Greenwald: Democratic Party priorities

[whatchamacallit]

Much of the reaction to the article I wrote last Saturday regarding progressives, the Obama presidency and Ron Paul (as well as reaction to this essay by Matt Stoller and even this tweet from Katrina vanden Heuvel) relied on exactly the sort of blatant distortions that I began that article by anticipating and renouncing: that I was endorsing Paul as the best presidential candidate, that I was urging progressives to sacrifice reproductive rights in order to vote for him over Obama, that I “pretend[ed] that the differences between Obama and Paul on economics [and other domestic issues] are marginal”; that Paul’s bad positions negate the argument I made; that Ron Paul is my “hero,” etc. etc. So self-evidently petty and slimy are those kinds of distortions that (other than to note their falsehoods for the record) they warrant no discussion; indeed, as I wrote: “So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists” and would thus “proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.”

That said, it’s hard to believe that these distortions are anything but deliberate — deterrence-driven punishment for the ultimate Election Year crime of partisan heresy: i.e., suggesting that someone is uniquely advocating important ideas even though they lack a “D” after their name – given that (a) I expressly renounced in advance the beliefs now being attributed to me and, more important (b) the point I was actually making was clear and not all that complex.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

Let the thrashing begin!

[sabrina 1]

1. Lol, he knows how to take advantage of all of this.

Good for him. He received more recs on his last thread than he ever has, about 3,300 last time I looked, proving something else he probably knows, the more people trash a popular blogger, the more disgusted other people become and the more they will support the target of the attacks.

Milk it for all it's worth, Glenn

[joshcryer]

4. You are praising a pundit for trolling the left?

He's the one mudslinging, and I'm not biting this time.

[sabrina 1]

9. Actually he's 'trolling' to use your word, the phony left and they continue to take the bait.

Watch this thread as it once again proves him right. I'm willing to bet there will be few if any comments actually dealing with the substance of his work.

What we will see are the ready made personal attacks, I think I counted about four or five prepared memos, posted over and over again, without the additional information that basically can and has refuted most of them.

Want to take that bet?

[ProSense]

11. So

"Actually he's 'trolling' to use your word, the phony left and they continue to take the bait. "

...the "phony left" can't find virtue in Paul's propaganda?

[joshcryer]

15. Are you alleging that I am the "phony left"? I delt with his last piece, was mocked, ridiculed...

...and slammed, over hundreds of posts.

I never personally attacked GG, even after he called DUers simple minded, and even here, he's invoking his own little Emmanuel Goldstein that there's a "deterrence-driven punishment." Given that he's a paid pundit it is not in his interests to actually refer to a credible criticism of him, and no one will accept that many progressives did provide those criticism (I am one of them, I don't get paid, and I don't have a blog).

I do find many responses to him uninspired, as he's a pundit who is controlling the narrative, and people are taking the bait by attacking him or are giving him the benefit of the doubt that Ron Paul's views desperately need to be heard. I have yet to see anyone else but myself make the connection that Ron Paul's views are inherently incompatible with progressives.

[sabrina 1]

23. Why don't you just read what I post, instead of using this old tactic 'are you saying this or that'

meant to put words in people's mouths.

What I said is, and I repeat, he is exposing the 'phony Left'. He is pointing to those who claimed during the Bush administration to be opposed to Bush policies of pre-emptive war, of torture, Guantanamo Bay, of bailing out Banksters, who claimed to want top want to hold War Criminals and Economic Criminals accountable, among other things. Now, SOME of those former opposers of Bush policies, have either gone remarkably silent, or are outright DEFENDING the very same things they claimed to be opposed to before.

If you are not among those people, he is NOT talking about you. I hope that is clear enough.

I know he is not talking about me, since I have not changed my principles, which is probably why his columns do not send me into a fit of hysterics.

[joshcryer]

28. I read that to say "anyone who takes the bait" is the phony left. That is, you can't disagree...

...without being the "phony left."

I don't disagree with GG on everything, merely his characterization of Ron Paul as someone who desperately needs to be heard.

His column irritates me because he amps up, he boosts, he propels Ron Paul's ideology in his adulating words of appreciation.

Simply disagreeing with him does not make anyone phony, nor does it mean that they are hysterical, nor does it mean that they're hypocritical, but he says that they're all sorts of very cruel things. He does not link to legitimate criticisms, he wouldn't want his readers to read those.

No person is 100% right about anything.

Surely he read someone who disagreed with him who he felt had a legitimate point.

But he did not post their criticism because it wouldn't fit the punditry.

[rhett o rick]

29. I think what might be confusing to those he calls the "phoney left" is that they do not align

themselves with the left. There are a lot here in DU. They disparage the left and yet fail to specify why. They wont tell where they differ with the left. These are the people he is talking about. The people who were against torture when Bush did it but ok with it when Obama does it. Against the Patriot Act until Obama extended it. He should call them the "phoney Democrats" because they are conservatives pretending to be Democrats.

[joshcryer]

33. Interesting, I don't know of any pro-torture people here.

Got a post I can read?

[Luminous Animal]

64. While vast majority of DUers have consistently opposed torture...

we also have had (and most likely still do) torture apologists...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2535794

[joshcryer]

66. Heh, I had that poll ready to post as a response.

That was basically my point, that view is a very small, very minority view that if announced openly would lead to a banning or at minimum complete ostracization. Even people who are maligned as "supporting indefinite detention" are reading a law differently and don't view it as such. But, of course, peoples own inclinations or opinions should be rejected, thus jokes about how some supporters would view rape as a good thing, etc.

edit: before I close them, here are the others I found (by page 4 on google, hint, if you search "Poll result" in quotes and then what you want, you can easily find past DU polls):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2220419

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5380885

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2119336

[sabrina 1]

123. Wow, I never saw that. 21 Duers who would consider or outright support torture.

16% of those responding to that poll. That really is scary.

[BootinUp]

76. I might be in favor

of torturing Glenn Greenwald, depending on the methods...let me get back to you.

[joshcryer]

79. Ha.

[rhett o rick]

138. Thanks for the response, but you changed my words. Those that I describe may not claim to

support torture, but they are willing to look the other way when questions arise during a Democratic administration. They want to deny all claims of torture and rendition w/o interest in the truth. A poster above characterizes these people the “phony left” and I don’t agree. These people shun the left as much as they shun the right. Even tho they cry foul when the Bush admin used the Patriot Act, domestic spying, rendition, torture, Gitmo, and illegal arrest and detention, they are willing to look the other way during a Democratic administration. If you poll them they will claim to be against torture and the Patriot Act, but they say nothing when a Democratic president extends the Patriot Act, domestic spying and codifies arrest and detention of American citizens.
To me these people are “phony Democrats” not “phony left”, they ignore Democratic principles during a Democratic administration, or at least deny that such an administration could possible violate Democratic principles.
To me, skepticism is a strong Democratic principle. It is easy to be skeptical during a Republicon administration, the test comes during a Democratic administration.

This post supports the Democratic Party and Democratic principles and speaks out to those that would marginalize either.

[joshcryer]

177. You said they were "OK" with it. You are now saying...

...failing to be critical means that they "want to deny all claims of torture." Which is amusing in itself, because not actively denying something means you're denying something.

It's as if you have to kick a dog when it's down. Do you think perhaps people aren't outspoken about it is because they feel guilty for supporting a President who does it? You want them to come groveling, no? They were wrong, everyone, they must admit to it at the alter of guilt!

Of course, GG and others go much further with it, they don't just say that lack of criticism equates support (which it doesn't), they go on and make absurd jokes that that if Obama supporters saw Obama raping a nun they would say it's educational! And indeed, the NDAA fiasco underscores that, because, instead of listening to what Obama supporters had to say, they tell them they're wrong, they tell them that they're supporting indefinite detention even though the people who support Obama do not, in fact, do that.

I can support a bigot running a marathon for breast cancer research, that doesn't mean that I support bigotry because during the marathon I'm not telling them to shove it and get lost and fuck off!

[rhett o rick]

180. Again you distort what I say. But I am glad to help you.

There were those that were outraged when Bush abused the Constitution by domestic spying and various other infractions. Some of those are still outraged at these infractions when continued by the current Democratic administration. However, there are others that were outraged when Bush did it but are quiet when Obama does it. Quite simply these are hypocrites, and phoney Democrats. They do not hold true to Democratic principles. Further they disparage those that do hold to the Democratic principles and accuse them of betraying the Democrats.

[joshcryer]

182. It's not all black and white. And I quoted your own words.

I do not think I distorted what you said at all. Being "quiet when Obama does it" does not make you a "hypocrite and phony Democrat." Particularly if Obama didn't ask for the legislation and particularly when most Democrats voted against it. I would say of course, that those Democrats that vote for said legislation can be qualified as phony Democrats. I would not say that a post-partisan moderate President that campaigned on ultra-bipartisanship who presumably a lot of "not phony Democrats" voted for is not himself phony because he signs legislation that single issue voters give more credit to.

I've seen disparagement on both sides.

[woo me with science]

185. Well said. nt

[MichaelMcGuire]

120. This

"Watch this thread as it once again proves him right. I'm willing to bet there will be few if any comments actually dealing with the substance of his work."

[Romulox]

131. Nailed it. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. I think "real liberals" are catching onto GG. He & Paul have quite a bit in common.

They're both racist assholes. Quelle Surprise! Who couldn't see this coming?

[ProSense]

6. No shit! It's

becoming more clear why he harbored such screwed up views in the past.

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

Those evil illegal immigrants don't deserve amnesty!

Greenwald defended himself:

sahar_shafqat That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

That's why Obama cultists have to dig back 6 years into my archives to try to find things to discredit me.

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p

Shorter Greenwald: In 2005, I was just a baby in politics, only having just put to rest my trust in Bush and withdrawing my support for the Iraq war. Damn "Obama cultists."

[Tarheel_Dem]

20. It's fun watching GG twist in the wind, while namecalling at the same time, "Obama Cultists".

I'm just glad that some of the PL are waking up to this stealth Republican, and his bullshit. He "looked at Gary Johnson", and then Ron Paul? Hmmmmmm... That says it all.

[sabrina 1]

7. I think he is exposing the hypocrisy of some who have claimed to be liberals. And he is doing it

brilliantly. And relentlessly and the more they take his bait, the more exposed they are.

The claims of being being anti Bush policies eg, all fell away like magic as soon as the same policies ended up stamped with a D instead of an R.


And it's instructive to see what is emerging and especially to watch as not one of his detractors has actually dealt with the substance of his charges.

He's definitely enjoying himself. And the more they respond, the more they prove him right.

[ProSense]

8. That's

"I think he is exposing the hypocrisy of some who have claimed to be liberals. "

...us, liberals showing our "hypocrisy" for being against a racist lunatic.

[sabrina 1]

10. Anything to say that actually addresses the issues he has raised? You are going off topic

as always happens in these threads. But maybe this time you could actually respond to him ON THE ISSUES.

[ProSense]

12. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=126908

Still, I was reponding to your comment.

[sabrina 1]

24. I am not going to another thread, if you can't respond in this thread, then so be it.

[ProSense]

30. Would

"I am not going to another thread, if you can't respond in this thread, then so be it."

...you go to comment 3 in this thread, which is where the link takes you? It did not escape me that you mention the topic of this thread.

[sabrina 1]

88. And you asked has Greenwald ever stated that Paul has issues as he did regarding the

President. Do you ever read Greenwald at all? I mean anyone who has ever read him could not possibly ask that question with a straight face. Seriously.

[dionysus]

147. yes, his simply brilliant. brilliant... shines like the sun, he does...

[sabrina 1]

153. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration, and truthfully I suppose it doesn't take a lot

to do what he does so well.

[_ed_]

199. No True Scotsman

logical fallacy.

[ProSense]

3. So

One person who did understand the point here, to his credit, is Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum. His contribution to the ensuing debate was at least responsive and honest by addressing the point actually being made. In two separate posts, Drum insists that Paul does not even provide these debate-enhancing benefits because, in sum, he is a “crackpot” and “crackpots don’t make good messengers.” Thus, counsels Drum: “Find other allies.” Moreover: “Politics may make for strange bedfellows, but there are limits. There are some allies that aren’t worth having.”

There are many points worth making about Drum’s argument. To begin with (and this is somewhat of an ancillary point, but still important in my view): labeling people “crazy” as a means of dismissing their views — basically depicting political disagreement as a mental illness — is one of the oldest and stalest means of discrediting people who dissent; it’s basically the prime weapon used to enforce mainstream orthodoxy and punish dissidents. Taken to its most extreme and odious conclusion, the Soviet Union institutionalized anyone challenging Communist orthodoxy in mental hospitals, and China now does the same. Charles Krauthammer continuously abused his psychiatric license to diagnose Bush critics as suffering from mental illnesses and to delegitimize (progressive) criticisms of Bush as a form of insanity; to accomplish this, he even purported to identify a new disease, Bush Derangement Syndrome, which is the exact phrase (with “Obama” symbolically replacing “Bush”) that has now seamlessly been adopted and applied to critics of the current President by some of the most rabid Obama defenders.

...is taking issue with Drum calling Ron Paul a crackpot?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002112129

It's really funny to see a person who engages in name calling offended by the fact that someone called a lunatic a crackpot.

Greenwald, I'm sure, will be writng another screed declaring that he doesn't support Paul.

The point is not to delegitimize the viewing of at Ron Paul’s candidacy as providing an important antidote to some of President Obama’s grave moral and political failings. The real point is to delegitimze any effort to turn elsewhere away from President Obama or to do anything to point out that he suffers grave moral and political failings at all (here is the scorn Drum heaped on the Democratic presidential candidates in 2008 who challenged many of these same policies). The mission here is to enforce partisan loyalty: criticize all you want, but stay loyally in the fold. Even as a means to expand and improve the range of debate, suggesting that someone may be comparatively superior to President Obama on vital issues — especially when that someone is not a loyal member of the Democratic Party — is the real sin.

Does he believe Paul has any "grave moral and political failings"? I mean, a racist, John Bircher, Gover Norquist supporting, anti-gay, anti-civil rights lunatic who's afraid to use the same toilet as a gay man is not normal.

[sabrina 1]

13. Should mental illness be used to trash political opponents with by Progressives?

What do you think? I have a relative with actual mental illness and definitely do not approve of the use of the word 'crazy' as an insult. How about you?

[ProSense]

14. Wait

"Should mental illness be used to trash political opponents with by Progressives?"

...Paul is mentally ill?

Bizarre!

[sabrina 1]

27. That wasn't even a good try! Did you not agree with the claim that Paul is 'crazy'?

As you know I directed my comment to you because you seemed to be endorsing it. If you do, fine, but it's not very progressive to use mental illness as a political tool. I got the impression from your comment above that you condoned it. If I am wrong, then please say so.

[ProSense]

40. Wait

"Did you not agree with the claim that Paul is 'crazy'?"

...Ron Paul is a lunatic is pretty clear. He's not just "crazy," he's batshit "crazy."

[sabrina 1]

45. So you have no problem using mental illness as a political tool. And that is progressive? How?

I appreciate Greenwald's defense of the mentally ill. Sorry you don't agree.

[ProSense]

50. I

"So you have no problem using mental illness as a political tool. And that is progressive? How?"

...don't know about you, but I don't refer to the "mental illness" as lunacy. Ron Paul is not mentally ill, he's a lunatic. He's batshit crazy.

Did you think that introducing that red herring would protect Paul from criticism?

[sabrina 1]

90. Did you think I wanted to 'protect Paul from criticism'??

Or was that just an attempt to distract from what people are objecting to?? I'm seeing a lot of flailing around, a lot of the old and definitely ineffective tactics of trying to distract, to undermine, to insult, to do anything but acknowledge the core facts that Greenwald stated, and that Katrina vanden Heuvel has stated and that anyone with any contact with reality has stated, the fact that Paul has managed to attract people from across the political spectrum including Progressives for the simple reason that NO ONE on the National Political scene is articulating as clearly as he has done, opposition to Wall Street's grip on our government and opposition to current US Foreign policy.

Now is it hard to stick to the topic and address those facts as stated by Greenwald and Katrina Vanden Heuvel among others, to explain why Paul has 'struck a cord' with such a diverse cross section of the population including Progressives? All the other stuff you are throwing around has zero to do with these facts. Unless you are contradicting the facts which I have not seen you do.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Your mentally ill relative- would you want that person in charge of this country's nuclear arsenal?

Be honest, now.

[sabrina 1]

100. Has there been a diagnosis of mental illness that I have not heard of? Was Alan Grayson informed

of this when he worked with Paul to get an audit of the Federal Reserve? Has anyone informed Katrina vanden Heuvel that the man she agrees with on the very same issues Greenwald has stated, is mentally ill? And how about Dennis Kucinich? Did he know he was working with a mentally ill person when he joined forces with him to oppose Bush's illegal war?

I find it reprehensible to sink to the level of using mental health as a tool to attack a political opponent, it is offensive to those who actually are mentally ill as it says to them that being mentally is a shameful thing to be and only people we despise are mentally ill. My relative has been diagnosed with a mental illness, that does not make him a bad person. He is in fact a very good person.

I am becoming increasingly disgusted with politics especially since at one time I thought that these kinds of Rovian tactics, the vicious personal atttacks on political opponents, like Kerry and Clinton, were engaged in only by the Right.

Ron Paul is not mentally ill. I know what mental illness is and the fact that you would use this, that you would say it is a shameful thing, is imho, shameful in itself, especially coming from the Democratic side of the aisle. And the more comments like this I see, the more correct Glenn Greenwald's predictions are.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. Oh, for fuck's sake. Politicians are called "crazy" all the time, even ones far saner than

Ron "The Illuminati Controls The Fed" Paul.

Yes, he's been right on some things- like Iraq (so was Pat Buchanan, who is still a Nazi fuck) ... broken clock, etc. Hell, I find his attitude towards the drug war, at the very least, a refreshing step in the right direction...

but Ron Paul is a grown-up, I'm sure he put on his big boy pants when he got up this morning and he's playing the grown up game of politics, and if being called "crazy" is the worst piece of invective the guy hears, actually, he's in pretty good company.

So please, stop with the "it's not progressive" finger-wagging at folks who call Ron Paul Crazy. It's not progressive to be an anti-choice homophobe, either, but that hasn't stopped a legion of erstwhile Ron Paul defenders from standing up for the dude on a Democratic website.

[sabrina 1]

107. I assume then that you did not read the OP.

Greenwald referred to the fact that those attacking him, have used the claim that Paul is mentally ill to attack HIM.

There is only one issue, and not one of Greenwald's attackers have yet addressed it, that is apparetly the reason for all this poo flinging. Which leads me to agree with Greenwald, that his attackers have brought up everything including the kitchen sink, and speaking of homophopia, including attacking him because he is gay, but not one of them has yet disagreed with his main point, which had nothing at all to do with defending Paul. And the more comments I see, the more he is proven to be correct. That they know he is right, but are doing all the can for some inexplicable reason to try to deflect from what he actually said.

[Warren DeMontague]

111. You're objecting to the calling of ANY politician "crazy", unless I'm mistaken.

And, sorry, I don't think that's going to happen. I have alcoholism genes in my family, I've seen what that horrible disease, condition, what-have-you can do... yet I also understand why people called Nixon a "drunk". I can't get on board with the excessive language policing; I think some of these shorthand labels are there for a reason.

Beyond that, getting to GG's actual point, I agree with him on some of it- and I think the answer is for our party to adopt some long-overdue sanity on shit like the drug war, etc. Whether or not people have attacked Greenwald's sexuality- and if they have, that's despicable- that and the fact that he's gay doesn't erase Ron Paul's history of bigotry in a whole host of areas.

What's sad, really, is that our party has left so many of us adrift and uninspired, again, in areas like shoring up the bill of rights, ending the drug war, cutting back on military adventurism, etc. that we need to look at crazies- yes, crazies- like Ron Paul to hear someone, anyone, say some sane shit on these topics.

[sabrina 1]

112. Thank you. Finally, someone who actually addressed Greenwald's actual point.

I agree with everything you just said. Greenwald is a very focused writer. He was merely commenting on the fact that the only person on the national stage addressing issues that are important to progressives, unfortunately was NOT a Democrat, but someone like Paul. That is all. Since he made those points, the blogosphere has gone wild with accusations, including assuming he is angry at Obama because of Obama's position on Doma, and also he has been accused of not 'writing about Gay issues, presumably because if you are Gay, you are obligated to confine yourself to writing about Gay issues.

But no one who has attacked him that I have seen, has addressed the core of his arguments as you just did. Thank you for doing so

[librechik]

150. exactly and cheers to you for pointing it out

The game of trying to destroy strong voices on the left is very tiresome. Liberals are tolerant of voices on the edge like Glenn's that's why we are called liberals. That characteristic of ours is trashed by dismissive and bigoted voices such as the ones your debate above. They are not of the left if they don't at least allow Glenn his opinions.

[sabrina 1]

162. 'Not of the left'

Not the left I am familiar with. The left is known for its ability to argue with facts. If Greenwald is so wrong, the left should have no problem destroying HIS ARGUMENT. But we're still waiting to see that happen.

The way to actually shut him up would be to point to the Democrat on the national stage who actually is saying the things Paul is saying.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. Right On.

[Swede]

18. Greenwald should stop digging.

Doubling down on his Paul essay is not a win.

[sabrina 1]

34. Actually he's milking the attention he's getting from all over the place now

and of course he's doubling down. He was correct in his initial assessment of Paul's candidacy and why it had attracted so many supporters from across the political spectrum. Nothing of what he said was an endorsement, it was an analysis of a political fact. But a few out of control angry people went into a totally out of proportion fit, resorting to name calling and smears and personal attacks on him, on the fact that he is Gay etc. etc. and all they accomplished was to prove him right.

Since then he has received so much support that I guess he has decided to keep the story going knowing he can depend on the usual suspects to see red at the very sight of his name. I remember a prominent blogger once saying that 'links are currency' to a blogger. And it doesn't matter if the reason for the links and the mentions on Google, are positive or negative.

But throughout all of the hysteria he has generated from stating some simple facts, his detractors have not once addressed the issues he raised.

[joshcryer]

53. Read the comments, Ron Paul supporters outnumber progressives overwhelmingly.

It's quite telling.

I, a detractor, have "once addressed the issues he raised."

Actually, I have done it multiple times.

Maybe I just don't count to you.

[sabrina 1]

57. I'm not following you. Ron Paul supporters do not outnumber progressives.

Lol, you count, so you can stop crying, but I don't know what you are saying. Greenwald has not said that Paul supporters outnumber Progressives. He said that Paul has attracted people from across the political spectrum because he is the only prominent politician running for national office who has denounced America's Foreign policies and Wall Street. Greenwald has stated correctly, that Paul's public positions on these issues has attracted some Progressives as well as Libertarians, Independents and Republicans. I agree with that. Because it is an undeniable fact.

So, why is everyone freaking out over someone stating a few facts that everyone knows anyhow??

[joshcryer]

62. You said GG's arguments "attracted so many supporters from across the political spectrum"...

...but the comment section of his articles where he amps up Ron Paul are in fact littered with Ron Paul supporters, overwhelmingly. Go read the comments, you'll see.

His first one actually got a lot of Ron Paul detractors, are they not progressives? He says that they are "deliberate — deterrence-driven punishment."

[sabrina 1]

86. No, I said Greenwald's argument was that Paul had attracted supporters from across the

political spectrum including Progressives. He explained why, and agreeing with him are such Progressives as Katrina vanden Heuvel among others. That is a fact. No one has disputed it, even his detractors who have spent their time on personal attacks, pretty heinous, despicable attacks and have as a result, totally discredited themselves.

But the one thing not one of them has done, as he predicted, is to successfully refute what he has said. And for some reason, a man stating a fact, also stated by several other prominent progressives, has cause a few people to totally lose their minds.

[joshcryer]

92. Oh, I'm not disputing that at all.

I misread you and thought we were talking about the article. I was merely observing that many of the comments were Ron Paul supporters who I, as a progressive, have nothing in common with.

[sabrina 1]

94. Okay! n/t

[msanthrope]

5. Another GG column where he's just talking about Ron Paul approvingly, but not 'supporting' him?

Give it a rest, Glenn--endorse the guy, already! Stop hiding behind the milquetoast "he is a voice that needs to be heard."

Katha Pollitt has his number--

"Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is so outraged that progressives haven’t abandoned the warmongering, drone-sending, indefinite-detention-supporting Obama for Paul that he accuses them of supporting the murder of Muslim children. There’s a Paul fan base in the Occupy movement and at Counterpunch, where Alexander Cockburn is a longtime admirer. Paul is a regular guest of Jon Stewart, who has yet to ask him a tough question. And yes, these are all white men; if there are leftish white women and people of color who admire Paul, they’re keeping pretty quiet.

SNIP

If Ron Paul was interested in peace, he wouldn’t be a Republican—that party has even more enthusiasm for the military-industrial complex than the Democrats. For decades the GOP has turned every election into a contest over who is more macho, more nationalistic, more willing to do exactly the things lefty Paul fans excoriate Obama for doing. Paul doesn’t get re-elected in his Texas district because of boutique positions like thinking Osama bin Laden should have been arrested, not assassinated.

Supporting Ralph Nader in 2000 was at least a vote for one’s actual politics. Supporting Ron Paul is just a gesture of frivolity—or despair."

http://www.thenation.com/article/165440/ron-pauls-strange-bedfellows

[ProSense]

16. He also quotes a

tweet by Katharine Vanden Huevel, who followed up with:

"Ron Paul's racism disqualifying and despicable, as I tweeted a few minutes ago"

http://twitter.com/#!/KatrinaNation/status/152842211090903040

Typical Greenwald, leaving out key details.

[joshcryer]

17. At first I thought he was backing down from the rhetoric, but I was surprised to see the Ron Paul...

...appreciation further down in the article.

[russspeakeasy]

19. GG is one of the few that make any sense.

When I asked on one of the last rants "where he endorsed Ron Paul", I was given a bunch of out of context quotes.
Who the hell else is willing to point out liberal shortfalls? For those constant trashers of GG;
I think you are trying to start a verbal war under a false flag.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. It hurts when your heroes turn out to be racist a-holes, huh? And talk about "shortfalls".

[sabrina 1]

36. Never had it happen. Sounds like you have had some experience though,

may I offer my sympathies, I can't even imagine how that must feel!

[sabrina 1]

42. I agree. The reason you don't get an answer to that question, is because he has always made

himself clear and it is impossible to back up that assertion.

His point was understood by a majority of people. The rage directed at him for pointing out facts, is very hard to understand. Not once have I seen anyone actually successfully refute what he has said. I have the most vile personal attacks on him, having zero to do what he actually said, but no argument against what he actually said.

[JackRiddler]

22. Heh. Unfortunately still won't be engaged on the merits.

It'll all be ad hominem and accusations that he "endorses" Paul. Oh, and that Greenwald is a racist, which I find to be the worst not only because it's slander but also because it cheapens an important concept. There is real racism in the world, it shouldn't be trivialized like this.

[joshcryer]

31. I engaged on the merits last time, this is a rehash.

I don't see anything new, really. It'll get lots of hits. I'm close to being bored discussing it.

[joshcryer]

41. Here, Jack, here's what I wrote to him on his comments (doubt he'll respond):

My problem with your contention (and continued implication) that Ron Paul's views "desperately need to be heard" is that I do not feel that those views are ideologically compatible with liberalism or progressivism. It's bad enough that we have good, respectful progressives actually repeating "anti-war" when it comes to Ron Paul as if it actually means being against war. Put it this way, if Ron Paul's views had to be heard, and the perception that his views were compatible with ours had to be maintained, we'd risk distancing ourselves from other progressives or moderates if we were unable to maintain the perception that his views were compatible. For example, if a debate moderator asked Ron Paul, "Why do you want to reduce United States military presence around the world?" you would get a wonderful, flowery, appreciative response that almost any progressive could agree with (Fed stuff notwithstanding). However, if a moderator asked the question, "Would you ban foreign companies from enacting bribes in foreign states, hiring foreign mercenaries, and installing Banana Republics"? He would stutter like the miscreant that his ideology espouses. So, you obviously run the risk of his *actual* ideology which is *not* anti-war being heard, and if you've amped him up beforehand, you look like a stuttering idiot for having done so. When other progressives call Ron Paul crazy, they are talking about his actual ideology, not about, what one might say, the perceptions people have of him as a typical lying politician.

[sabrina 1]

168. That is a thoughtful post. However, his response would be that you are assuming he

was supporting PAUL and that he himself has not pointed out Paul's awful policies, which he has. In fact he's been attacked by Paul supporters for his criticism of Paul.

What he said was that the issues being raised by Paul 'needed to heard' and he has said over and over, PREFERABLY not by Paul. And that it is a shame that those issues are only being heard by someone as flawed as Paul, rather than by a Democrat. He knows how dangerous Paul would be and that is why is angry, that since no one else is articulating these very important issues, Democrats especially have conceded the to Paul.

[joshcryer]

175. I did not make that assumption anywhere in my comment, if you read it you would know.

I never once said he was supporting or suggested he was supporting Ron Paul. Indeed, he prefaced any criticism with the contention that if anyone said he was supporting Ron Paul they were being partisan for Obama. Therefore I have gone to extreme lengths to not say that or suggest that.

Meanwhile all of my responses to him on his blog have been responded with psychopathic Libertarian, capitalists, bashing progressives. While at the same time praising GG for giving them a platform. Fun times.

[sabrina 1]

178. Then I misunderstood.

As far as the Libertarians, last time I was there, several days ago, they were angry at Greenwald because he pointed out some of Paul's 'crazy' ideas. One thing about Greenwald, if you are there long enough, EVERYONE will be mad at you sooner or later. He's managed to get just about everyone angry at him at one time or another.

[joshcryer]

179. Go to around page 30 if you want to see their responses to me, they're insane.

Sorry, GG, everyone else, I am not shutting them down, I can have a 1000 word debate with Libertarians all day and night. I spent 50% of my internet history debating these people, and they are insane. They are crazy. This is not intended to "shut them down." They are. Read what they're saying to me.

One of them thinks Civil Rights Act was racist in itself and that everything would've been fine if Jim Crow laws were still in effect.

I really have no stomach to debate these fucking assholes today (talking about Libertarians).

(PS it might've moved from page 30 because comments are weird there, but it's around there, maybe 32-33.)

[sabrina 1]

188. Liberatarians are the must frustrating people to argue with.

I've been on rightwing blogs and fought with Bush supporters and they were fierce, but Libertarians are like cultists. When you ask them simple questions like 'who will build roads if no one pays taxes', try to get an answer out of them. They believe that everyone will pitch in and if people die, well, it's the survival of the fittest. But at least you died 'free'. Geez, I would rather live free. They think taxes are 'theft'.

I don't doubt what you are saying ...

[JackRiddler]

25. The reaction here now reminds me of this strategy....

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1276

The idea seems to be to repeatedly pin bad words and falsehoods to Greenwald until they appear to stick.

[sabrina 1]

47. Except that today people are a lot more sophisticated about these smear campaigns so they

don't work the way they used to be. Especially when they appear to be orchestrated. Greenwald has been a target of some pretty powerful people before. Pretty scary to think that a blogger would be targeted that way by people who have connections to the US Government. And for blogging? I imagine that experience has prepared him, even though at the time I am sure it was a shock to know you were on a hit list.

[Dewey Finn]

59. Disagreement = smear campaign

Object of scorn = target by the government

Ridicule for overheated rhetoric = hit list

Do tell us more about sophistication. No doubt it will be very educational, though not in the way I presume you think it would be.

[JackRiddler]

74. Oh, right! The spook team targeting Greenwald...

exposed earlier this year.

Here was my thread on it on DU:

How to destroy Wikileaks and Glenn Greenwald - Spooks pitch plan to Bank of America
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&hl=en&q=cache YRDuSe1vS4J:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x386784+jackriddler+greenwald+barr+themis&ct=clnk

The graphics I made out of it are not currently online.

Anyway, compared to seeing a memo about how a bunch of spooks wanted to destroy you on behalf of Bank of America, the current all-strawman attacks by the most inflexible among liberal pundits must seem like a distant fart.

[sabrina 1]

78. Thanks, I will be writing about it myself as I think it is important to remember that the US

Government, and there was a claim that they may have been involved with HBGary in some way, a fact Dem. Rep Hank Johnson was outraged over and asked for a Congressional Investigation into all of this. I am trying to find out what happened to that Committee, anyhow, that the US Govt or its 'contractors' certainly BOA's contractors would go to so much trouble to silence a blogger. Pretty scary to think of.

HBGary is still in business, I found out. Not the subsidiary, HBGary Federal. So seeing this concerted attack on Greenwald over the past week, reminded me that he has been a target and maybe he should take some precautions, just in case.

[MichaelMcGuire]

122. Thanks for sharing

[sabrina 1]

124. Jack, those links are not working for some reason. Would love to read it though.

[JackRiddler]

128. Here are some links about HB Gary vs. Wikileaks/Anonymous/Greenwald

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:15 PM - Edit history (2)

Sorry about that, the host for the images is down and thus my commentaries make little sense. Punch-and-Judy:

1) When Aaron Barr of the security firm and private military contractor HB Gary Federal threatened to expose the alleged leadership of Anonymous (his guess was wrong),

2) Anonymous retaliated by hacking Barr's mail accounts and throwing it on the Web,

3) allowing everyone to discover Barr's pitch to Bank of America for how HB Gary and two other security firms in an alliance called "Team Themis" could end their Wikileaks problem for them.

Barr's idea, gleaned from his own power point presentation, was to conduct multiplatform surveillance, spoofing and harrassment of Assange and Wikileaks, including of his family and his network, which Barr decided must include Greenwald as the main US supporter.

When this and other similarly criminal plans were exposed, BoA and other entities like Chamber of Commerce promptly denied having accepted any of Barr's pitches. Although Barr was initially recommended to BoA by their own fancy law firm. So who knows?

ON EDIT: Fixed some language, added more links...

Some stories off the Google:

http://gezellig.info/neighbourhood-watch-2-anonymous-militaryindustrial-complex/

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/02/spy/

Very in-depth technical version (excellent!)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/how-one-security-firm-tracked-anonymousand-paid-a-heavy-price.ars/1

Greenwald's reaction
http://www.salon.com/2011/02/15/palantir/

Greenwald talks about it on Colbert
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/375429/february-24-2011/corporate-hacker-tries-to-take-down-wikileaks---glenn-greenwald

I can't see the video anymore (Flash issues) but if it includes Colbert's initial summary of the case, it's excellent.
Following thread has much more material compiled, if you can get past the silly in-jokes at the start...
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31176

[sabrina 1]

154. Thank you, watching Colbert. Lol, he's so good.

[frazzled]

26. What a confused self-defense

He seems to be saying (though the writing is so manic it's sometimes hard to tell) that Paul deserves to be "heard" on issues of war and "imperialism." (As if those are the only issues, but I digress.) But that's kind of like saying Pat Buchanan deserves to be heard on these issues: both Buchanan and Paul come to this position from the belief that the government must be shrunken down to the size of a peanut and do practically nothing. This leads to their isolationist position on everything from war to foreign aid (and their concomitant wish to completely nuke any and all domestic programs, such as SS and Medicare). We're back to square one on Greenwald's position regarding Paul: it's misguided and wrong.

Paul's is NOT an antiwar, anti-imperialist vision that any liberal or progressive should endorse. Ends don't justify means, and the means are really, really mean here.

[ProSense]

32. Exactly,

"Paul's is NOT an antiwar, anti-imperialist vision that any liberal or progressive should endorse. Ends don't justify means, and the means are really, really mean here."

...but Greenwald insists on selling him as such. He is determined to do so, excusing away Paul's crazy propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

49. How is he selling him that way?? Did you read his columns at all? He has been crystal clear

about Paul's politics for a long time. From your comments I think you have not read a word he has said. He has pointed out the reasons why Paul has attracted supporters from across the political spectrum. If you can dispute that this is a fact, then please do. Stating facts does not translate into anything more than the facts stated. You are adding your own words to the points he has made.

The fact is that Paul is saying things about Wall Street and about our Imperial Wars that so far, no prominent Democrat or Republican is saying. It is irrelevant what his reasons are, we all know what they are, the point is people are listening and Greenwald was in a way issuing a warning.

Now if that is incorrect, please point to prominent Democrats and Republicans who are saying the same things and prove him wrong. But his contention is that Paul's support is there because of a lack of anyone in either party speaking out against Wall Street and Imperial Wars.

[joshcryer]

37. Pat Buchanan isn't actually a candidate or is he running.

What's more interesting is that Obama came out in favor of reducing the military, and of course, it wasn't once mentioned in the article or in the updates.

Obama coming out for reduction of the military guarantees that the issue will merit discussion during the debates.

Paul's is NOT an antiwar, anti-imperialist vision that any liberal or progressive should endorse. Ends don't justify means, and the means are really, really mean here.

Exactly, I've been saying this for weeks now. Except, I believe there exist no evidence to suggest that GG actually appreciates or understands that Libertarian "anti-war" is not the same as Liberal anti-war. For Libertarian's, it words only.

[frazzled]

39. Did I say he was a candidate?

No, I did not. And I didn't think that was relevant to the argument I was making

But I agree with what you are saying wholeheartedly.

[joshcryer]

43. Hey, I wasn't disagreeing, frazz, I was just saying that's GG's response to that.

Ron Paul is the only candidate is what he repeatedly says. I respect and agree with you wholeheartedly, and I think it's a good argument, but I consider pundits to be pedants, and they'd just ignore the ethical and moral observation and say "Waaah, I said candidate!" I don't think it is relevant to the argument you were making, either, from a philosophical view, but it'd be shut down because GG and others would claim "That's not the argument!"

See, pundits have to control the narrative, if they don't, they lose.

[frazzled]

133. I see, but he was a presidential candidate --

a significant one -- for the Republicans, several times. So I still think he does belong in the category.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Nobody is endorsing Paul's "vision" but you better believe that A VISION that is anti-war,

pro-civil liberties, anti-police state, anti-corporate capture, pro-privacy vision is demanded and one of economic justice at that (which of course isn't coming from ol Doc Crackpot in any shape, form, or fashion).

That being the case any push of these concepts is a far better than average one. You don't think ten years down this rabbit hole and going deeper by the day, that maybe it is crucial that someone in the spotlight be talking about protecting due process or over a generation of eating our own at a ruinous cost that it is time to end the failed drug war or that maybe we need to cut out the toxic, self defeating, stupid, unwinnable, destabalizing, often insane, and very pricey wars that are mostly killing folks by the thousands that were't paying us any mind until we occupied their countries and install our toadies that murder and plunder at will?

The dumbest thing in political history would be for this lilly livered and/or complicit party to allow the misconception to get set in that the only path to the ideas is through the born failed right wing libertarian ideology.

I don't know how anyone expects an anti-civil liberties, pro-war, pro-drug war, pro-corporate, pro-police state, program cutting, anti-public education, bipartisan Democratic party to hold up. The party and the partisan rank and file are insanely trying to run away from about any and all issues and steering the electorate in a visceral us against them devoid of ideals, expectations, accountability, or even the interest of the nation and our people.

The easy excuse for any new depth in depravity? The other guy is sure to do far worse, especially now that this is out there.

How low can we go? To whatever depths the TeaPubliKlans are willing to go is the only possible check on this race to the bottom.

[joshcryer]

55. It'd be good if Ron Paul was actually for those things, but he's not.

[TheKentuckian]

102. It makes little difference, the point is to get such concepts into the mass awareness.

Ideas not personality.

The personality, I also reject. I reject his economics vehemently but because he uses these policies as his way of seperating from the herd and grabbing attention they are discussed and disscussed all over.

What do you think he would be allowed to win???

The only way he gets converts is if they don't get an alternative so what is the stress?

The only thing I can ever get out of these threads is fear of the discussion of these issues. Especially since no amount of fear exists in discussing very similar economics. We don't want to talk about wars and military spending, we don't want to talk about civil liberties, we don't want to talk about ending the insane drug war, and we sure as hell don't even want a peep about control of the money supply. I'm not a gold nut or a deficit hawk but I see no reason for a commitee of banksters to be running the show for a profit and then turn around and reap the rewards of their policies. What was supposed to be a check on concentration of power just transfers it to a few less accountable hands.

[joshcryer]

103. Don't attribute Ron Paul's ideas to all progressives.

Some of us know that they're corrupt.

Call it fear if you want, but I'd rather not have the headache of the Libertarians getting a platform and using us to get there.

[frazzled]

135. What a dangerous idea

Say you were living in Germany in 1929 and 30, after the crash and the world financial crisis, and this guy came along and promised to strengthen the economy and provide jobs. Those are great ideas, right? Ideas that needed to be put into the "mass awareness" as you say. Only the problem is that this guy whose ideas you think are sensible and necessary (though everything else about him and his policies and tactics is wholly noxious) is named Adolph Hitler.

That's a true story.

[TheKentuckian]

184. The Party has the option of pushing good policy.

and leading in these area rather than the polar opposite.

Hitler's opposition wasn't running on expanding joblessness and scuttling the economy and if they did how shocking is it that they lost out?

Imagine pushing such an absolutely batshit platform! An anti-civil liberties, pro-war, pro-drug war Democratic party is almost that stupid

Instead of wringing hands about crazy old money grubbing fuckwit, the more productive course would be to spend the energy pushing our "leaders" toward sanity instead of reauthorizing the Patriot Act, passing indefinite detention acts, busting medical marijuana centers, and enabling military adventures to our ruin but the demonstrated truth is a focus on shutting down and delegitimizing the conversation.

No one could have legitimized the Nazis more than a bunch of fucking idiots trying to shut down dialog on jobs but we have plenty stupidly trying to do just the equivalent. You know how to run with this but refuse, so consider how foolhardy your approach is, it is fucking nuts.

Not to mention being anti-civil liberties is authoritarian in the extreme, without them we are well on our way to everything we are supposed to oppose and we cannot also be corporatists, merging state and industry aka fascist.

[sabrina 1]

190. Perfectly said, thank you! n/t

[MFrohike]

58. Wow

"The dumbest thing in political history would be for this lilly livered and/or complicit party to allow the misconception to get set in that the only path to the ideas is through the born failed right wing libertarian ideology."

A-fucking-men.

[sabrina 1]

98. Why do you think Dennis Kucinich worked with Paul to try to stop the war in Iraq during

the Bush administration?

Why did Alan Grayson work with Paul on the auditing of the Fed Reserve? Should they have shunned this person now being painted as a hater, a racist, a liar, etc.?

Does it discredit Grayson and Kucinich and Katrina Vanden Heuvel (who agrees with Greenwald re the reasons why Paul has attracted supporters) that they associated with him in any way?

Both are up for reelection, should Progressives hold their associations with Paul against them?

[girl gone mad]

35. Good post.

Thank you.

[ProSense]

38. Ron Paul Endorsed by David Duke, Linked to the John Birch Society

Ron Paul Endorsed by David Duke, Linked to the John Birch Society
http://www.lgbtpov.com/2011/12/ron-paul-endorsed-by-david-duke-linked-to-the-john-birch-society/

Score!

The Messenger
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002127174

[sabrina 1]

44. David Duke endorsed Kerry once also.

Do you have any comment on the OP at all?

[ProSense]

48. And

"David Duke endorsed Kerry once also."

....we know Kerry is a lunatic with racist views, right? Did Kerry solicit the endorsement of people who seek to kill gays?

Anything to defend Ron Paul right?

[sabrina 1]

52. I would not presume to diagnose the state of anyone's mental health, I am not a doctor.

You seemed to feel that there was some significance to Duke's endorsement of Paul. I pointed out that Duke also endorsed Kerry. My reason for doing so was to point out that I saw no significance to your comment. It was off topic and Duke has endorsed many people.

But back to the topic. Do you have any comment on the substance of what Glenn Greenwald has said about why Paul is attracting support from across the political spectrum?

[ProSense]

54. Do

"I would not presume to diagnose the state of anyone's mental health, I am not a doctor. "

...you think someone who advocates killing gays is sane?

How about someone who claims that blacks intentionally infected whites with HIV? Sane?

[sabrina 1]

56. Links please. And you still have not addressed the topic of this thread.

[ProSense]

60. By

"Links please. "

...asking for links, are you saying you don't believe the claims? Paul's horrific views have been plastered all over the place.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100281161

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002127174

[sabrina 1]

68. That links to someone named Kayser. You stated that Paul had advocated the killing of Gays.

That is a pretty serious charge. But your link does not back that up at all. You made a serious claim, either link to Paul's words or I will assume he has not advocated what you just claimed.

And what does any of this have to do with what Greenwald wrote? Since no one here is a Paul supporter, I fail to see why you are acting as if they were.

The substance of Greenwald's arguments is that people across the political spectrum including some Progressives support Paul because he is articulating opposition to Wall Street and Imperial Wars. Is that a fact or not? That is the topic of this thread.

[ProSense]

81. Really?

"That is a pretty serious charge. But your link does not back that up at all. You made a serious claim, either link to Paul's words or I will assume he has not advocated what you just claimed. "

I asked if some who advocates killing gays is sane. I have stated many times that Paul panders to people who advocate killing gays.

Now, you think that's a pretty serious charge? He accepted the endorsement and hyped it on his site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=127407

You can follow the links to the screen shot.

[sabrina 1]

84. Do you have any comment on the OP?

[ProSense]

87. Didn't

"Do you have any comment on the OP?"

...you ask me that here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002126863#post10

See the responses.

[Luminous Animal]

70. I checked out both of your links and I could find nothing about blacks infecting whites with HIV.

[ProSense]

83. Another

"I checked out both of your links and I could find nothing about blacks infecting whites with HIV."

...denial? Are you familiar with Paul's newletters?

From the link:

And then the dispatches must be honestly grappled with: It must be argued that a man who could not manage a newsletter should be promoted to managing a nuclear arsenal. Failing that, it must be asserted that a man who once claimed that black people were knowingly injecting white people with HIV, who fund-raised by predicting a race-war, who handsomely profited from it all, should lead the free world. If that line falls too, we are forced to confess that Ron Paul regularly summoned up the specters of racism for his own politically gain, and thus stands convicted of moral cowardice.

Now there are links embedded in the original (not the DU post), you can follow them to the information.

Suddenly, people are ignorant of Paul's views?

[Luminous Animal]

101. Ah, so you wanted me to go on a treasure hunt!

I suspected your point was a link within a link. Really, if your going to offer up your OWN posts to back up your claims, then substantiation should be clearly evident. Your tactic is tedious and why people are loath to click on your links. First one has to go to your post, read the entire thing and then oops (!) what you claim is not there so then... you have to click on the link in from that link and read that entire damn thing. In threads you squeeze out information like little nuggets of blue poop. Many people don't want to waste their time tracking your spoor.

And yes, I am familiar with Paul's newsletters. I've skimmed nearly all of them the past few weeks.

[Whisp]

119. fullofit

[Dewey Finn]

61. You're asking for links? Really?

Why? So you can turn around and ridicule them for being blue?

[ProSense]

63. I saw a great comment on a Daily Kos diary:

"I don't support Ron Paul, but" is the new "I'm not racist, but".

[sabrina 1]

73. Now why is that not a surprise? You need more credible sources I'm afraid.

[sabrina 1]

65. ???

'Blue', what does that mean?

[Dewey Finn]

69. Yes, because you have no idea whatsoever about the scorn repeated here ad infinitum

about "blue links, blue links, blue links." Right.

[sabrina 1]

75. I don't do 'scorn'. But then, you are new here, so maybe you didn't know that.

[Dewey Finn]

80. Oh, I see.

So the scorn I've seen you "doing" since 2008 was a figment of my imagination?

PS - I've made no secret of the fact that I've been active here since 2003, which - assuming my math isn't too fuzzy - is half a decade before you got here.

[sabrina 1]

82. You're hi-jacking this thread and becoming personal. Do you have any comment on the OP?

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 06:39 AM - Edit history (1)

Oh yes, and your math is fuzzy, I've been here a lot longer than that. Try 2004. Not that it matters.

[Dewey Finn]

89. Actually, post #75 (by you) is where it got "personal" & threadjacking was attempted

but never mind.The OP? It's crap. I've been reading and usually appreciating Greenwald for years, but he's no more qualified to counsel the Democratic Party on something than I am to tell an alfalfa farmer how to grow alfalfa. Thanks much for asking.

(edited for typo)

[sabrina 1]

93. No, actually it got personal at post #61 when you, someone I do not know,

pre-emptively accusedme of doing something I have never done and had no intention of doing. And now I am done with this conversation.

[Dewey Finn]

95. Thank Christ for that!

[ellisonz]

118. Ron Paul isn't just linked to the John Birch Society...

...He's their number one fanboy!

And when he moved on to talk about his first successful campaign for Congress in 1976, he said, “I’m sure there are people in this room who probably helped me in that campaign, because I know that so many of you have over the years.” He then described his first press conference at the Capitol Hill Club, during which an antagonist from Houston asked him, “Mr. Paul, are you a member of the John Birch Society? Have you ever been a member of the John Birch Society?”

Dr. Paul recalled his response: “No, I am not a member of the John Birch Society but many members of the John Birch Society are friends of mine and they have been very helpful in my campaign.”

http://www.lgbtpov.com/2011/12/ron-paul-endorsed-by-david-duke-linked-to-the-john-birch-society/

My Fuck Ron Paul video:

&context=C316db10ADOEgsToPDskI-tcnd6bG10gAyFeNhg5Gh

[Laelth]

129. That's some impressive honesty there, ProSense.

I admire the fact that you tacitly admit that your response to Greenwald is to shoot the messenger.

Democrats might be better served by actually listening to what he's saying, but that's just my opinion.

-Laelth

[MilesColtrane]

51. So, Glenn's not saying he's for Paul.

He's just saying there's no difference between Obama and Romney.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've found our new Ralph Nader.

[Luminous Animal]

67. Actually, he didn't say that he said this:

"The chances that any of these issues will be debated in an Obama/Romney presidential contest are exactly zero. On all of these issues — Endless War, empire, steadfast devotion to the Israeli government, due-process-free assassinations, multiple-nation drone assaults, escalating confrontation with Iran, the secretive, unchecked Surveillance and National Security States, the sadistic and racist Drug War, the full-scale capture of the political process by bankers and oligarchs — Romney is fully supportive of President Obama’s actions (except to the extent he argues they don’t go far enough: and those critiques will almost certainly be modulated once the primary is over, resulting in ever greater convergence between the two)."

On those issues listed, how much do Romney and Obama differ?

[joshcryer]

71. Romney has yet to make a statement on the reduction in military that I see.

So I don't know at least on that particular matter.

[Luminous Animal]

72. Obama intends to reduce military personnel but

has also said that the military budget will continue to grow.

Also, there is nothing on that list that speaks to reducing or expanding the military.

[joshcryer]

77. He said they will reduce it $490 billion over 10 years. $261 billion in 7 years.

That's a massive reduction in military spending.

The point is, ideologically Obama is not reducing the military to the point where we don't have one, but he is reducing it, so, volia, it's in the campaign now! The people can hear about military reduction! I expect GG to champion it as much as he has Ron Paul's corrupt ideology!

[Luminous Animal]

91. Remarks by the President on the Defense Strategic Review

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-president-defense-strategic-review
Here:
As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints -- we’ll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces.
...

And here:
"Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration. And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.

[joshcryer]

96. Fair enough.

[Luminous Animal]

97. Again, military spending reductions are nowhere on that list...

Obama's and the Pentagon's military spending reductions have nothing to do with mitigating Endless War, empire, multiple-nation drone assaults, and escalating confrontation with Iran.

[joshcryer]

106. I can't disagree with you as it's coming out of personnel.

The American public wouldn't stand for reductions below what China is spending. We must remain the worlds most powerful military, you won't get elected otherwise. Damn American public and its bloodlust.

So there ya go.

( You win this one!!!! )

[Luminous Animal]

115. A wave back at ya!

[bvar22]

148. No. That is NOT a "massive" reduction.

That is a $49Billion/year "trimming"
of a budget that exceeds $650Billion/year.


You do the math.
Reality Matters.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

85. Why don't you read what he is saying, and then comment on that, rather than on what you think

he is saying?

[Warren DeMontague]

105. I thought Libertarians were all just poopy-head Republicans who smoke teh pot.

What's with all the Ron Paul love, now? I'm so fucking confused.

[joshcryer]

108. $$$

It's all about money. Hits on Salon get the contributors more money. It's a long term practice of trollish behavior from pundits who don't know what the fuck they're talking about but rant off on bullshit because it garners a lot of hits.

[Warren DeMontague]

110. To be fair, I think a lot of people in our party are sick of the enabling of drug warriors & the MIC

it's inexcusable that we're spending tax dollars to harrass cancer grannies for smoking pot. If our party would get behind real progressive, liberal reform on things like legalizing pot, standing up for the bill of rights, etc. whatever "appeal" crazies like Ron Paul might have on our side would evaporate pretty fucking quick.

[joshcryer]

116. Yeah, but issues-wise it's low priority.

Obama does things that get him votes, blowing up brown people is one of them, etc.

Progressives are currently the minority, we get the government we deserve, etc.

Ultimately, those people who are so outraged at the government, that the American people elected, are just a minority on the scheme of things. Fortunately, I'm seeing a relative shift to the left from Obama (who has always, consistently been moderate) so perhaps this go-around we're going to get "heard." I know it sounds crazy, but I do actually expect marijuana legalization by the end of Obama (the moderates') term, or at the bare minimum by the beginning of Warren (the populists') term. Warren is who I'm basically waiting for, and I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus because he's a consistently moderate (if I do that I open up an opportunity for a one term right winger to throw a wrench into things). If I did that ultimately I could damage Warren's chance at the Presidency, not fucking happening. Totally lesser of two evils here. Lesser of any evils, but yeah.

In the end I find most of this nonsensical ranting by people who are unduly "affected" by things that don't really bother them, because they are privileged pundits or observers who aren't affected by these things. Think about it real hard. It's highly unlikely most of the detractors are minorities, because minorities bloc vote for the President and Democrats in general. In fact, someone recently told me that minorities didn't vote because they weren't supporters, completely neglecting voter suppression that has been part and parcel to Republican politics for so long.

The one positive take-away is that long-term, liberals win. But in the short term we have to deal with a center-right politician who is really good at being elected (and likely will win again). Moral superiority aside.

[Warren DeMontague]

146. I would LOVE to see Liz Warren run in 2016.

Right there with you.

I always vote for the LO2E, invariably, too. But I *do* think that some of the "conventional wisdom" punditry in DC is just dead-wrong-- not just on things like pot legalization- now favored by a majority of Americans- but also gay marriage, reproductive rights, etc. The "conventional wisdom" poo-bahs seem entirely too reactionary and about 5 years behind the curve, in general. It'd be nice to have the President- even the center-right Democrat Presidents we're used to- get AHEAD of the curve on a few of these issues, and display moral courage to lead. I also hope we'll get more of this in Obama's (hopeful) 2nd Term.

The bottom line is, we need to stop cowering in fear of imaginary "values voters", and attempts to appease them- like this asinine decision on Plan B contraception- only piss off the base and net us no new votes.

[kurt_cagle]

191. Agreed

The fundamental challenge that most progressives face is that they recognize that Obama is very much a centrist, but they also recognize that even as a centrist he is still somewhat beholden to a party that includes progressives, which none of the other candidates, including Paul, are. Moreover, going into the election, Obama has to steer a path that will keep that progressive base while still trying to appeal to the Republican moderates and conservative Democrats that he will need to defeat a Republican candidate (presumably Romney). Paul is attractive to a fair number of progressives despite his ultra-conservative social views, but the reality is that the Republican establishment will fight tooth and nail to keep him from getting even remotely close to the reins of power.

What I am hoping is that the Tea Party effect is fading (if Iowa is any indication, it is) and this will have the effect of letting Obama stake out a position that's not quite so deep in Republican territory. I think that GG's comments are significant, but the reality is unfortunately that the alternative to maintaining the Empire is to collapse it. In theory, that sounds great, but in practice the social strains of doing that (rather than trying to slowly deflate it to a more manageable size) would be horrendous - civil war would be pretty much guaranteed. Moreover, the chance of recapturing the House is high enough that Obama may in fact be given a second chance with a considerably less querulous Congress in place, and there are some rising stars (Elizabeth Warren, certainly, Hillary, if she chose to run, perhaps even Kucinich this go around) who would be good successors.

I think there's another issue here as well. Obama lost the House in 2010 by going too far, too fast on the Health Care bill, and by not reining in Geithner and Bernanke, and it forced him to initially try to work with the Know Nothing party before realizing that Boehner didn't really have any control over the Tea Partiers. His principle advisors were DLC from way back. Geithner retires with the election, Bernanke may very well be forced out before then, others like Robert Rubin and Rahm Emmanuel, both very much DLC, have already left. There will be a new SEC chief, and I'd lay odds that Hillary runs as Obama's VP. The people that he's appointing now are trending more liberal and more confrontational in the economic sphere, which I suspect will likewise presage a shift in the DOJ towards a more combatative stance, not so much because Obama is there, but because he senses that the political winds are shifting in favor of taking a more populist stance.

The other thing that he will have in his favor is that the US economy appears finally to be strengthening again, albeit slowly. That has less to do with Obama than it does to the fact that people have begun to adjust to a changing economic system but it will benefit him in the long run.

[sabrina 1]

193. Good points, I appreciate your thoughts and focus on the actual issues.

I hope you are right in your assessment.

[sabrina 1]

109. Maybe we could all join you in your confusion if you could point out 'all the Paul love' you

are seeing. I must be blind as I have not seen it myself.

[Luminous Animal]

114. There isn't "all this Paul love" but pretending so gives people a twofer...

1) Kneecap an effective critic of Obama's civil liberties policies (Greenwald).
2) Ensure that any discussion of such policies shall be obscured because they the are products of a "lunatic" (Paul)

[sabrina 1]

117. Lol, doesn't seem to be working though, most people get what Greenwald is saying.

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 06:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't get the attempt NOT to address it, because closing ones eyes really doesn't make things disappear. And Greenwald is not the only saying what he is saying, other prominent Democrats, like Katrina vanden Heuvel eg, have said pretty much the same thing.

If they think that shutting up Greenwald, a most unlikely outcome, as he appears to enjoy wrangling with them, would somehow make the problem he is pointing out, that not one Democrat on the National stage is addressing the issues Paul is, go away, they must not have noticed Occupy Wall Street. How are they going to shut millions of people worldwide up as the movement grows and more and more people are saying what Greenwald is saying?

In a way I guess I feel sad for them. They have used every distraction they can think of but still the problems he addresses remain. The ONLY way to shut him up and OWS is to get a Democrat on the National Stage to outdo Paul and start addressing publicly the issues that the people of this country want to hear them address. And that is what they are trying to hide, that such a Democrat has yet to appear.

[AtomicKitten]

121. I don't care. It's stupid to fight over talking heads.

[babylonsister]

125. I don't either. And

good morning/thanks for that rousing musical interlude to start my day! Quite the cast of characters there.

[Laelth]

126. k&r for Greenwald.

His previous essay was spot on, even if it offended certain partisans.

-Laelth

[hifiguy]

137. +1

The reflexively defensive paranoia about Greenwald around here is more than slightly reminiscent of the hysteria on the reichwing when Chimpy was questioned by the left.

[JoePhilly]

127. Glenn is complaining about "distortions"?????

[Romulox]

130. I think it's WONDERFUL how threatening the "centrists" find GG. He got to be onto something.

/Greenwald had my attention.

[MineralMan]

132. Seems pretty defensive to me.

It appears that I wasn't the only one who called GG out about his apparent support for Paul. Good luck, Glenn...

[sabrina 1]

169. I wouln't say you 'called him out', but you did provide him with a perfect example of what he

predicted would be the response to his articles on why no one but Paul is speaking about the issues that are so important to Progressive and always have been. He predicted he would be attacked personally but that those attacking him would not deal with the points he made. Turns out he was right, and still is. The attacks, or 'calling him out' if you prefer, continue, but still not one counter to his point. And his detractors continue to prove him right while he collects more and more supporters who get what he is saying, including many prominent progressive bloggers.

He has done this forever when tangling with those who attack him. Turns it around and dings it right back. Being familiar with him as one of the most effective progressive bloggers during the Bush years, he loves this stuff.

A far more effective way to 'call him out' would be to prove him wrong. I'm surprised that no one has even tried but have resorted to every other kind of distraction, when in fact, there actually is some room to civilly counter Greenwald's argument. I am temped to do it myself on behalf of the president who deserves more from his supporters than to simply hand a win to Greenwald by sinking to the lowest possible levels of debate. That doesn't reflect well on the President.

[russspeakeasy]

174. You called him out about his support for Paul ? You are confused.

But that happens when you only read the headline.

[SidDithers]

134. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[hifiguy]

136. This seems to be your standard response to many threads.

You add SO much to the discussion with your incisive analysis.

[MjolnirTime]

139. Nobody cares what Greenwald has to say anymore. He lacks a D after his name.

[hifiguy]

140. Shoot the messenger

regardless of the validity of the message. Don't engage the substance of ideas. March in lockstep and shout down the dissenters. Pathetic to see that here. That's the most freeperish behavior imaginable.

[MjolnirTime]

141. Greenwald is no ally. He is blindly working towards the same goal as the GOP.

[nashville_brook]

142. Greenwald supports a less-Bushist, less neocon foreign policy -- too bad party leadership doesn't

[hifiguy]

145. I guess that's why he's so outspoken against

torture, Gitmo, indefinite detention, war/imperialism, restrictions on free speech, and many other things. And why he's so strong on gay rights. Yeah, that all sounds SO Rethuglican.

[MNBrewer]

173. Oh lawrd.

Eyeroll

[fascisthunter]

144. dumb... yes, actually you do

which is evident.

[sabrina 1]

170. Well you'd never know it from the millions of words that have typed to show 'how no one cares

what Greenwald has to say'.

[fascisthunter]

143. HAHAHA.... and are they ever Exposed

They are taking the bait again... not too bright are they, but most already knew that. Good job Glen... fake progressives they are.

[bvar22]

149. I'll Take the Bait if it offers another opportunity to highlight THESE important issues:

*Endless War,

*Empire,

*The BOGUS nature of the Orwellian War on Terror

*Declaring the USA a perpetual War Zone

*The Expanding Powers of the Unitary Executive

*Steadfast devotion to the Israeli government,

*Imprisonments and assassinations without Due Process OR review,

*multiple-nation drone assaults,

*escalating confrontation with Iran,

*the secretive, unchecked Surveillance and National Security States,

*the sadistic, racist, and FAILED Drug War,

*The Shadow Government of the FED

*the full-scale capture of the political process by bankers and oligarchs


...because, gawd knows, the leadership of neither dominant Political party are going to bring these up over the next year
because they essentially AGREE with each other on THESE issues.
I commend Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, and any other thinking American who agrees that THESE are important issues that need attention in the National debate.

NOBODY should vote for Ron Paul,
and his stand on other "Libertarian" issues SHOULD be attacked,
not by adolescent ad hominums and hysterical Name Calling,
but by honest deconstructions.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

152. All Progressive ideals.

Greenwald hasn't changed his views and I am so relieved to see a majority of Progressives have not either. But that's why we have OWS. Because as Greenwald pointed out, no one on the National Stage, other than Paul, is taking on these issues.

[woo me with science]

186. Excellent.

Thank you.

[Uncle Joe]

151. This is an outstanding column by Glenn Greenwald, well worth the read.

Thanks for the thread, whatchamacallit.

[whatchamacallit]

157. Ain't no thing

[whatchamacallit]

155. I'm back, what did I miss?

[FrenchieCat]

156. The only choice in the upcoming election will be between the Republican Nominee and

the Democratic Nominee, period. One of those two will win, and no other.

Till then, we can discuss the various issues separately or as a whole....
but at the end of the day, it is the whole that will count.....
because an election elects the whole, not the bits and pieces.

Ron Paul is not my candidate, nor will he ever be, because as a whole,
his platform is not a healthy one for this country, regardless as to whether
his cynical rethoric on one or two issues is better than the candidate whom I will vote for;
the candidate whose entire platform, on balance, is the best for this country, given
our choices of the Republican or the Democrat, who are the only two viable choices.

So I enthusiastically choose the Democrat in this upcoming presidential election, period....
because no matter his flaws, he is our best choice for the whole health of this nation's future,
period. That's my principled priority because it is the unmovable fixed reality for election 2012!

[whatchamacallit]

159. That's true

and the reason Greenwald, and many of us here, lament the fact that the democratic candidate is being bested on some vital progressive issues by the likes of Ron Paul.

[FrenchieCat]

167. Lamenting is fine,

as long as that ain't the only conversation being had in the room,
as much as there may be to lament about.

The voting public is starkly fickle, and easily led by a media which
is corporate first and foremost.
Republicans have been constantly lamenting over the Obama presidency.
The Media is helping them with that and rarely calls them out
on their lies, exaggerations and plain old cynical plans that solve nothing,
and instead would make quite a few things worse.

I know that there is much that we all wish would be better,
but I also know that there will be no ideal panacea resulting
from actions from any corner prior to the upcoming elections.

I pledge to do no harm to our future during an election year by
focussing on those things that will not be had at this time even as
I would prefer they be different...in the meantime, I do see some positive change
for the better, and I think that will continue....

one from just today!

Obama rule would let undocumented stay in U.S. during application
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-immigration-regulation-20120105,0,2762934.story

After 3 years of many lamenting from all corners, we already did witness
how that sadly effected the enthusiasm gap,
and how it affected the election results of 2010 (see US House of Representative, as well....Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, etc....)
So I won't be participating in the popular trend of voicing disatisfaction as one's sole raison-d'etre, as that would be so easy....to constantly point to the problems,
especially when one doesn't have an answer that is actionably feasible
in making it all better based on the actual make up of our democratic Republic at this time....

Tactics of simply pointing out disatisfactions will not result in those things being instantly solved, although it may change them in a long run, which is a good thing, but that cannot be the only strategy; as it also may further depress the GOTV, and elections do make a difference, even for those who would prefer to claim that they don't.

Republicans are already working hard on supressing the vote, and they don't really need my help. In fact, I'm fighting against those measures that they have been putting in place.....

That doesn't mean that I am stating that others shouldn't do what they want,
as they will anyway. I just want to emphasize that me, myself and I
will work hard to re-elect this President, because that is something that I can do,
and which will bring better results at this time than any other one thing that I could do.

[Enrique]

166. correct, and Greenwald is pointing out that the election doesnt address everything

there are some important issues that Obama and Romney wont be debating.

[joshcryer]

176. That's entirely up to the moderator.

[Spider Jerusalem]

160. Greenwald is full of shit.

This is the Glenn Greenwald who praised Ron Paul as having "the best positions on civil liberties and foreign policy". Which proves that he (Greenwald that is) is an idiot whose opinion ought not to be taken seriously; Ron Paul's position on civil liberties would include repealing the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if it were up to him; and his position on foreign policy is that the US doesn't actually need one, a return to isolationism would be just splendid, thanks. These are not ideas that can be or deserve to be taken seriously, and I really don't think that anyone who claims Paul's few reasonable ideas cancel out his very many bad ones deserves to be listened to.

[Luminous Animal]

161. Link to Greenwald's quote please.

[Spider Jerusalem]

163. the meat of it is here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

It seems to me that praising Ron Paul for his foreign-policy views in pledging to end US military adventurism abroad and for his civil liberties views on things like the drug war and indefinite detention is missing the bigger picture of the totality of what he actually believes and the contextual frame of those beliefs.

See also here for a take on Greenwald's arguments: http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/02/pariahs_prophets_politicians_and_policymakers

[Luminous Animal]

164. So, he didn't actually say what you quoted him as saying.

[Spider Jerusalem]

165. That wasn't an exact quote, but yes, he did say it.

"Indeed, when it comes to the foreign policy and civil liberties values Democrats spent the Bush years claiming to defend, the only candidate in either party now touting them is the libertarian Ron Paul, who vehemently condemns Obama's policies of drone killings without oversight, covert wars, whistleblower persecutions, and civil liberties assaults in the name of terrorism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/27/vote-obama-centrist-republican?CMP=twt_gu

[sabrina 1]

171. Well, is he right or wrong? Who else on the national stage is condemning the secret drone wars

the US is now involved in? And is not true that this president's DOJ has prosecuted far more whistle-blowers than even Bush did? And what about the Drug War? You can say, as Greenwald pointed out, that you don't care about these issues and that's your prerogative, but if you cared about them when Bush was president, then you (I mean the generic you) still care about them as most Progressives do, and who is speaking on your behalf if that is the case, regarding these issues?

[Spider Jerusalem]

181. That's extremely faulty logic, honestly

I would find Paul's stance on many other issues far more problematic than the extent to which I'd agree with him on a few specific issues; things like abolishing the Federal Reserve and reinstating the gold standard and disbanding the UN and an adherence to failed laissez-faire Austrian School economic theories are much worse for everyone and would have far more disastrous consequences. Are these issues I personally care about? Yes. Are they more important than the sum total of what a given candidate would do in office? No, they are not, and on balance, on most of the issues that matter, I will take Obama over any Republican or Libertarian in elephant's clothing, thanks. (Also I am not a "progressive". I'm a liberal, and not afraid of being called one.)

[sabrina 1]

187. I don't think Greenwald disagrees with you, nor do any of those who have a greed with him.

He has stated much of what you just said and his point is that it's a sad state of affairs that we have to hear these positions from 'someone like Paul' when we should be hearing from Democrats.

Nor is he saying that Obama is not better than any of the clowns on the right. What he is saying is that the people who are now supporting Paul are doing so because they are not hearing what he is saying from anyone else.

We all know that there is not question that a Republican in the WH would be a total tragedy. But why are the Democrats, and Greenwald acknowledges that some Democrats are saying what Paul is saying, but they are generally marginalized by the Party, Kucinich eg or the Progressive Caucus, so why, if most of the Democratic base and a large section of the rest of the population agree about issues such as Wall Street, and the Wars and the wasteful, racist Drug War, stealing those issues away from Paul?

One more thing. Some people want to ignore or discredit Greenwald, close their eyes and ears and make him go away. They might succeed in silencing HIM, but the issues he's writing about will not go away. See OWS.

Imo, facing reality, we have only one choice as Democrats, which is Obama. Where I differ from those attacking Greenwald is that we have to work with what we have and pressuring this President to take on more of these issues is our duty. So, rather than pretend they are not there, make him aware of the fact that they are and the people want to hear him talk about them.

So far this week, finally, he took a stand against the Republicans. We've been told consistently, even last week that he 'can't do that, they will say bad things about him'. He proved them wrong this week. Was that because it is an election year and he can no longer ignore the voice of the voters who are in the streets now, never mind Greenwald?

If so, then the people and Greenwald are doing the right thing, they are doing their job as citizens, and so far, this has been a good week, for frankly the first time, regarding Obama using the power he was entrusted with to deal with the party the people threw out.

[kurt_cagle]

192. Ironically, I am a progressive, not a liberal

Too many years of living in Canada, where the liberals were slightly right of center, and there were two parties - the New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Greens - that were most in front of the core issues of community, environment, education and equitable economics. Liberalism in all too many parts of the world equates with an expansionist, militaristic, and very corporate driven economic drive, and overall has a fairly perjorative connotation elsewhere. But YMMV.

[MNBrewer]

172. He has said that he agrees with you, that the totality of Paul's positions make him a terrible

choice for President. But, that his voice is critical to have right now for those positions in which he is actually on the right side, and both Obama and all the other Republican candidates are on the wrong side.

[geek tragedy]

195. Where did he say Paul would be a terrible choice? nt

[MNBrewer]

196. I guess he didn't say "terrible choice", but he didn't endorse Ron Paul for Pres.

But that's beside the point that he was making, namely, that Paul's presence in the race provides a basis for discussing some vital issues that Obama's campaign would rather ignore.

http://www.13.salon.com/2012/01/05/democratic_party_priorities/singleton/

and

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

"So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely flow. Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted."

[Wind Dancer]

183. K & R!

Fantastic article - Glenn nails it.

[The Midway Rebel]

189. K&R

This thread is full of win...as the kids say.

[geek tragedy]

194. Greenwald sees Paul as vastly superior to Obama.

On the issues that Greenwald cares about.

That much is obvious.

He's more of a libertarian than a liberal.

[sabrina 1]

198. The issue isn't Greenwald, or even Paul or Obama. The issue is

why is there no Democrat on the national stage saying the things Paul is saying about the Security State, the forever wars, the corrupt Economic system, the failed, racist Drug war and basically all of the issues that once were the issues the Left was concerned about. The fact that Paul could work with people like Kucinich and Grayson on some of these issues demonstrates that he is the one speaking to a national audience about issues that are the fundamental causes of many of the major problems that have contributed to pretty much all the problems facing this country today.

But it's been all but impossible to get people to face that fact so instead we are presented with Greenwald's life story, and Paul's history as if these were the issues. They are not.

[arely staircase]

197. just a crooked lawyer with a blog

what's the obsession with this guy?