Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, December 14, 2011
2012 Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul
Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:37 AM
I expect better of Sullivan than this:
...I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.
Earlier in the piece, Sullivan says he was leaning toward endorsing Jon Huntsman, but "he simply hasn't connected with the voters, generates little enthusiasm, and has run a mediocre campaign." So because Jon Huntsman doesn't connect with the crazy right-wing base of the Republican Party, Sullivan is endorsing a candidate who wants to make abortion illegal and who promises to shutter five government departments ("Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior")? He's supporting a candidate whose energy platform resembles the wet dream of a Captain Planet villain? He's calling a bigot whose newsletter was a platform for white supremacists a "decent fellow?" Why would you support a man who wants to shutter Medicare and Medicaid, along with Social Security? Isn't the social safety net flimsy enough for you as it is?
I get that Sullivan's trying to get the Republicans to think differently—and I'm sure the fact that this endorsement will probably generate a couple hundred thousand hits for the Daily Beast won't hurt, either—but this is ridiculous. Ron Paul is a man whose life goal is to destroy the United States of America by handing it over to the free market. I hope those outrage-inspired pageviews feel good, Sullivan, because you sure did earn them this time.
1
Pretty sure Huntsman wants to make abortion illegal too. I'd still pick Huntsman out of the group, but I think I understand Sullivan's premise. He's right; Paul does seem like a decent man for all his insanity. And he's leaps and bounds ahead of his other competitors. Doesn't matter; no way he'd win an election. Huntsman would have an actual shot, which is why he'll never win the GOP race.
2
Hmm. I thought Sully's piece was excellent. Thoughtful, complicated, and with a full and fair treatment given to all the reasons not to support Ron Paul, before arriving at his argument to do so.
Frankly, a nice change of pace from 99% of the political commentary out there.
But perhaps we read that differently.
Frankly, a nice change of pace from 99% of the political commentary out there.
But perhaps we read that differently.
3
It's the feast of the idiot cannibals. When Ron Paul looks good to an otherwise fairly rational individual, you've got a completely self-destructing party. Fun to watch.
4
I wondered at this until I realized you're right - how long has it been since we'd heard of Sullivan doing anything notable since he decided the Atlantic wasn't good enough for his bloggery any more? He needs to get his name back out there somehow - his P-town mortgage is not going to pay itself, is it?
5
both parties moved right, Andy. the republicans have moved past you into a corner. look just a little to your left. the blue dogs are sitting there, on the right side of the center.
6
Why would you expect better from Andrew Sullivan? When last he was heard from, he was (still) defending his love of discredited, racist pseudo-science (The Bell Curve), and pretending that anyone who disagreed with him on that count was a liar or "stifling important reserach" or some horseshit. He's consistently wrong about damn near everything, and the only reason he's on Slog as much as he is is because he and Dan Savage are pals. Quote some other idiot already.
7
Um, Paul? Were you completely unaware of Andrew Sullivan's long, long libertarian record? This should be the least surprising primary endorsement in the right-wing-o-sphere.
8
Sullivan is an airhead who plays at being thoughtful and introspective.
He has no convictions. His beliefs swing to and fro whenever he needs to have a dramatic change of heart in order to boost readership and links.
Once you accept the fact that he's an airhead, anything that might have been confusing coming from him when you thought he was intelligent makes perfect sense.
This Ron Paul endorsement is the best proof of my thesis of Sullivan the Dolt I could have ever hoped for. Only an idiot would endorse someone who spouts the kind of idiocy that Ron Paul does.
He has no convictions. His beliefs swing to and fro whenever he needs to have a dramatic change of heart in order to boost readership and links.
Once you accept the fact that he's an airhead, anything that might have been confusing coming from him when you thought he was intelligent makes perfect sense.
This Ron Paul endorsement is the best proof of my thesis of Sullivan the Dolt I could have ever hoped for. Only an idiot would endorse someone who spouts the kind of idiocy that Ron Paul does.
9
@6++.
Andrew Sullivan lost all credibility, forever, when he advocated for nuking Iraq (October 14, 2001). Then he lost all credibility, forever, again many, many times since.
That you "expect better" of him means you haven't been paying attention. But don't worry - I don't expect better from you, Paul.
Andrew Sullivan lost all credibility, forever, when he advocated for nuking Iraq (October 14, 2001). Then he lost all credibility, forever, again many, many times since.
That you "expect better" of him means you haven't been paying attention. But don't worry - I don't expect better from you, Paul.
11
He lost credibility with me when he kept pushing the idea that the Ryan Budget was the only adult and serious plan in Washington---as if there's anything adult and serious about a fake plan that doesn't actually work and is excessively cruel to seniors and the poor. That is literally the moment I unsubscribed from the dish, and looking back now I realize that Sullivan is full of privilege and fake macho posturing, with a heavy commitment to the veneer of holier-than-thou "seriousness."
12
Ron Paul is the only actual conservative that doesn't despise America or our strong Middle Class who is running AND has a chance if winning the GOP nom.
Better than third place 13 points down Mittens "Fumble" Romney.
That said, he's too right wing for America, but at least he's not unpatriotic like the rest of the top five.
Better than third place 13 points down Mittens "Fumble" Romney.
That said, he's too right wing for America, but at least he's not unpatriotic like the rest of the top five.
13
I think the "decent fellow" part was meant to be only about not falling in to the crazy jingoism, Obama-not-real-American baiting stuff. I don't think Sullivan is saying he agrees with a majority of Paul's position.
I mean, I respect Ron Paul's consistant Libertarian message in a way I don't the other candidates, but I'd never vote for the old kook.
I mean, I respect Ron Paul's consistant Libertarian message in a way I don't the other candidates, but I'd never vote for the old kook.
14
Come to think of it, it has been a while since Dan reposted Sullivan, hasn't it? He used to do it almost daily.
15
@10 that's how I read it too.
He thinks O is still who's best for the nation for the next four years.
RP is who he thinks is best for the GOP through the next erection. Out of the current field? I think he's got a point. If the GOP would double down and go Full Rand, it'd at least start to drain some of the stinking hypocrisy that's rotting them from within.
My personal prescription for the GOP is Go Newt. Give the American People a clear choice between the stability challenged CPOS hypocrite and the stable, honest familia man. Again.
He thinks O is still who's best for the nation for the next four years.
RP is who he thinks is best for the GOP through the next erection. Out of the current field? I think he's got a point. If the GOP would double down and go Full Rand, it'd at least start to drain some of the stinking hypocrisy that's rotting them from within.
My personal prescription for the GOP is Go Newt. Give the American People a clear choice between the stability challenged CPOS hypocrite and the stable, honest familia man. Again.
17
One other reason I like Paul is a reminder that Republicans didn't used to always think Israel is the 51st State.
18
I don't know how anyone can call Paul "consistently libertarian" when he opposes a woman's right to choose.
19
@9 I came to Sully a year or so after the anti-president stole the 2004 erection. So any cred he's got with me, he gained after the whole combat glazing advocation situation. He amuses me. He calls himself a conservative, but since he's that one step to the left of the fascist Christianiist pandering no-accountability pig demon things like the Rovulax and the Kockoliths that currently own the GOP lock stock and barrel, he is, for all intents and purposes, a full-on mainstream liberal Democrat. Or would be if he could vote.
20
He's David Brooks with bit of style, Douthat with a small amount of empathy, Friedman with an even shorter attention span.
I'm surprised he didn't give his GOP endorsement to a video of a beagle set to dubstep .
I'm surprised he didn't give his GOP endorsement to a video of a beagle set to dubstep .
21
@12: "Ron Paul is the only actual conservative that doesn't despise America or our strong Middle Class"
If that were irony it would be genius.
The entire GOP has nothing but contempt for a) the policies and practices (e.g. unions) that created our Middle Class and b) any arguments to that effect.
Ron Paul is anything but an exception to this rule. If anything he's the worst of the bunch since he wants to eliminate the Department of Education, allow corporations and businesses to do anything they want to bust unions and stop future unionizing, employ tax policy which is overly burdensome to the middle class and poor while giving corporations and the wealthy a permanent holiday.
Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is praise-worthy knows nothing about him.
Even the oft-repeated "At least he's consistent" is bullshit. Ron Paul just flip-flops in slower motion than most people can pay attention. Yeah, he's consistent for more than one election cycle, but in the 80's he was taking advantage of southern racism pretty overtly. Now he just hides behind the veneer of the "free market" to make sure the "mud people" can't take advantage of the "producers".
Ron Paul is a shitbag.
If that were irony it would be genius.
The entire GOP has nothing but contempt for a) the policies and practices (e.g. unions) that created our Middle Class and b) any arguments to that effect.
Ron Paul is anything but an exception to this rule. If anything he's the worst of the bunch since he wants to eliminate the Department of Education, allow corporations and businesses to do anything they want to bust unions and stop future unionizing, employ tax policy which is overly burdensome to the middle class and poor while giving corporations and the wealthy a permanent holiday.
Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is praise-worthy knows nothing about him.
Even the oft-repeated "At least he's consistent" is bullshit. Ron Paul just flip-flops in slower motion than most people can pay attention. Yeah, he's consistent for more than one election cycle, but in the 80's he was taking advantage of southern racism pretty overtly. Now he just hides behind the veneer of the "free market" to make sure the "mud people" can't take advantage of the "producers".
Ron Paul is a shitbag.
22
@8 (and others) re:
"His beliefs swing to and fro whenever he needs to have a dramatic change of heart in order to boost readership and links."
It must be awesome to be so sure of yourself as to never have to change your mind about anything, ever.
IMHO, Sullivan's ability and willingness to publicly wrestle with ideas and convictions--up to and including pointing out when he's gotten things wrong--is what gives him more credibility, not less. It certainly makes him more interesting to read.
If you want unflinching conviction, watch Fox News.
"His beliefs swing to and fro whenever he needs to have a dramatic change of heart in order to boost readership and links."
It must be awesome to be so sure of yourself as to never have to change your mind about anything, ever.
IMHO, Sullivan's ability and willingness to publicly wrestle with ideas and convictions--up to and including pointing out when he's gotten things wrong--is what gives him more credibility, not less. It certainly makes him more interesting to read.
If you want unflinching conviction, watch Fox News.
23
Ron Paul's finger was very much stuck in the wind on DOMA and DADT. Odd that Sully's forgotten that Paulie was only as Libertarian as was politically convenient.
Sully calls that refreshing. I call it bullshit.
Sully calls that refreshing. I call it bullshit.
24
I know that Sullivan isn't the type of gay who is a one issue voter, but the fact that he can call a co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act a short seven years ago "a decent fellow" shows that he's a very good writer who isn't as serious about politics as he is about blogging the game of politics.
The fact that he would endorse the candidate he finds least vile rather than just not endorsing one speaks volumes.
(And yes, Paul says different, not quite so bigoted against same sex couples when he's campaigning. But whenver his ass has been in his Congressional seat, he's spoken out for a lot of bullshit. And since plenty of people in a Republican Congress would agree with that, I trust that a President Paul would be more like Congressman Paul than Candidate Paul. And this is just about the stuff he says that is morally bankrupt and wrong but a popular conservative opinion. I haven't even got into the rest of his platform or actions which are just ass crazy.)
The fact that he would endorse the candidate he finds least vile rather than just not endorsing one speaks volumes.
(And yes, Paul says different, not quite so bigoted against same sex couples when he's campaigning. But whenver his ass has been in his Congressional seat, he's spoken out for a lot of bullshit. And since plenty of people in a Republican Congress would agree with that, I trust that a President Paul would be more like Congressman Paul than Candidate Paul. And this is just about the stuff he says that is morally bankrupt and wrong but a popular conservative opinion. I haven't even got into the rest of his platform or actions which are just ass crazy.)
25
Sullivan is a great example of "All because you're gay doesn't mean you are a liberal or have a brain".
Him and Alan Blume should have a great time together in the afterlife, if one actually existed.
Him and Alan Blume should have a great time together in the afterlife, if one actually existed.
27
@22: There's a difference between an actual change of heart, or changing your views and changing your political tactics and platform based on what's popular at the time.
That's the difference between a flip flopper and real growth as a human being. Paul's history on race demonstrates political cowardice, not principled growth.
As @24 mentions, Paul will switch his stance on homosexuality and gay marriage depending on what's politically expedient.
That's the difference between a flip flopper and real growth as a human being. Paul's history on race demonstrates political cowardice, not principled growth.
As @24 mentions, Paul will switch his stance on homosexuality and gay marriage depending on what's politically expedient.
28
Ron Paul as president would probably do more damage than any other Republican candidate... but at least he has, you know, rational thoughts.
I would love to see Obama vs. Paul debates on the values of pragmatism (what's fair and best for people's lives) vs. the free market (at any cost). I'd also love to see Obama called out as the right winger on militarism, gay rights, and prohibition. (Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until 2016 for someone who cares about women's rights.)
They could end up being actual debates on the role of government, instead of the standard bickering about who loves America more.
I would love to see Obama vs. Paul debates on the values of pragmatism (what's fair and best for people's lives) vs. the free market (at any cost). I'd also love to see Obama called out as the right winger on militarism, gay rights, and prohibition. (Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until 2016 for someone who cares about women's rights.)
They could end up being actual debates on the role of government, instead of the standard bickering about who loves America more.
29
@28: "Ron Paul as president would probably do more damage than any other Republican candidate... but at least he has, you know, rational thoughts."
This is another canard I'd like to see liberals stop repeating. There is nothing rational about Ron Paul's belief system. It is totally insane.
There is nothing rational *at all* about believing that eliminating the Department of Education would be good for the country. Every fact, every study, all of history all illustrate that would be disastrous.
This is another canard I'd like to see liberals stop repeating. There is nothing rational about Ron Paul's belief system. It is totally insane.
There is nothing rational *at all* about believing that eliminating the Department of Education would be good for the country. Every fact, every study, all of history all illustrate that would be disastrous.
31
#29: Thats not what I meant. I mean he actually forms complete sentences and has thoughts. Ron Paul is rational (compared to the rest of the candidates), it's just his value is "free market" instead of "what's best for the country". I think president Ron Paul would be far worse than any other republican candidate. At least everyone else would do what's best for the country in some cases if Fox News didn't complain about it.
33
@30: Sometimes Sullivan's changes of position might be personal growth, but lots of them (like this one) seem to be based on trying to create linkbait.
@31: Ok I get what you're saying -- you mean he can articulate a somewhat internally consistent belief system and actually discuss it. I will give him that he will engage in discussion which is more than most GOP candidates. But I wouldn't call him rational, and I see a lot of liberals say that about him, which drives me batty.
@31: Ok I get what you're saying -- you mean he can articulate a somewhat internally consistent belief system and actually discuss it. I will give him that he will engage in discussion which is more than most GOP candidates. But I wouldn't call him rational, and I see a lot of liberals say that about him, which drives me batty.
34
@29: Part of the problem is that Ron Paul seems to be making a much more honest appeal to people who believe we'd be better off without any Federal government whatsoever. The other GOP candidates favor a backdoor, starving-the-beast approach, which largely keeps the substantive debate about the role of government out of the discussion.
At least with a Ron Paul candidacy, the GOP candidate would have to stand up in front of unsympathetic crowds and say "I support dismantling the Department of Education" and defend that view. The others will all just say they support tax cuts. Then, when it's time to make "tough choices" they'll cut any programs they don't like under the guise of fiscal prudence.
At least with a Ron Paul candidacy, the GOP candidate would have to stand up in front of unsympathetic crowds and say "I support dismantling the Department of Education" and defend that view. The others will all just say they support tax cuts. Then, when it's time to make "tough choices" they'll cut any programs they don't like under the guise of fiscal prudence.
35
@29: "There is nothing rational *at all* about believing that eliminating the Department of Education would be good for the country. Every fact, every study, all of history all illustrate that would be disastrous."
Can you point out these studies and facts? He's not in favor of abolishing education, you know.
Can you point out these studies and facts? He's not in favor of abolishing education, you know.
37
Fnarf got it right first. He's endorsing Obama. He's not so much endorsing Ron Paul as rejecting him the least.
39
Throughout Ron Paul's career he has been consistently championing the most important and urgent issues we as a Nation face. His opposition have been consistent liars. I support Ron Paul because he supports: Bringing the troops home. Closing the giant web of U.S. military bases that wrap the globe in American domination and violence.
Ending the Federal Reserve. Ending fiat money. Stoping the inflationary conjuring of ever more debt-based dollars, because it’s an ongoing theft of the People’s hard-earned purchasing power.
Repealing the Patriot Act.
Ending corporate personhood.
Stoping corporate welfare. Ending the massive subsidies to big oil, so the People get a fighting chance to deal with Peak Oil and climate change using our own creativity in place-specific localities.
Ending the brutal and bitter repression of the People’s efforts to grow our own local food—before the agribusiness giants find themselves without the cheap and abundant fossil fuels upon which the industrial food system so precariously depends.
Ending the Federal Reserve. Ending fiat money. Stoping the inflationary conjuring of ever more debt-based dollars, because it’s an ongoing theft of the People’s hard-earned purchasing power.
Repealing the Patriot Act.
Ending corporate personhood.
Stoping corporate welfare. Ending the massive subsidies to big oil, so the People get a fighting chance to deal with Peak Oil and climate change using our own creativity in place-specific localities.
Ending the brutal and bitter repression of the People’s efforts to grow our own local food—before the agribusiness giants find themselves without the cheap and abundant fossil fuels upon which the industrial food system so precariously depends.
40
I disagree with Paul on many issues, but calling him a bigot is dishonest. He was certainly neglectful, but he's not a bigot.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
"The quotations are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'"
Strange how Constant ignores the lives of impoverished foreigners violently killed, government whistleblowers persecuted, and terror suspects denied due process, while making false accusations of bigotry against a man who has had no role in blowing up children or locking away people without trials, for the unforgivable crime of disagreeing on the proper role of government.
Constant probably considers himself a liberal, but
conservative is as conservative does.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
"The quotations are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'"
Strange how Constant ignores the lives of impoverished foreigners violently killed, government whistleblowers persecuted, and terror suspects denied due process, while making false accusations of bigotry against a man who has had no role in blowing up children or locking away people without trials, for the unforgivable crime of disagreeing on the proper role of government.
Constant probably considers himself a liberal, but
conservative is as conservative does.
41
Ron Paul doesn't understand the meaning of "common good". That's an awfully large blind spot for a politician.
42
Sullivan himself is anti-abortion, so you shouldn't be surprised he is endorsing (for GOP primary, not for the general) an anti-abortion candidate.
43
He also endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000 and since then has found numerous ways to try to blame that on Gore. "Who could have known???", asks the Harvard Phd. How about high school senior me, 18 for 2 weeks and voting for the first time ever.
45
@40,
Paul's newsletter was published from 1978 to 1995, with racist ramblings included throughout its run. If your man really didn't know what was being published under his name, then he is an IDIOT.
Oh, but wait, he did know what was being published under his name.
If you want to pretend that your hero is a saint, by all means, go ahead, but don't then cast aspersions at people who think Obama is a good or even mediocre president. Doing so makes you a hypocrite of the highest order.
Paul's newsletter was published from 1978 to 1995, with racist ramblings included throughout its run. If your man really didn't know what was being published under his name, then he is an IDIOT.
Oh, but wait, he did know what was being published under his name.
Paul wrote under his own byline the following passage in both The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report:
"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."
If you want to pretend that your hero is a saint, by all means, go ahead, but don't then cast aspersions at people who think Obama is a good or even mediocre president. Doing so makes you a hypocrite of the highest order.
46
@42, true that. But also, that's one of the places where RP's vaunted principles give way to utter bullshit political expediency. The actual libertarian position on abortion is "get the government the fuck off people's bodies".
47
@18
If one believes that blastocysts are people, then opposing abortion is entirely consistent with libertarian belief.
If we could use this point to get an argument going in here between different libertarian factions, preferably derailing the entire thread, I'd happily donate popcorn.
If one believes that blastocysts are people, then opposing abortion is entirely consistent with libertarian belief.
If we could use this point to get an argument going in here between different libertarian factions, preferably derailing the entire thread, I'd happily donate popcorn.
48
He was a huge Huge HUGE Bush supporter in 2000! At the time, he went berserk on his blog over the Florida/Supreme Court debacle, and was all for the Court shutting the recounts down. Man lie down with Sully (aka Raw Muscle Glutes online), get up with fleas.
49
@45, since I've never said Paul is my "hero" or a "saint" or "my man," you really not ought to dishonestly claim that I did, especially since I started my post with, "I disagree with Paul on many issues." Being dishonest makes it impossible to have intelligent conversations. And it's not nice.
50
@6: "Why would you expect better from Andrew Sullivan?"
Yep, he's a racist, piercingly stupid pile of shit who is nearly always wrong aside from stopped-clock moments of clarity.
Oh wait, a perfect fit for Ron Paul. Though, in his defense, Paul tends to be right much more than Sullivan. (Sadder for Sullivan, seeing as how mad Paul is.)
Yep, he's a racist, piercingly stupid pile of shit who is nearly always wrong aside from stopped-clock moments of clarity.
Oh wait, a perfect fit for Ron Paul. Though, in his defense, Paul tends to be right much more than Sullivan. (Sadder for Sullivan, seeing as how mad Paul is.)
51
Sullivan is an elitist fuck who lives by the general rule of "If I can't fuck it or eat it it is not real". It is no suprise that he endorsed Paul. Paul's ugly world is good for guys like Sullivan.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (51) RSS