Greenwald: Wes Clark, John Podesta and Grover Norquist fight for a common cause

[mcablue]

Glenn Greenwald responds to ad-hominem attacks against the Jane Hamsher/Grover Norquist letter seeking an investigation of Rahm Emanuel, by citing names of memmbers of the Constition Project, a group self-described as follows:

"The Constitution Project seeks consensus solutions to difficult legal and constitutional issues. It does this through constructive dialogue across ideological and partisan lines, and through scholarship, activism, and public education efforts.

List of members, including Wesley Clark, John Podesta (close Obama ally) and Grover Norquist: http://www.constitutionproject.org/Memblist.asp?cid=303

[saltpoint]

1. Jane play footsie with Grover Norquist. Jane bad.

[FLAprogressive]

12. That Racist Teabagger Wesley Clark is playing footsie too.

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

15. Jane is not politically instinctual.

And it shows.

[Donnachaidh]

2. John W. Dean and Bruce Fein are members too.

:wow:

[Skink]

3. Didn't Norquist get network news somewhere?

[geek tragedy]

4. Greenwald is a Ron Paul fan, so of course he has no problem with leftwing nutters

hanging out with rightwing nutters.

[madfloridian]

5. John Podesta runs the CAP....he is no "left wing nutter"

There are too many vicious attacks here against everyone.

[geek tragedy]

7. Eh. People who side with Norquist in his open agenda of

destroying a Democratic administration deserve ten times the scorn that Joe Lieberman does.

[madfloridian]

11. Podesta works closely with Obama.

[geek tragedy]

17. Is Podesta headhunting members of the Obama admin?

Sitting on some panel or thinktank with Grover Norquist is one thing. Openly aiding and abetting his war against all that is good? Treachery.

[mcablue]

19. Why are you reaching conclusions regaring Emanuel's actions on Freddie Mac?

Without an investigation, can you conclude that this is "headhunting"? And is the fact that someone belong to the Obama administration enough to let him/her off the hook?

[Luminous Animal]

36. Baseless smear.

Provide evidence that Greenwald is a Paul fan.You won't because you can't.

[Kalyke]

38. Gen. Clark is hardly a leftwing nutter.

He's a liberal, a progressive and an intelligent and caring man.

He's no "nutter."

[ipaint]

6. Thanks for the link.

I was hoping Greenwald would comment on the witch hunt.

Here is a great video of a interview with moyers and greenwald.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12122008/watch.html

If your not familiar with greenwald please take a look at just who is accused of being an right wing nutter these days.

[KittyWampus]

8. why? Greenwald is, at best, Libertarian. But mostly, he's another attention whore

[ipaint]

13. Well the I hope people watch the moyers clip to see

who is being labeled an attention whore.

Fair warning for people who don't like their faith disturbed by the facts- It's scary listening to the truth. :scared: Keep a light on.

[mcablue]

21. Can you explain how Greenwald's positions are not progressive?

Please.

The contrary of progressive is not libertarian. It is conservatism. One can have some libertarian AND progressive views. Not everything is black and white.

[ipaint]

22. I believe it's a one question test

that's given to all progressive bloggers-

Do you support our president?

If you consistently write about Obama's continuation of bush policies regarding torture, detainee rights, indefinate detention and secret prisons like Greenwald then obviously you don't support our president therefore you will be smeared with teabagger worthy innuendo's and outright lies at every opportunity.

Sort of a political scarlet letter.

Neo-liberal- the new progressive.

[mcablue]

27. So. By your logic, Obama is a progressive because he supports himself

Wow. That's some test.

:crazy:

[ipaint]

29. Is obama a progressive blogger?

I thought he was president. Silly me.

[mcablue]

31. Why should there be different tests to measure progressivism in bloggers and the President?

Your theories are complicated.

You either advocate progressive actions on the issues or you don't, whether you are a President or a blogger.

[Maat]

43. I'd suggest some basic civic and pre-law classes for you.

You don't seem to be up-to-speed on your own system of government and its constitutional protections. That won't serve you well.

I'm just suggesting this for your benefit, but your lack of understanding of Greenwald's highly valuable input suggests that.

Maat, J.D.

[sabrina 1]

10. Anyone who dares to question 'The Party' has traditionally

been labeled a traitor by those who think 'winning' is everything. So many progressive voices have left the blogosphere, once the hope of the people to make an impact on policy after being shut out for so long.

There's a long list of progressive voices that have been targeted as soon as they step out of line. David Sirota, Greenwald, Cindy Sheehan to name a few. Usually they are people who are effective. You can go from being a hero to the progressive blogosphere to being a pariah in a matter of days if you dare to question the party.

Others watching it happen, simple left and went on to other things. The viciousness of the attacks on some of these people is sickening.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Anyone that questions 'The Party' will end up in Room 101

in the Ministry of Love.

"The Party"

[FLAprogressive]

9. WESLEY CLARK IS A RACIST TEABAGGER!

:rofl:

[dave29]

16. These are fish tanks, not think tanks.

Look at all the different colored fish, waiting to be fed.

Helluva job they are doing, bridging the divide.

[frazzled]

18. Taking part in a think tank is a far cry from ...

banding together to pull an "investigation" (shades of the Clinton-era right-wing fishing expeditions from the American Spectator, anyone?)

The purpose of the group cited is to pool ideas on big, complex issues through "constructive dialogue." I doubt John Podesta and Wes Clark will ever end up agreeing with Grover Norquist on anything, except maybe what to order in for lunch.

And BTW, as long as we're throwing in ad hominem attacks: GG is a libertarian, not a progressive, who once defended the nation's worst Neo-Nazi extremist, who, among other things, threatened the life of a judge. He has no political compass, and no moral center.

[ipaint]

20. Yes lawyers do that, defend nasty people.

"As is true for many lawyers who have defended First Amendment free speech rights, I have represented several groups and individuals with extremist and even despicable viewpoints (in general, and for obvious reasons, it is only groups and individuals who espouse ideas considered repugnant by the majority which have their free speech rights threatened). Included among this group were several White Supremacist groups and their leaders, including one such group -- the World Church of the Creator -- whose individual members had periodically engaged in violence against those whom they considered to be the enemy (comprised of racial and religious minorities along with the "race traitors" who were perceived to defend them)."

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/thug-and-intimidation-tactics-of-far.html

I have no doubt the importance of defending free speech, even the nastiest, will go completely over your head but it certainly doesn't indicate some serious perverted character flaw in greenwald. It does put your ignorance front and center, though.

[sabrina 1]

28. Thanks for posting facts to counter the smears. It gets to be a

fulltime job after a while. The disingenuousness employed by party loyalists is a sign that they cannot defend the criticisms so they immediately resort to personal attacks and lies. I didn't bother to look it up, but I knew it was a deliberate distortion of the facts.

As someone above said, it's getting awfully crowded under the bus ~ I wonder who will be next?

[ipaint]

30. I decided today it was like playing whack-a-mole.

You post facts with links to reputable sources to disprove some bizarre claim, the thread drops and an hour later there it is again like they hope that no one noticed the first time they were proved wrong.
Rinse and repeat.

[sabrina 1]

34. Lol, true.

They never get tired repeating and repeating themselves. I'm sure that Greenwald smear will be repeated despite your whacking it down so effectively. I think I'll bookmark your post just in case :-)

[frazzled]

33. Nope ... he defended him in print, not in court

He had previously defended the guy in a case (though goodness knows why: no, you don't need to take vile ideologues on--and apparently there weren't a lot of lawyers stepping up to the plate to do so). Later, when he was accused of putting a hit on the judge (indeed, it was the judge whose husband was later killed), although not his attorney in the case, Greenwald denied the charges against him in print. He had to retract.

Dat's a no-no.

P.S.: the guy was convicted and is still in prison

[ipaint]

39. Link to your claims. nt

[sabrina 1]

24. I knew it wouldn't take long to put Greenwald on 'the list'.

The problem for those who have for years now been demonizing anyone who puts issues before any political party, is how long that list has grown.

I won't bother to list the prominent people who have been attacked, not by the right, but by the so-called 'left' who are very well known writers and activists.

The problem is that those doing the dirty work of defending the party no matter how wrong a direction they are going, are losing credibility rapidly. When you keep adding people who are in your opinion, 'delusional' and 'crazy' and 'treasonous to the party' eventually people start wondering about YOUR sanity.

So add Greenwald to the list. Don't just say you disagree with him either, make sure you add a smear to speed up the desired process of making him irrelevant if you can.

To imply that Greenwald is in any way a Nazi supporter is simply disgusting. In fact it is probably libel.

[frazzled]

35. I said he was a libertarian, not a Nazi supporter

God, you people are dumber than shit tonight.

[ipaint]

37. We know what you said. nt

[laughingliberal]

23. Cool. We're gonna need another bus if we put anymore people under here

But can't complain about the caliber of the company, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Jane Hamsher, John Podesta...haven't seen Wendall Potter show up but I'm sure he'll be here, eventually.

[FLAprogressive]

25. Jane Hamsher and Wesley Clark: Right-wing teabagger Nazis!

:rofl:

[ipaint]

26. This is just the beginning.

Once this horrendous bill passes it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb by the "under the bus" progressives. That's when the shit really hits the fan.
I'm sure Wendall Potter will point out something, MLR loophole is one thing he is questioning now, that will raise the ire of the obama faithful.

[sabrina 1]

32. That's just recently.

There is a long, long list of others from other controversies who are under there also. Cindy Sheehan, David Sirota and Kucinich eg. And that's just the beginning. I'll have to make a list. Really, I think that would be the best way to show how hypocritical this is. I've been observing and speaking out about this for several years now and ended up being under the bus myself, which was no surprise. I have to say, I do like the company but you're right, it is getting a bit crowded.

[berni_mccoy]

40. HAHAH! Most Moronic Excuse Ever. That's like saying the US is in bed with Iran because

both belong to the UN.

The lengths you will go to excuse Hamsher's behavior is simply fanatical.

[ipaint]

41. Hamshers behavior. LOL

I guess not being corporate toady would offend some people. Using Norquist like they have used us for years is also apparently breaking some obscure centrist right rule for polite decorum in political disagreements. Funny how those rules apply to anyone not paying proper respect to the DLC.

Get used to it.

[berni_mccoy]

42. Rrrrriiiiigggghhhhhtttt....

She's USING Norquist. Just like she's using racist Teabaggers, Fox News and calling to run a candidate against Bernie Sanders.

I think you got it exactly backwards.