If Andrew Sullivan Is Endorsing Ron Paul, We Know Paul Is The Wrong Choice
It’s been quite a long time since I’ve seen anything by Excitable Andy linked at Memeorandum. Since his move to The Daily Beast from The Atlantic he has been pretty much ignored, as well as ignored by the right-o-sphere. If he’s been writing about Sarah Palin’s womb, no one’s playing anymore. But, he jumped up to an actual story link at Memeorandum: Ron Paul For The GOP Nomination
The Dish goes through the process of endorsing candidates in a primary season, not because I’m under any illusions that my endorsement counts. It probably hurts an insignificant amount, if anything. I try to make a decision – because it’s easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility? And I should be clear. This endorsement is mine and mine alone.
Sullivan still calls himself the Last Real Conservative, yet, he has been writing in favor of every Democrat position, has been against everything Republicans stand for, and writes for a far left Internet site, so, yeah, endorsing Ron Paul will hurt Paul. Not that much, though, because Paul hurts his chances everytime he opens his mouth.
Sully says he cannot back Huntsman, because, despite Huntsman having the best positions for Andy, Huntsman hasn’t connected with voters.
Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul’s campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly.
Um, didn’t he just say why supporting Paul is a Bad Idea? Then you have the problem with Paul saying a long campaign is tiring and his Israel hatred.
But all this is why a conservative like me is for Obama. What we are talking about here is who to support in a primary dominated by extremes, resentment, absence of ideas and Obama-hatred.
How can any real conservative support Obama? It’s antithetical to everything we stand for.
We do not need tens of thousands of troops in Europe. We do not need to prevent China’s rise, but to accommodate it as prudently as possible. We do need to get out of the Middle East to the maximum extent and return our relationship with Israel to one between individual nations, with different interests and common ideals, not some divine compact between two Zions. We do need a lighter, more focused, more lethal war against Jihadism – but this cannot ever again mean occupying countries we do not understand and cannot control. I suspect every other Republican would launch a war against Iran. Paul wouldn’t. That alone makes a vote for him worthwhile.
Breaking the grip of neoconservative belligerence on conservative thought and the Republican party could make space again for more reasoned and seasoned managers of foreign policy….
And the anti-Israel sentiment shows up yet again. They like to put it in reasonable terms, but, people can see right through it.
I know some of the people who comment are Paul supporters, and that is your right. He does have some good ideas, but, he also has some marvelously horrible ideas. He won’t divorce himself from the 9/11 Truthers who support him, he’s blamed the United States a few times for 9/11, he wants a pure isolationist policy, he is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. Obama would trash Paul were Ron to win the GOP primary. We’d see a reverse of Reagan’s 1984 win, with Obama taking at least 48 states and D.C.
And just so you know Sullivan is a rational, thoughtful adult, he mentions “The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has “zero chance” of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie” and ends the story with
I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the “Change You Can Believe In” on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.
Can anyone explain who it is “honest” for Paul to throw tons of earmarks in bills and then vote against the bills, which he knows will pass without his vote, and then claim he never votes for earmarks? Anyhow, if Andy is comparing Paul to Obama, that’s probably not the best way to say that Ron Paul is the best choice for Republicans and Conservatives.
And, just to show that Sullivan has become more rational, his last line is
Oh, and fuck you, Roger Ailes.
The Womb Raider speaks!
When liberals look at the poor, first and foremost, they see people who will vote for them in exchange for goodies. This gives liberals a perverse incentive to keep as...Read More
There’s nothing like beating a dead horse. Obviously, the Times cares a bit because a) this happened in the NY
Friday morning’s Today show on NBC did its best to paint the most rosy scenario possible on Obama’s latest dismal