Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-14-2011, 01:59 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Sauce.

Just wait till TwinSwords tells him all about them newsletters.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-14-2011, 02:09 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

shorter andrew sullivan: I support ron paul because he hates barack obama (the person I'll be voting against) the least.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-14-2011, 02:21 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
shorter andrew sullivan: I support ron paul because he hates barack obama (the person I'll be voting against) the least.
Sullivan's been a Paul fan for years. What's the surprise here?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-14-2011, 02:26 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
shorter andrew sullivan: I support ron paul because he hates barack obama (the person I'll be voting against) the least.
The shout out to Roger Ailes was especially poignant.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-14-2011, 03:51 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Sullivan's been a Paul fan for years. What's the surprise here?
I didn't know that. I make a point of avoiding pretty much everything involving Andrew Sullivan. that being said, I don't care how long he's admired Ron Paul; the reasoning he lays out in the post seems stupid to me either way.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:02 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
Sullivan's been a Paul fan for years. What's the surprise here?
He probably respects Paul's experience as a gynecologist. Sullivan's efforts in that area have been as an avid amateur........only in the most clinical sense, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:20 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
He probably respects Paul's experience as a gynecologist. Sullivan's efforts in that area have been as an avid amateur........only in the most clinical sense, of course.
LOL
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-14-2011, 04:41 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
I didn't know that. I make a point of avoiding pretty much everything involving Andrew Sullivan. that being said, I don't care how long he's admired Ron Paul; the reasoning he lays out in the post seems stupid to me either way.
Sullivan is Sullivan, you know? Back in the day I used to read the guy's blog, and he was in love with Paul they way he was in love with Obama.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-14-2011, 05:45 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
He probably respects Paul's experience as a gynecologist. Sullivan's efforts in that area have been as an avid amateur........only in the most clinical sense, of course.
I know we're adversaries and all, but that's beneath you, Sulla. At least be witty, for heaven's sake.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-14-2011, 06:07 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by miceelf View Post
I know we're adversaries and all, but that's beneath you, Sulla. At least be witty, for heaven's sake.
It is witty. Sullivan is a Trig Truther. He's the one who should be ashamed of himself.

EDIT: I see now how that might be read as a crass sexual joke. Nope, here is Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ig-update.html

Andrew Sullivan is one of the worst human beings in American politics, as far as I'm concerned.

Last edited by Sulla the Dictator; 12-14-2011 at 06:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-14-2011, 06:50 PM
miceelf miceelf is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,569
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
It is witty. Sullivan is a Trig Truther. He's the one who should be ashamed of himself.

EDIT: I see now how that might be read as a crass sexual joke. Nope, here is Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ig-update.html

Andrew Sullivan is one of the worst human beings in American politics, as far as I'm concerned.
That context only makes it slightly more witty.

As human ignomy goes, his odd fixation on Trig is pretty far down the list.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-16-2011, 12:07 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
He probably respects Paul's experience as a gynecologist. Sullivan's efforts in that area have been as an avid amateur........only in the most clinical sense, of course.
LOL
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-20-2011, 01:52 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Daniel Larison defends Sullivan's choice of Paul over Huntsman. (It's about Iran.)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-20-2011, 02:13 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
the best explanation I can give of backing such an ideologue, rather than a more pragmatic figure like Huntsman, is that I believe the GOP needs re-making, especially on foreign policy.
Yes, so do the Paul voters who are probably going to win in Iowa and who could do quite well in New Hampshire.

The remarkable aspect of Paul's campaign is that he can get on a national stage toe-to-toe with some of the country's major warists and say that the war in Iraq was a "waste" and that we should be dismantling US bases all over the world, and if nothing else, make the Republican establishment shut up for a minute and listen to him. Watching them smirk and fume (and get fewer votes than Paul) has been one of the few real pleasures of the Republican debates.

Paul also empowers Dem. peace activists. We, who support Dem. candidates like Obama, can go to our elected officials and shame them into acting half as peacefully as Ron Paul, Republican.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-20-2011, 03:25 PM
chiwhisoxx chiwhisoxx is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Yes, so do the Paul voters who are probably going to win in Iowa and who could do quite well in New Hampshire.

The remarkable aspect of Paul's campaign is that he can get on a national stage toe-to-toe with some of the country's major warists and say that the war in Iraq was a "waste" and that we should be dismantling US bases all over the world, and if nothing else, make the Republican establishment shut up for a minute and listen to him. Watching them smirk and fume (and get fewer votes than Paul) has been one of the few real pleasures of the Republican debates.

Paul also empowers Dem. peace activists. We, who support Dem. candidates like Obama, can go to our elected officials and shame them into acting half as peacefully as Ron Paul, Republican.
I wish the last part of your statement was actually true. In reality, very few people actually do this. Anti-war protesters seem to be a lot more partisan than they'd like to admit. Obviously the wars are drawing down, and that's part of the reason we've seen less protests. But it's still been remarkable to see the lack of anti-war protesting directed towards Barack Obama considering the continuation of Afghanistan, and the general continuity in foreign policy. I'm not accusing you of this Wonderment; I know you've been a consistent critic of Obama's foreign policy. But sadly, it seems like a lot of people were more interested in protesting George Bush than protesting an actual policy.
__________________
She said the theme of this party's the Industrial Age, and you came in dressed like a train wreck.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-20-2011, 03:32 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx View Post
But sadly, it seems like a lot of people were more interested in protesting George Bush than protesting an actual policy.
Or it could be that the vast majority of people who were against the Iraq War aren't against all wars and have complicated views about the terms on which we can get out of it once we are in it, making them more open to Obama's arguments about the speed and terms of withdrawal than they were to the idea of the war in the first place.

Also, of course, there was limited opposition to Afghanistan during most of the Bush administration.

Contrary to your argument, I saw a lot of people willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt post 9/11 and into Afghanistan. I saw a lot of those people genuinely puzzled and upset by the decision to rush into the invasion of Iraq on what seemed misleading grounds or intentionally confused grounds, at least. And despite that, I saw an awful lot of bipartisan support for that war -- much more than I would have hoped for.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-20-2011, 03:40 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

I agree with you to some degree. More than blind loyalty to Obama, however, I think anti-war sentiment in the USA correlates hgher to the number of body bags coming home. As long as we're not hearing about dead US soldiers, we pretty much tune out to the rest. Since US casualties have declined, Obama gets credit and Bush is rightly blamed for getting us into the major war messes to begin with.

But yes, largely it's a continuity policy. Only Ron Paul is challenging militarism in this election cycle.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-20-2011, 04:36 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Our children iz learnin'

I have to commend your sensitivity in not trampling your putative allies in this example. It makes the Dr. Paul pimpin' at least bearable. But the shame angle is rather suspect. Can you offer any examples?
Quote:
Paul also empowers Dem. peace activists. We, who support Dem. candidates like Obama, can go to our elected officials and shame them into acting half as peacefully as Ron Paul, Republican.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-21-2011, 09:43 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Paul also empowers Dem. peace activists. We, who support Dem. candidates like Obama, can go to our elected officials and shame them into acting half as peacefully as Ron Paul, Republican.
And this is how I got my Obama supporting friend to donate to Ron Paul yesterday. People don't seem to realize that Paul gaining political clout gives Obama cover to go left.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-21-2011, 09:57 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
And this is how I got my Obama supporting friend to donate to Ron Paul yesterday. People don't seem to realize that Paul gaining political clout gives Obama cover to go left.
On foreign policy, etc.? Sure we do. It's just that it only works if he's other than a marginal figure in the Republicans and so far -- despite the poll numbers -- the way the rest of the candidates respond to him suggests that he is marginal. He only gets beyond marginal if his support comes primarily from those on the right and libertarian types, too. But much as I don't go as far as Paul does on foreign policy (isolationism) and dislike a lot of his other issues and past, it's hard not to cheer him on at times, and I also hope he does well and becomes a truly significant voice in the real dialogue that's going on.

The problems with him that many of us have pointed out, however, are not unrelated to the fact that I don't see a huge hope for that. I think folks like Larison offer more hope, despite being much more obscure and not a politician, because they are genuinely fighting for the meaning of conservatism and about what a serious US foreign policy could mean in a way that the mainstream could accept. But obviously I've been wrong before.

However, I'd point to how a candidate like Gary Johnson can get no traction in the Republican Party -- despite sharing a lot of what makes Paul popular but without the most unacceptable baggage, the whackjobness, in fact, while seeming like someone who could really participate in a national debate and win a general election. That Johnson has gotten nowhere by comparison with Paul (or even Bachmann) demonstrates to me that Paul is able to play the role he has in part because no one genuinely sees him as a threat to the way things are, first, and second, because of his more whacky positions in part, and the traditional association with the more out there isolationist wing of the party, which is part of the old hard right.

Last edited by stephanie; 12-21-2011 at 10:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-21-2011, 08:21 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul





I wonder who's missing on this list...

And the number one reason cited for RP's unelectability? His unelectableness, of course. Certified true by Rachel Maddow.

Heaven forbid we give voice to some fresh ideas or, rather, old ideas that have been forgotten. Because who wants to just debate the actual policies and reject demagoguery?

Yeah.

We absolutely need to hear more about Michelle Bachmann's gay husband so that I can make an informed choice about the presidency. And if we ever do discuss the person we don't discuss, let's make sure it's about how he hates black people and completely disregard his defense of his black competitor. Clearly it's all for political gain.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-21-2011, 09:16 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post

And the number one reason cited for RP's unelectability? His unelectableness, of course. Certified true by Rachel Maddow.

Heaven forbid we give voice to some fresh ideas or, rather, old ideas that have been forgotten. Because who wants to just debate the actual policies and reject demagoguery?
Didn't you say that you're likely to vote for Obama in the general? How can you support Ron Paul, with Barack Obama as an alternate?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-21-2011, 10:58 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Didn't you say that you're likely to vote for Obama in the general? How can you support Ron Paul, with Barack Obama as an alternate?
Are you referring to the physical impossibility of voting for two people in the general? I'm voting for RP in the primaries and expecting that he won't be the nominee on the Republican side. If he wins Iowa, then NH, then miraculously becomes the nominee, of course I'd vote for him.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-21-2011, 11:08 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Are you referring to the physical impossibility of voting for two people in the general? I'm voting for RP in the primaries and expecting that he won't be the nominee on the Republican side. If he wins Iowa, then NH, then miraculously becomes the nominee, of course I'd vote for him.
No. I am referring to the cognitive dissonence implied by voting for one as the alternate for the other.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-21-2011, 11:18 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
No. I am referring to the cognitive dissonence implied by voting for one as the alternate for the other.
Hell, even I'll stand up for kang on this one. There are finite choices in any race. You vote for the best alternative you can determine, given what's available when you cast your ballot. That doesn't mean your first and second choices have to be consistent with one another.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-21-2011, 11:23 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
No. I am referring to the cognitive dissonence implied by voting for one as the alternate for the other.
But Ron Paul wouldn't be an alternate for Obama in a general. It's Obama vs. Romney/Gingrich/Perry.

Romney: rank hypocrisy; anti-China remarks when we should be attracting their best and brightest; rhetoric is mostly fine, even tempered and reasonable, but I don't believe a word. If I wanted a big government asshole, I'd vote for Obama.

Gingrich: rank hypocrisy; Washington lobbyist minus official title; labeled a "progressive" by Bachmann. If I wanted a big government asshole, I'd vote for Obama.

Perry: sounds dumb even if he isn't actually dumb, which is surprisingly important; all for federalism in his book, but renounces it in order to capture evangelical vote; government spending and taxes went up in Texas during tenure. If I wanted a big government asshole, I'd vote for Obama.

How's that?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.

Last edited by sugarkang; 12-21-2011 at 11:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-22-2011, 01:01 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Hell, even I'll stand up for kang on this one. There are finite choices in any race. You vote for the best alternative you can determine, given what's available when you cast your ballot. That doesn't mean your first and second choices have to be consistent with one another.
That assumes that the political class contains significant men, capable of shaping politics to their will. That is a false assumption. Barack Obama ran for President of the United States because he is an egotist. Now, that isn't any different than anyone else. But men used to be egotists because they made significant personal achievements. Not because they gave a good speech (Obama), or made a lot of money (Romney), or won a major political success once (Gingrich). And when they stood for office, they did so as people carrying a banner which could not advance without the force of their personality or will.

That is over. If the left wing holds Obama in the same regard as they did in 2008, then they are fools. Conversely, anyone who is "in love" with the Republican field is clearly suffering from delusion. These people are now just place holders. They are meaningless empty suits whose purpose is to usher in a movement. To chair the bureaucracy and staff it, to determine which side's think tanks craft policy, and to appoint judges. So yes, an election in the modern era is a preference for a "team", not a man.

If John Edwards was the Democratic nominee, and if you didn't know about his mistresses while being aware of his other public shortcomings, I sincerely doubt you would pull the lever for his opponent over him. The left knows how this game works; they've been doing it for a long time now. Anyone who votes for Obama is voting for the Center for American Progress, Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, etc. That Obama doesn't stumble (As much) as Perry, or has a better family history than Gingrich is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-22-2011, 01:05 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
But Ron Paul wouldn't be an alternate for Obama in a general. It's Obama vs. Romney/Gingrich/Perry.

Romney: rank hypocrisy; anti-China remarks when we should be attracting their best and brightest; rhetoric is mostly fine, even tempered and reasonable, but I don't believe a word. If I wanted a big government asshole, I'd vote for Obama.

Gingrich: rank hypocrisy; Washington lobbyist minus official title; labeled a "progressive" by Bachmann. If I wanted a big government asshole, I'd vote for Obama.

Perry: sounds dumb even if he isn't actually dumb, which is surprisingly important; all for federalism in his book, but renounces it in order to capture evangelical vote; government spending and taxes went up in Texas during tenure. If I wanted a big government asshole, I'd vote for Obama.

How's that?
1. In what way doesn't the game of "rank hypocrisy" also apply to Obama on a myriad of issues?

2. I think the difference between "less big government" than more isn't an exciting one, but it is a clear one. Honestly though, I don't think it will happen. If the GOP sweeps the Congress with a field like this, it will be a functioning Parliament that can claim a mandate separate from the top of the ticket.

Moreover, by reelecting Obama you would be lending legitimacy to his overreach during his first term. Health Care would be vindicated, as would auto bailouts and stimulus. Why wouldn't it be his opportunity to propose Cap and Trade? Why wouldn't he be able to claim political capital and push it?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-22-2011, 02:08 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
1. In what way doesn't the game of "rank hypocrisy" also apply to Obama on a myriad of issues?
It totally applies to Obama. Sorry, I left that out.

Quote:
2. I think the difference between "less big government" than more isn't an exciting one, but it is a clear one. Honestly though, I don't think it will happen.
Who exactly would help in the less big government category? We might get less in social spending, but we'd get more in defense. Now, Huntsman looks like a guy that would actually try and cut things. But we're talking about people who have a chance, right?

Quote:
If the GOP sweeps the Congress with a field like this, it will be a functioning Parliament that can claim a mandate separate from the top of the ticket.
They won't. Each half hates the other half in this country. Congress is at 9% approval.

Quote:
Moreover, by reelecting Obama you would be lending legitimacy to his overreach during his first term. Health Care would be vindicated...
1. I like death panels.
2. America lacks a social institution that transcends all classes. It's either the draft or health care.
3. No guarantee that a Republican President could repeal it.
4. ObamaCare isn't bankrupting the country because it doesn't exist yet. Baby Boomers are bankrupting us.

Quote:
... as would auto bailouts ...
I opposed it, but it ended up better than expected. In principle, I agree with you and will always oppose them.

Quote:
and stimulus.
That was problematic, but that was Congress.

Quote:
Why wouldn't it be his opportunity to propose Cap and Trade?
He'd be stupid to do that and that's still Congress.

Quote:
Why wouldn't he be able to claim political capital and push it?
If Democrats didn't know that government was too big before, they do now. 2008 was a huge mandate for change because everyone agreed on change, but not on what kind. There will be no such political capital claiming any such mandate in 2012.

These are my political issues:

Jobs Plan: NGDP targeting by the Federal Reserve (contra Ron Paul)
Culture War: a strong 10th Amendment (Rick Perry's book)
Fiscal Solvency: constitutional amendment to cap spending at 20-25% of GDP
Investing in the Future: massive increase in brain talent immigration
Race-Relations, Civil Liberties: ending the War on Drugs

Which candidate lines up best with that? Ron Paul. The one place I disagree with him the most? His biggest issue.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-22-2011, 09:00 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
That assumes that the political class contains significant men, capable of shaping politics to their will. That is a false assumption. Barack Obama ran for President of the United States because he is an egotist. Now, that isn't any different than anyone else. But men used to be egotists because they made significant personal achievements. Not because they gave a good speech (Obama), or made a lot of money (Romney), or won a major political success once (Gingrich). And when they stood for office, they did so as people carrying a banner which could not advance without the force of their personality or will.

That is over. If the left wing holds Obama in the same regard as they did in 2008, then they are fools. Conversely, anyone who is "in love" with the Republican field is clearly suffering from delusion. These people are now just place holders. They are meaningless empty suits whose purpose is to usher in a movement. To chair the bureaucracy and staff it, to determine which side's think tanks craft policy, and to appoint judges. So yes, an election in the modern era is a preference for a "team", not a man.

If John Edwards was the Democratic nominee, and if you didn't know about his mistresses while being aware of his other public shortcomings, I sincerely doubt you would pull the lever for his opponent over him. The left knows how this game works; they've been doing it for a long time now. Anyone who votes for Obama is voting for the Center for American Progress, Eric Holder, Elena Kagan, etc. That Obama doesn't stumble (As much) as Perry, or has a better family history than Gingrich is irrelevant.
Sulla, you seem to have an extremely romanticized view of the past and how it compares with the present. You're apparently spinning a narrative in support of that view and of your dislike of anybody in the center or the left of the political spectrum - not to mention your specific dislike of the current president and the people with whom he's surrounded himself. You also imagine a cohesive "Left" that simply doesn't exist except in the minds and the output of of some of the dumber, and/or more cynical opinion leaders on the other side.

You also make a lot of assumptions about my views that you'll have a hard time supporting based what I've written in this forum.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-22-2011, 10:10 AM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Hell, even I'll stand up for kang on this one.
Heh, me too.

There are a variety of different issues that people rank differently and, also, there's the concern with the direction the parties can move in. Most people don't actually line up perfectly with the Republicans or the Dems or even the "right" and "left" as those sides are generally defined in popular discussion. Given that kang has expressed sympathy with libertarianism and some of the things that Ron Paul stands for in opposition to the rest of the Republican field, it's entirely possible to see him liking Paul the best and yet preferring Obama to standard Republican types like Romney or Gingrich. It's not like a Paul victory wouldn't cause a major shakeup in the Republicans. It would also, of course, scare away lots of traditional Republicans to either Obama or a third party conservative challenger, and attract lots of disaffected leftwingers, Dems, and Independents, including some of the OWS variety, as well as some of the original TP types. It would be extremely interesting, although it's clearly not going to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-22-2011, 04:28 PM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Sulla, you seem to have an extremely romanticized view of the past and how it compares with the present.
Not in the least. History is a complicated subject, AemJeff, and while it isn't fair to say there is "nothing new under the sun", it is fair to say that there isn't "much new in politics". Do you know why there will never be, can never be, another Bonaparte? Not because people aren't power hungry. Not because people aren't nationalistic. Not because people aren't brilliant. It is because politics, economics, foreign policy, and warfare have become so complex and technical that it is impossible for one man to demonstrate the broad mastery of a Bonaparte, or a Caesar, or an Alexander. On a more local level, consider this phenomenon in American politics.

That's the mechanics of it. The culture is a different story. There was a time when Kennedy was considered a light weight for only having a fourteen year career in Congress when he ran for the Presidency. This while being a legitimate war hero. Now its just a vanity exercise.

Quote:
You're apparently spinning a narrative in support of that view and of your dislike of anybody in the center or the left of the political spectrum - not to mention your specific dislike of the current president and the people with whom he's surrounded himself. You also imagine a cohesive "Left" that simply doesn't exist except in the minds and the output of of some of the dumber, and/or more cynical opinion leaders on the other side.
Doesn't address a single point made.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-22-2011, 06:30 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Heh, me too.
It's not like a Paul victory wouldn't cause a major shakeup in the Republicans. It would also, of course, scare away lots of traditional Republicans to either Obama or a third party conservative challenger, and attract lots of disaffected leftwingers, Dems, and Independents, including some of the OWS variety, as well as some of the original TP types. It would be extremely interesting, although it's clearly not going to happen.
This could be a lot more interesting a race than most people have thus far anticipated for other reasons: Ron Paul has not ruled out running as an Independent. There's also the Americans Elect project, which people have not been paying attention to yet. AE is probably going to be on the ballot in all 50 states, and could play a significant role in shaping some outcomes.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-22-2011, 07:13 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Interesting article on some of Paul's more questionable positions (some highlights):

Quote:
He voted for building a fence on the Mexican border, reporting illegal aliens who go to hospitals, and for banning student visas from “terrorist nations”. He’s all about reducing the military and allowing the free market, except when it comes to this for some reason.

It may not be the federal government’s business, but he’s certainly voted to enshrine homophobic behavior in federal law. He voted against including “sexual orientation” as a protected class in ENDA, meaning he thinks it’s OK to fire people for being gay, and he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC.

And, despite the fact that he thinks the education department should be dismantled, he also thinks that public funds should pay for private Christian educations and supports a constitutional amendment in favor of school prayer. Again, not a libertarian stance at all.

He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times. He has a 0% by NARAL, meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights. He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage. Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.

He cosponsored a bill to take funds from a needy family benefit program to go to support non-governmental groups that counsel people not to have abortions.

Again, how is this not federal interference?

But at least his congressional district in Texas doesn’t rely on tons of federal funding, right? Oh, no, it’s one of the top in Texas. Federal government using money to save people’s lives is apparently not OK, but him earmarking funds for his district is cool. More important than Katrina victims? Removing a sunken ship from a harbor and sending a few million dollars to Texan shrimp fishermen.
__________________
Uncle Ebeneezer Such a fine line between clever and stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-22-2011, 08:52 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
It is because politics, economics, foreign policy, and warfare have become so complex and technical that it is impossible for one man to demonstrate the broad mastery of a Bonaparte, or a Caesar, or an Alexander. On a more local level, consider this phenomenon in American politics.
So true. Too many hedgehogs; not enough foxes.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:21 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
Who exactly would help in the less big government category? We might get less in social spending, but we'd get more in defense. Now, Huntsman looks like a guy that would actually try and cut things. But we're talking about people who have a chance, right?
We can't get more in defense. This isn't like 2006, where cuts are theoretical. This time cuts are real. The House GOP passed a budget that is probably the most fiscally responsible budget in ten years, and it STILL isn't enough. The thing of it is though, you're only going to get cuts on one side. The GOP has within it an element that doesn't trust the Republican party. It is actively purging RINOs. The House GOP only suffers political pain because its members have been TRUE to the policies they promised when they ran.

Consider the reverse. Democrats still vote as a coalition. Democrats may claim to favor cutting defense spending, but a third to half of their coalition balks at it every time. The Democrats have never passed anything as bold on defense as the GOP did on social spending with the Ryan plan. Because Democratic voters don't seem to consider defense spending an issue to primary someone on.

Thus logic dictates that if you want cuts, it will only be the GOP which delivers them. And it will only be a Republican President which will sign cuts. Most cuts can be pushed through in reconciliation if done right, as well. The GOP has shown the will to do that in the past.

Quote:
They won't. Each half hates the other half in this country. Congress is at 9% approval.
Don't need it. You just need depressed turn out among the half in power, which with a 10% unemployment rate you're likely to have. Dems have 20 seats up, 10 of which are plausible gets. I don't think its all controversial that the GOP nets 5. The Dems have more seats up in 2016, which means that Dem Senators in competitive states will have to compromise with a GOP Senate majority. The GOP will almost certainly keep the house, meaning that with a Republican President there is a chance at real reform.

If they get this advantage and fail? Then I'll be the first to say to the hell with them. That's the advantage of the "crazy" right, we're not beholden to these people and we have no love for them. Until Democrats become equally serious about holding Democratic politicians accountable, they shouldn't be entrusted with power.

Quote:

1. I like death panels.
2. America lacks a social institution that transcends all classes. It's either the draft or health care.
Bring back the draft then. I don't need a social institution that transcends all classes. I would prefer that we let states regain some identity and proceed, cautiously, from there.

Quote:
3. No guarantee that a Republican President could repeal it.
I can guarantee you that if a Republican Congress passed a repeal, and Romney vetoed it, he'd be primaried.

Quote:
4. ObamaCare isn't bankrupting the country because it doesn't exist yet. Baby Boomers are bankrupting us.
Obamacare will fast track the Boomer crisis by loading thirty and forty somethings on the dole. Don't forget this constant Medicaid expansion too.

Quote:

That was problematic, but that was Congress.
Why was the "New FDR" outsourcing legislation to Congress? He doesn't seem particularly good at his job.

Quote:
He'd be stupid to do that and that's still Congress.
Hey, if the GOP loses against Obama with unemployment where it is, it'll be blamed at the sane people in the party (the right). That'll give all the squishes the excuse they need to "compromise".

No, this election isn't about a man. Its about choosing a coalition. Obama's coalition is intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally compromised in its ability to function.

Quote:
If Democrats didn't know that government was too big before, they do now. 2008 was a huge mandate for change because everyone agreed on change, but not on what kind. There will be no such political capital claiming any such mandate in 2012.
There is no point to winning an election and not claiming a mandate. Obama is standing in the way of necessary reform. Muddling along like this is useless. Why would you want four more years of it?

Quote:

These are my political issues:

Jobs Plan: NGDP targeting by the Federal Reserve (contra Ron Paul)
Doesn't seem to involve the President....though I wouldn't get behind this anyway.

Quote:
Culture War: a strong 10th Amendment (Rick Perry's book)
Agreed.

Quote:
Fiscal Solvency: constitutional amendment to cap spending at 20-25% of GDP
The GOP House is all about this.

Quote:

Investing in the Future: massive increase in brain talent immigration
Agreed. With a simultaneous agreement to get serious about stopping illegal immigration. Expand H1bs.

Quote:
Race-Relations, Civil Liberties: ending the War on Drugs
Don't agree with this.

Quote:
Which candidate lines up best with that? Ron Paul. The one place I disagree with him the most? His biggest issue.
Where does Obama line up with any of this? If nowhere, why is he the alternate? Romney is more supportive of the 10th amendment, more supportive of spending cuts, and more supportive (probably) of immigration stressing skill sets.

Last edited by Sulla the Dictator; 12-23-2011 at 02:26 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-23-2011, 02:40 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Why was the "New FDR" outsourcing legislation to Congress? He doesn't seem particularly good at his job.
What does it mean for the president to "outsource" legislation to Congress? Why is this a bad thing?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-23-2011, 03:51 AM
Sulla the Dictator Sulla the Dictator is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Zeko View Post
What does it mean for the president to "outsource" legislation to Congress?
To have Congress craft a signature Presidential initiative.

Quote:
Why is this a bad thing?
Because if we're looking for someone to simply rubber stamp legislation crafted by the Democratic caucus, then we hardly need the Cult of Personality, do we?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-23-2011, 10:00 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
To have Congress craft a signature Presidential initiative.
How would Congress not craft a signature Presidential initiative? Congress writes the laws and passes them. If the President were to write a full bill himself, he would still have to give it to some Congressmen and ask nicely for them to pass what he wrote, and in practice they would amend or completely rewrite the legislation as it worked through the committee system. What you're describing isn't some weird decision on Obama's part; it's the structure of American government spelled out in the Constitution. How Obama's decision to let like-minded Congressmen write the law instead of unconstitutionally doing it himself is a talking point against him is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-23-2011, 11:45 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Holy Crap! Andrew Sullivan endorses Ron Paul

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator View Post
Where does Obama line up with any of this? If nowhere, why is he the alternate? Romney is more supportive of the 10th amendment, more supportive of spending cuts, and more supportive (probably) of immigration stressing skill sets.
It's a long way from now until November. We can revisit all this when the time comes. However, Obama and Romney are the same to me. The difference is that Obama is good for race relations. I worry about his Supreme Ct nominations, but I've factored that in. Romney isn't going to do do anything about 10th Amendment. Only you know who can be trusted on that front. So, the reason I support Obama is because all the candidates suck and Obama sucks ever so slightly less.
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.