue. We Ron Paul supporters didn't like it, but Beck was being honest; and it's certainly not remote or insensible reasoning by Beck.
*Note: The video in the link above is important, so I urge people to watch it if they are confused why Beck didn't endorse Ron Paul.
