The Weekly Standard vs Ron Paul [Andrew Sullivan rant]

andrew sullivan ^ | October 19 2007 | andrew sullivan

[freedomdefender]

They despise him more than the left because he represents a different kind of conservatism. And so Michael Goldfarb argues that I mislabeled the data on military support for Ron Paul in this post, where I touted military donations to Obama and Paul. It's all donors connected to the military, not active service military members. He's right. I mislabeled. But as Goldfarb also notes, the data from active service members is basically the same with a twist: Ron Paul comes first among Republicans, but Obama beats him over all. The point stands. It's staggering to me that military donors are supporting the two clearly anti-war candidates in the race. I know that's a message The Weekly Standard doesn't want to hear. For them, war is as much an end as a means. Soldiers don't always feel that way. Maybe because they see what it actually is.

[freedomdefender]

Andrew Sullivan used to be one of the strongest supporters of the Iraq invasion. Back then, he was lionized by a lot of Freepers. Unlike them, I never supported him - not then, not now.

[x]

Sullivan got unhinged over gay marriage. It's hard to even have an argument with him now (I don't see a space on his new blog site for readers to post responses).

Columnists -- public scolds -- are so keen on finding others to blame that they don't see how they fit into the picture themselves.

So David Frum, once keen for war as well, chronicles the administration's failings without noting how much of a role he had in them.

[Gondring]

This should have been included in the posted excerpt, as it is the meat of the story...

It's staggering to me that military donors are supporting the two clearly anti-war candidates in the race. I know that's a message The Weekly Standard doesn't want to hear.

That is, B. Hussein Obama and Ron Paul are leaders of contributions from ACTIVE-DUTY military, as well as overall military contributors.

I know the Weekly Standard gets blasted a lot by FReepers for being too liberal, so it's funny to think they would get any support against the conservative Ron Paul, but it seems that FR has lots of big government, neocon (liberal) members now.

[jim35]

“...FR has lots of big government, neocon (liberal) members now.”

So, now neocons are liberals? The liberals might be a bit surprised to learn that. As might the neocons.

And Ron Paul may be considered conservative in some ways, but his bizarre isolationism is suicidal, leading logically to a fortress mentality, following a surrender to our current enemies. This is not a recipe for safety or freedom, it is a recipe for defeat and enslavement at the hands of our emboldened enemies. The man is a fool.

Besides, Ron Paul is not so much conservative, as he is libertarian. There are some pretty stark differences between the two philosophies.

[Bommer]

They despise him more than the left because he represents a different kind of conservatism

...yeah the liberal Blame America type of conservatism

[Nervous Tick]

>> They despise [ElRon] more than the left

That’s Not True!

I despise ElRon and the left equally — no favoritism here! I despise fruit-boy Sullivan the same amount too.

Which is to say, I despise them all, collectively, a WHOLE BUNCH.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Foreign policy is a very delicate issue though. People don't want too much intervention but yet we have to be involved somehow because the world is a very dangerous place and we're the only country willing to use our muscle.

A guy like Duncan Hunter should have ran for President in 2000 and we wouldn't be having these problems we're having now. There probably wouldn't have been a 9/11. America would be prosperous and China would be a non-threatening 3rd world country.

[jd777]

"A neocon is the kind of conservative liberals wouldn't be embarrassed to have over over for a dinner party" - MAX BOOT

Sounds like a great party...