self delete

[highplainsdem]

Except for the subthread about polar bears below, I think people were misreading this, both thinking the quote was something Sullivan himself had written (my post made it clear it wasn't, but the subject line might've been confusing) and assuming he took those scenarios seriously.

So I'm deleting it.

[ShortnFiery]

1. I don't understand, for the life of me, WHY a former right wing-nut is now considered ...

"the voice of reason" here. Seemingly every week or so, we have to highlight Andrew's glorious insights? :crazy:

Sure, we can respect him but WHY do some here always post his musings?

[dkf]

5. Yeah we shouldn't listen to Arianna either.

Seriously if all republicans were like AS and AH we would be lucky to have a semi sane opposition.

[ShortnFiery]

6. I always take former right wingers with a grain of salt. That's all I'm suggesting ...

What's truly motivating them? :shrug:

[gateley]

8. Ed Shultz is a former right winger... nt

[ShortnFiery]

10. I often take Big Ed's advice with a grain of salt, albeit I like him and don't believe he was ever

RIGHT WING. Check his background?

[gateley]

18. You may be right in that he wasn't a whack Rush fan. I believe he said he was

a conservative Republican (who, probably unfairly, I automatically decide are all Right Wingers.)

There's nothing regarding it on his radio home page, but this is from Wiki;

Schultz's political views leaned towards the right during the early years, and Schultz told the Los Angeles Times that he "lined up with the Republicans because they were anti-tax, and I wanted to make a lot of money...." Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders

Political views

Schultz currently considers himself a "progressive liberal" and a "progressive independent" <7> His talk show is generally considered to be a very liberal-leaning program. He is pro-union and centers a large portion of his radio show on the "plight of working class Americans".
Evolution of political views
In the late 1990s, several events occurred which he said changed his political leanings to a more liberal, progressive understanding. One was his mother's (a former educator) battle with Alzheimer's Disease which began a long, slow decline of her mental health. Schultz found it frustrating trying to get her the services that she needed. The other was that he met a psychiatric nurse named Wendy who ran a homeless shelter in Fargo. He attributed much of his political change to her, and although he had frequently made fun of the homeless on his show, he said in his book that she helped to humanize them. To his surprise, he found that some of the people he had insulted were veterans, and many were unable to get the psychiatric or medical services that might help them. He says that was the moment he began to look at poverty differently. (Schultz 9-10) In June 1998, they were married, the second marriage for each.
He became a Democrat in 2000 marking the formal turn in his politics from Republican conservative to progressive. He went out to do radio promotions in rural North Dakota, and told reporters about how he met farmers who were suffering and hard-working people who were going hungry, even though Republicans said the economy was doing fine. (Vowell 2004) He began to hold benefits to raise money for people in the heartland who were going through tough times. (Winter 2002) In addition, he began questioning some of the assertions of George W. Bush; although he supported several Republican candidates in the 2000 election, he was becoming critical of other Republicans. Schultz considered running for the Democratic-NPL party nomination for governor against incumbent Republican John Hoeven in 2004, but decided to continue his career in radio. After North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan's retirement decision was made public on January 5, 2010, Schultz was reportedly asked by a leading state Democrat to consider running for the seat. <8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Schultz

[highplainsdem]

9. These aren't Sullivan's musings, and there's no indication he takes them seriously. Neither do I.

But I thought they were amusingly written, and I'd guess that's why he posted them.

[dkf]

2. Yay polar bears!

[vadawg]

16. sorry i am totally against polar bears getting health coverage

surely its discrimatory to give it to them and not penguins..

[Eric J in MN]

3. If Scott Brown wins, Congress can pass HCR before he's seated. NT

NT

[HughMoran]

4. That's pretty far out wishful thinking

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

7. ...OR...

Coakley wins, HCR passes, Obama administration goes on offensive with PR campaign on how HCR will help millions of Americans, features real stories from real people, Tea Party washes out, Dems win in 2010.

[highplainsdem]

13. At least as likely as the others, but I think that PR campaign will need to be backed with promises

to improve the HCR bill and move to a real public option asap. I really don't think the compromise that's being worked out can be sold very easily as finished reform. The individual mandate is just too unpopular otherwise. You're not likely to sell the voter on the idea that this is a great bill. Saying "It's the best we can do at the moment, help us get more Dems in Congress so we can do better" might work.

[Jennicut]

11. If Brown wins, it will only energize the tea partiers and Rethug party. How hard is that to

understand? If health care is defeated, it is still a failure on Obama's part to get it done. What part of that do some people not understand? There will be no going back to the drawing board, there will be no picking up of seats. It is between slowing some of the Rethug momentum or letting the Rethug momentum totally take off.

[PM Martin]

12. Or Sullivan really wants to see the Democrats fail

so that his precious conservatives take back power next time around.

[Ian David]

14. We should all be furious NOW... BEFORE January 19th

Scott Brown vs Martha Coakley on the issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7483204

[bemildred]

15. Well, OK, but I really think Coakley is small potatoes being inflated for propaganda purposes. nt

[xchrom]

17. Has Andrew Sullivan stopped promoting bare backing or

Loving Reagan?