So, Andrew Sullivan Has Revoked His Support for Ron Paul

[tishaLA]

....whatever you say about Sullivan, he can at least admit when he's been wrong (unlike his friend Mr Hitchens).

<...> This is too much (I think it's perfectly possible, rather than 'nonsense', that Paul used these newsletters as fundraising tools without full oversight). But it is not nothing. A fringe protest candidate need not fully address issues two decades ago that do not in any way reflect the campaign he has run or the issues on which he has made an appeal. But a man who could win the Iowa caucuses and is now third in national polls has to have a plausible answer for this. It's what happens when you hit the big leagues. Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it. And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters.

It seems to me that even though I don't believe these old screeds reflect Paul's own beliefs, his new level of prominence demands a new level of accountablity, even on issues this old. If Paul did not write these newsletters, then he has an obligation to say if he knew who did, or conduct an investigation. He has had years to do this, and hasn't. And here's what you've persuaded me of in the last few days: a person who has that kind of bigotry directly printed under his name without a clear empirical explanation of why he is innocent cannot be an honorable president of the United States. The hatred of groups of people in those letters - however gussied up by shards of legitimate arguments - is too deep and vile to be attached to a leader of the entire country. It is far too divisive. The appearance of things matters; and until Paul explains why this appears so horrible, he cannot shrug off the burden of proof. <...>

And I just cannot see how he can be such a president without explaining away the newsletters convincingly. Until he does, I have to say that the balance of the endorsement must now go to Huntsman. Oddly, I think that Paul's courage in challenging the neocon establishment has made a Huntsman candidacy possible. And I tend to prefer the brave to the lucky. And I stand by all the things I wrote about Paul's views, his refreshing candor, his happy temperament, his support for minorities, and his vital work to undo the war on drugs and the military-industrial complex. I don't think he's a racist; in fact, I think he's one of the least racially aware politicians I've come across in a long while. <...> Daily Beast

There are still tons of problems with Sullivan's bullshit, not the least of which is the idea that being racially unaware somehow precludes being a racist. But whatever. It's somewhat good to see his enablers recognizing that the things done in his name are a bridge too far.

(Edited to add link)

[BootinUp]

1. Sullivan is a bit of a self serving opportunist in my humble opinion.

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2011, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't take his political writings or other public statements too seriously.

[NashVegas]

3. Self-Serving Opportunist

When backing Paul gives him points, he'll do it, just like he backed the Iraq war.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. In 2007 He was pedaling up Commercial st. like a mob

was about to lynch him ,and I thought as much as this guy sticks up for Shrub , and the fact that he's gay , and living with aides ,and living in Provincetown with his ( at the time Neo-con views ),, though hard to take , he must be Corageous.

[banned from Kos]

4. Conservatives don't know Sullivan exists - he is not on Fox News

only DC knows Sullivan.

[frazzled]

5. Really pathetic retraction

What's wrong with this proposition: "Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright."

No, Obama did not sign Jeremiah Wright's sermons. His name wasn't on them. The question was only: had he been in church when the offending sermons were given. Had he "listened" to them. The Wright story was guilt by association.

Ron Paul's name was on those screeds. It was his own newsletter. Whether he penned them himself was immaterial. A president of the United States has to take ownership of anything that goes out under his or her name. That's what being a leader entails. The "I didn't write it and never read it" defense is simply not acceptable in this context.

At any rate, Andrew Sullivan has lost my respect for even thinking in the first place to endorse this crackpot. Whether he retracts that endorsement or not, he's on my "not a good thinker" list.

[UTUSN]

6. R#4 & K for, SULLIVAN is such a jerk phony, pretends to have all these "intellectual"

grounds for being a traitor to the people on the Left he wants support from and kissing up to his own oppressors.

[tblue37]

7. Yes, Sullivan will sometimes admit his mistakes--

but if he were not a conservative in a world in which reality has a liberal bias, he would not keep making such huge mistakes as supporting the Iraq War and thinking Ron Paul is worthy of endorsement in the first place.

And if he would stop making those ginormously dumb mistakes, he would not be constantly finding himself in the position of having to admit and apologize for those dumb mistakes!

[Bluenorthwest]

8. I knew all about the newsletters when they were new. I assume, and still assume

that Sully also knew, as he endorsed the man and he is a Journalist and a professional who swore after his endorsement of the Iraq war and GW and his attacks on those who criticized the war and GW turned out so poorly that he'd not make such mistakes again. He said he'd always apologize, for all time. Instead he endorsed Ron Paul.
Sully knew when he endorsed that the Newsletters were hate speech. He is a horrid man. Untrustworthy. Without honor.

[LeftishBrit]

9. Sullivan has a dodgy record

He supported Thatcher for years and years, and also supported the Iraq war for quite a while.

He's improved a bit but the fact that he could at any time give Paul the time of day is worrying.

Also, I think that people sometimes give the extreme economic right a pass, when they rightly wouldn't give it to warmongers or racists. The extreme economic right kill, through poverty, hunger and the denial of healthcare, just as surely as the warmonger or the terrorist. The extreme economic right generally create a climate that crushes minority groups just as surely as the explicit racist does.

[RainDog]

14. I think Sullivan is part of the wonky generation whose time has passed.

he and neo liberals who came up around the same time all wanted to distance themselves from the 60s and social liberalism and the suggestion that pundits were never war hawks.

their support for various actions have demonstrated to me that their positions were wrong. especially the support for Iraq. - my view isn't confined to Sullivan - it also goes to "liberals" who made names for themselves as liberal hawks.

of course, they continue to hold jobs and make money even tho their positions were ruinous in many ways... we've yet to see if Bush Jr's all war all the time will lead us into the same sort of mess that has brought down other nations in other eras... the Soviets, the French monarchy...

the problem with their support for these things is that the default position for any govt will always be to make war in order to avoid fear of criticism if they don't.

...which is why I would never want to be part of the machinery of war. it's the folks in uniform that bear the brunt of these bad decisions and my heart goes out to them.

[bigmonkey]

10. I think a lot of people don't understand what racism actually is.

They confuse it with race awareness. Conservatives often seem to believe that being anti-racism means suppressing what they consider natural racist thoughts, like they believe in suppressing other natural aspects of human life because they are "sinful". Mind you, I'm saying they think racism is natural, I don't. Since they think that being against racism means simply suppressing its expression, they also tend to confuse any mention of race with racism, because that's how they interpret it. Similarly, if a person never mentions race, they think that person must not be racist. It's why they can't deal with confronting their own racism, because they think it's virtuous to suppress thinking about race at all, so they refuse to think about it. It's why they condemn any discussion of race.

[Starry Messenger]

11. Comparing Jeremiah Wright with Ron Paul shows that Sully is not an it-getter.

Especially when it comes to racism. Has Sullivan ever repudiated his support for The Bell Curve, the racist book by Charles Murray? I think Sullivan is just distancing himself from Paul as fast as he can to keep his brand from getting the same shit splashed on it, which he would richly deserve.

[RainDog]

12. Ron Paul will never be elected a prez

his negatives are so negative - there's no way he could withstand national scrutiny.

and I, for one, am very glad that he will never be elected. the problems we face are not because govt provides services, but because the wealthy are not taxed efficiently enough to provide services that are needed to help others through hard times.

[truebrit71]

13. Sully was for the war before he was against it, now he is against RP after being for him...

...I believe that makes him pretty much the textbook definition of a fair-weather fan...

He started from the untenable postion of being a gay republican (not unlike being a Nazi Jew) and worked his way down from there...

He is a loud-mouthed bullshit artist that will say, or write, whatever will garner him the biggest paycheck today....

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. Sully just needs to admit he ia a well-spoken idiot. That will save a lot of ink on apologies.

Sully is a creepy short little man.

I met him once at The Eagle in Chicago. I have a hard time looking at him with a straight face as I hear him talk about "conservative values" when I remember him in his little gestapo leather outfit.