PDA

View Full Version : Andrew Sullivan says Ron Paul is worth voting for




jct74
12-06-2011, 11:23 PM
I was going to title this thread "Andrew Sullivan goes Blue Republican", but he is probably closer to being a conservative than a liberal (even though he supported Obama in 2008). Anyways, he is not a fan of Fox News, and so he says that embarassing the establishment media that keeps trotting out the narrative that "Ron Paul can't win" is in and of itself enough of a reason to vote for Ron Paul.


Last night, I sat through both O'Reilly and Hannity to get a read on the Ailes propaganda at this moment in time. The line on Paul is clear: they all say in unison at any available moment: "Ron Paul has zero chance of getting the nomination." They never said that about Cain or Bachmann or Perry, over whom Paul has solid leads. A new NBC/Marist poll indicates that Paul could attract independent voters and even disaffected Democrats in Iowa:



Paul’s popularity among independents could be a crucial advantage. Paul leads Obama 42 percent to 35 percent among independent voters, according to the poll, and he also attracts 15% of Iowa’s Democrats.



A Paul win in Iowa would completely discombobulate Fox News. That's good enough reason in and of itself to vote for him. Any restoration of decent, intelligent conservatism must start with a weakening of Ailes.


http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/a-ron-paul-surprise-in-iowa.html

sailingaway
12-06-2011, 11:25 PM
Good for him.

And that is true. They NEVER say that about even the really marginal candidates, just Ron, who is in second place in polls in the first caucus state -- despite that.

Brett85
12-06-2011, 11:31 PM
In my opinion, it's not really a good thing to get endorsed by a liberal like Andrew Sullivan.

Inkblots
12-06-2011, 11:44 PM
In my opinion, it's not really a good thing to get endorsed by a liberal like Andrew Sullivan.

I'm not sure you can really just dismiss him as a "liberal". Much like Ron Paul, Sullivan doesn't fit easily into political categories. Of course, with Dr. Paul that is the product of consistent integrity founded upon a comprehensive philosophical system, while in Sullivan's case it seems to be due to a blend of confusion, grievance and power-worship...

kylejack
12-07-2011, 12:01 AM
In my opinion, it's not really a good thing to get endorsed by a liberal like Andrew Sullivan.
He isn't a liberal, he is actually fairly libertarian (fiscally conservative, socially liberal).

Yes, he backed Obama and Paul last election, but a lot of people thought Obama would at least do a few good things. Obama's campaign promises of things like restoring habeas corpus and etc. were very tempting in the general election, where McCain was talking about 100 years in Iraq. Many thought that a Constitutional scholar was finally the right person to set some things right, even if he did have a healthcare agenda.

Unfortunately, Obama turned out to be almost 100% bad on every count.

Inkblots
12-07-2011, 12:13 AM
Unfortunately, Obama turned out to be almost 100% bad on every count.

The point is that Sullivan disagrees with that. Even now, after all we've seen from this administration, Sullivan continues to cheer-lead for Obama. Just as he stuck with Bush until long after the pernicious nature of his leadership had become obvious. Again, I think a big part of it comes down to simple power-worship.

He's by no means wrong about everything, or perhaps most things, but when he's correct he rather gives the impression that it happened by accident.

ronpaulitician
12-07-2011, 12:14 AM
Unfortunately, Obama turned out to be almost 100% bad on every count.
Still better than McCain.

And I would support Obama before Romney and/or Gingrich.

Sullivan is exactly the kind of voter I wish this country had more of. Someone who WANTS to see a debate between Obama and Paul.

kylejack
12-07-2011, 12:15 AM
The point is that Sullivan disagrees with that. Even now, after all we've seen from this administration, Sullivan continues to cheer-lead for Obama. Just as he stuck with Bush until long after the pernicious nature of his leadership had become obvious. Again, I think a big part of it comes down to simple power-worship.

He's by no means wrong about everything, or perhaps most things, but when he's correct he rather gives the impression that it happened by accident.
Yeah, Greenwald scorched him on his most recent article about Obama, Why Obama Still Matters. Maybe he's drifting politically, I dunno. Even some of Obama's most fervent believers are incredulous at how bad Obama has been.

anaconda
12-07-2011, 12:52 AM
Sullivan compliments Ron Paul at 5:27 in this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lwe0mzn6CQ

Johncjackson
12-07-2011, 01:36 AM
In my opinion, it's not really a good thing to get endorsed by a liberal like Andrew Sullivan.

He's pretty much always supported Republicans until GW Bush ruined the brand, and he considers himself conservative, but he's "liberal"? Because he's, uh, "non-traditional" in some way? You might as well say 90% of the people here are "liberals" because obviously most of us don't support what passes for the conservative mainstream these days.

Brett85
12-07-2011, 02:26 PM
He's pretty much always supported Republicans until GW Bush ruined the brand, and he considers himself conservative, but he's "liberal"? Because he's, uh, "non-traditional" in some way? You might as well say 90% of the people here are "liberals" because obviously most of us don't support what passes for the conservative mainstream these days.

I thought just a few days ago I read an article where Andrew Sullivan was critical of Ron's positions when it comes to getting rid of things like the EPA and FDA. That's obviously contrary to both conservative and libertarian principles.