Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald: Thumbs Up or Down? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)60. So because Greenwald says,
"I am not endorsing or expressing support for anyones candidacy"
...you're buying into his spin, and claiming:
"I don't agree with everything Greenwald says in this article, but his view on the Pauls is far more nuanced than you are making it out to be. "
Greenwald stated:
But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates despite being a twice-elected popular governor highlights the same dynamic.
It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that the bigfoot reporters move like a herd and put fingers on the scales in elections all the time. But sometimes thats done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bushs personality and contempt for Al Gores); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.
However much progressives find Pauls anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Pauls domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldnt progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.
It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that the bigfoot reporters move like a herd and put fingers on the scales in elections all the time. But sometimes thats done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bushs personality and contempt for Al Gores); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.
However much progressives find Pauls anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Pauls domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldnt progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.
The nuance there is Greenwald basically saying: Yeah, sure progressives find Paul's "anti-choice views to be disqualifying" and while his "policies are anathema to liberals" they give Reid and Obama a pass on equivalent or worse views.
I mean, why are Democrats "cheering for a "war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior" when they could be "cheering" the genuine Ron Paul?
Greenwald is delusional, and your spin doesn't work. He holds Democrats in contempt and spends a lot of ink defending Ron and Rand Paul against criticism from Democrats.
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
You want Greenwald to have his cake and eat it too by claiming that he isn't 'endorsing' or expressing support for anyones candidacy." He's just saying Ron Paul is the best, "genuine," on every issue, yet instead of cheering Paul, Democrats are "cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior."
Why can't Democrats see what Greenwald sees in Paul?
That's the nuance. Greenwald is delusional.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
100 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The reason people hate Greenwald so much is because they are terrified of him
Bjorn Against
May 2014
#2
He claimed that Ron Paul was the most "anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State,
MannyGoldstein
May 2014
#15
"the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite"
Hassin Bin Sober
May 2014
#51
It only "works" for a handful who post far more often than their actual presence here.
bvar22
May 2014
#98
The fact that he's an asshole who promotes people who want to destroy this country
baldguy
May 2014
#19
Oh yeah, greenwald is a big ol scary asshole and wants everyone to be very afraid of him.
Cha
May 2014
#44
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say there isn't a single DUr terrified of Greenwald nt
arely staircase
May 2014
#53
you think DUers are afraid of Greenwald? a few suits in govt agencies, perhaps, but regular people?
dionysus
May 2014
#89
Greenwald is a user and abuser, his patsy is stuck in Russia after flying there on advice,
Thinkingabout
May 2014
#6
Wrong, check another dictionary, one who is easily fooled, that be Snowden.
Thinkingabout
May 2014
#11
Who has used the information to write articles? Snowden, who ask Putin a trumped
Thinkingabout
May 2014
#17
Snowden offered and gave Laura Poitras, Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman the information
365fx
May 2014
#25
It's easy, just need a list of patsies and sit back and get big contracts for yourself.
Thinkingabout
May 2014
#83
Sure, among people with poor reading comprehension skills who are unable to parse a sentence. nt
Electric Monk
May 2014
#18
Glenn was Hale's civil attorney. By choice...the 6th has nothing to do with Greenwald's decision to
msanthrope
May 2014
#54
And John Adams represented British soldiers accused of attacking Americans around the time of
JDPriestly
May 2014
#72
Thank you for underscoring my point....Greenwald protected the business interests of
msanthrope
May 2014
#74
John Adams was also close to a dictator as president. When Jefferson defeated him it wasnt called
arely staircase
May 2014
#76
Suppose a president had, at his inaugural, the invocation given by a pastor
MannyGoldstein
May 2014
#21
Why? You tell me. The most recent thing G has done is make an asshole comment about those
arely staircase
May 2014
#27
...and I'll add that it's a waste of time for some to continue personal attacks on Greenwald...
Sancho
May 2014
#41
I dont think it's hilarious but I agree it's sad. They are living in a denial bubble, thinking that
rhett o rick
May 2014
#66
I would love to be in a newborn nursery and steal all the binkies just to hear the babies cry
Autumn
May 2014
#80
Let's wait and see whether there are very explosive revelations and then decide whether
JDPriestly
May 2014
#73
like him or not, snowden put his freedom in jeapordy.. as greenwalds trying to make a buck off it.
dionysus
May 2014
#87