Glenn Greenwald: Gary Johnson (R) NM, for President?

[Tarheel_Dem]

April 20, 2011
by Rooted Cosmopolitan

One of his hopes for 2012 is that candidates will emerge to take on the red and the blue teams — he is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico, who is pro-gay and antiwar, and who could run with a Democrat like former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. He would also be happy to see a billionaire run without the help of either party, to “disrupt the two-party stranglehold.”

Let’s unpack this. First, let’s have a collective eyeroll at the naivety and (probably surprising to him) Broder-like fetishization of bipartisanship. He’ll support a Republican, but wants the Republican to run with a Democrat? Why? Second, his “I’m hoping for a billionaire to save America from politics” stance is deeply anti-democratic. In effect, he’s hoping for someone to come in and bypass any elections until the presidential general election and just try to buy the election. Doesn’t he know enough to worry about a Ross Perot, or a Silvio Berlusconi?

Then, there’s the issue of his overall political acumen and whether he has a well-formed and resolute set of political values. His written output suggests that Greenwald is politically engaged primarily by civil liberties and security state issues. He writes comparatively little about economic quality of life issues like wealth and income disparities, life opportunities and other forms of economic and social justice, including the rights of workers to act in solidarity to form unions and collectively bargain through their labor unions. And now, in learning he’s open to supporting Republican Gary Johnson, we see enough to know it’s almost certain he doesn’t share with liberals and progressives the core belief that the government has a necessary and essential role in taming the excesses of capitalism or of addressing our existential challenges as a species.

According to the 2002 edition of the Almanac of American Politics, as governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson cut taxes on the rich while cutting social services for the poor. He tried to pluck money out of public schools and funnel it in to private school vouchers. He vetoed a minimum wage bill. He signed in to law a late-term abortion ban. He won’t affirm a belief in global warming, and says even if it is happening that the effects are exaggerated and too much money is being wasted on it. And he vetoed a bill that would have continued the collective bargaining rights of public employees. That’s right, without the bluster but apparently to the same intended effect he did the same thing to public employees in New Mexico that Scott Walker did in Wisconsin.

http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressive/

I wish I could post the entire article, but the rules don't allow. You have to read the whole thing. It's very revealing about both Greenwald and Johnson. Lots of things I never knew about either of them. I've always known that Glenn was a phoney, whose only goal is self promotion, and the destruction of the Democratic Party is just a by product.

Obama bipartisanship = BAD!

Glenn bipartisanship = GOOD?

[SheilaT]

1. I live in New Mexico

and I'm aware of former Governor Johnson's delusions of Presidency.

I only moved here three years ago, so I hope I can be forgiven for my ignorance, but had he not decided to run for President I would not have heard of him at all. His national name recognition is almost non-existent, and it's hard to imagine it will ever get much higher.

I constantly wonder why completely obscure political figures suddenly decide they are really a viable candidate for President.

[Jakes Progress]

18. Really?

And you think Barack Obama was a well known name for the majority of the public before he ran? Besides the really cool speech at the convention, he wasn't. I think Obama's success has spurred lots of wannabes. Perhaps only a new to the scene candidate and hope to be ahead of the game.

[Jakes Progress]

19. Dupe

[SheilaT]

35. Because of his 2004 speech, Barack Obama was

far better known nationally than is Gary Johnson at this point.

I know that I am the one here who constantly says we have no idea what will transpire in the next two years(less now), but Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico? Really?

I am not going to try to predict the 2012 Republican nominee at this point, but I suspect it will be someone who at this point has a little more name recognition than Johnson. No matter. The Republican nominee in 2012 is simply going to be a sacrificial lamb.

[Jakes Progress]

39. One speech.

Hey any dufus with good pipes and timing can recite a speech. ronald reagan was supposed to be famous for them. Maybe johnson will get a voice coach or something.

That wasn't my point, nor was it the point that GG was making. Hell, the idiot in waiting here in Texas, the rove-picked governor good-hair is even mentioned.

I too suspect that the republican candidate will be better known, but that is just conventional wisdom. Three years before the 2004 election, Barack Obama wasn't a blip on the conventional wisdom radar as a candidate, let alone the nominee or winner.

[rusty fender]

41. Look, you know it, I know it, and so does everyone else:

Mitt Romney will be the repub nominee. The only question will be his running mate. I think it will be Bachmann or Pawlenty.:eyes:

[vaberella]

2. What I've noticed. Glenn Greenwald doesn't do a lot of things.

*Fact checking--so he runs on something and then he is corrected---but he has no premise.
*He exaggerates a lot of the information out there.
*He targets and labels Obama as an overall failure when much of Obama's actions have proven otherwise---but I rarely have read a GG article that praises ANYTHING Obama has done.

Now he's pushing a Repub?! I'm not surprised. Do you know why I'm not surprised? It's mainly because what I have noticed with the very liberal left and with teapartiers is that they make the same sounds in their recrimination against Obama. Rarely can I decipher a difference and this article really expresses that. Thanks for the post.

[seaglass]

4. So does that mean you fact-checked this article? n/t

[vaberella]

27. Let me ask you...Would you defend GG if he says he's keeping his "eye" on Trump as a viable cand.?

Because that's what he's doing. He's giving substance to a man who may on some level promote "liberal" ideas, but at his core is a right-wing fiend. This promotion is the problem and hence the criticism. This is what I see about Wolf Blitzer. He was always a shoddy journalist. But his parroting of a "we'll be the only station to promote the teabagger rebuttal to the SoTU address"<---you have to question his sanity and how deep he's in it. And this is very similar with what Gleen Greenwald has done.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vaberella]

32. I don't care if they don't think so. He's bought by the MSM.

At this point---there's no real definition for liberal now is there---when a promotion of a man who is against collective bargaining and basically union rights is okay as long as he promotes gay rights. I think it's better to have both...not one for the other. And whatever Glenn Greenwald may think---Obama has and does support both.

[seaglass]

37. You are believing something that I am not. I saw no quote that GG is supporting Johnson

for President or is considering it so there is no reason to defend him.

That's why I am asking if you fact-checked because you are taking a writer's assumption or projection of what Greenwald said as an actual fact. I am not.

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. There's not much difference between Glenn & The Baggers.

I'd take these third party advocates a lot more seriously, if they did ANYTHING between presidential elections. They expect to build some utopian liberal party from the Dem's infrastructure? How lazy & disingenuous is that?

Greenwald is a self serving antagonist who knows he can make quite a comfy living, with homes in NY & Brazil, telling conspiracy nuts that their government's out to kill 'em.

[seaglass]

3. Didn't see any direct quote from GG saying he would support Johnson for Pres.

and won't believe it until I see it.

Did see this tweet from Glenn though:
"How small and broken a brain is required to equate (a) praise for a candidate's specific views & their impact with (b) supporting them."

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. +1

The author appears to be picking a fight merely to drive people to her website.

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Another jewel of a quote from Glenn:

"Being predictable, he says, offering advice to the gay community and an unwitting summary of his career, “is the best way to guarantee you’re ignored.”

Glenn, in his best Fatal Attraction voice: 'I will not be ignored!' :rofl:

[seaglass]

9. You clearly did not read the underlying article or maybe you just didn't understand it.

He is stating something true, if you give unquestioning support to a political party there is a risk that you will be taken for granted.

[Armstead]

6. Just for curiousity -- Did you read the original article about Greenwald?

Or did you just read the criticism of him in another blog?

http://www.out.com/detail.asp?page=1&id=30073

[FrenchieCat]

12. I read it.....

Basically he lives in another country....Brazil...
although Brazil doesn't recognize same sex marriage,
they do recognize Civil Unions, and that appears to be
the main reason he resides there.

Also, it is clear that he doesn't like either Democrats or Republicans,
and according to the reporter.....Greenwald "is keeping an eye on Gary Johnson, a two-term Republican governor of New Mexico".

Also, Greenwald says "he is encouraged by the rise of the Log Cabin Republicans".....
not because of the GOP issues they support, but because this lets the Gay Community
know that they shouldn't feel like they must vote for Democrats.....

In otherwords, Mr. Greenwald believes that the Issues on Gay Rights trumps
any other issue....which is certainly his right to feel this way.

What I suspect is that Greenwald will never acknowledge that when it comes to which President has
advanced Gay Rights more than any other, Pres. Obama will never get that credit. Why, I don't know, since it is true.

I am of the opinion that it appears that Greenwald's own personal interest and the fact that he doesn't live in this country are what makes him tick, in terms of his disgust for Democrats, while not being personally directly affected if Republicans were to win the next election. In otherwords, he cares about what he cares about, and that's about it.

So when Gay Folks like the rest of us end up with no more Medicare, no social security, no more bargaining rights or Unions, taxes lowered on the rich, abortion rights curtailed, and a biased RW Supreme Court......far as Greenwald is concerned, that's ok....same difference! Kewl!

At least it's nice to know what his fans will need as they follow Greenwald off the cliff; a Brazilian visa, and then life will be pretty good again....for some.

[Armstead]

13. That is obviously one of his priorities, but I think his interests are also broader

I don't to defend him on a blanket basis, because there are probably things he has said that I may disagree with.

But, there is one quote that, unfortunately, I have to agree with, which sums up a core problem in contemporary politics ( in my opinion, of course):

“The Republicans,” he says, “have long lived by what they call the Buckley Rule: always support the furthest-right candidate who can plausibly win. That’s because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats prop up the most centrist or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it’s always better, more politically astute, to move to the right.”

[FrenchieCat]

14. So if Democrats act like Republicans, Greenwald would like that, hey?

and yet, Greenwald would rather not support the Democrat currently in office,
and in fact works against that Democrat as loudly as possible.....
although he damn well knows when a Republican holds the job,
the Republicans coalesce around that Republican, which is what makes them
successful in politics....not so much what Greenwald is talking about.

So it is ironic that Greenwald on the one hand says
that there is no difference between the two parties,
meanwhile lauding a potential Republican Candidate,
as well a Republican Log Cabin organization,
while shitting on this President daily .....who is actually the one who has done more
than the other two he lauds combined in terms of Gay right advances
in his 2.4 years in office.....
That's really is strange.

Plus, I'm surprised that Mr. Greenwald would believe that the key to a lot is
in the fact that Republicans support the furthest-right candidate
who can (key words) plausibly win (like he knows what kind of candidate that is)....
while being conveniently myopic to everything else that makes
a Republican a Republican.

Greenwald is the type that would love a dictator, as long as that dictator
does things his Greenwald's way.

I think Greenwald does an awful lot of talking....
which last I heard, was never just enough.

[jenmito]

15. So you (and Greenwald) think we elected Obama because he was the most centrist or

conservative candidate? As I recall, Obama was elected because he was against the war in Iraq and the most liberal candidate who could win.

[Armstead]

16. Frankly, he turned out to be a stealth centrist

In the primaries, it boiled down to Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

In terms of actual positions, Edwards was the liberal on issues -- but he turned out to be a duplicitous phony horn dog (His wife should have been the candidate.)....When he flamed out it was a choice between Clinton and Obama.

For many people (me included) who did not want to see a return to DLC Clintonian centrism, Obama became the default candidate. And Obama talked the talk of sort of liberalism -- although he skirted around the issues enough to raise questions of where he actually stood....Which is part of the notion of Democrats running away from liberalism.

By that time the "swing voters" were fed up with the mess Bush created, was likely no Republican would win -- and a grumpy old man and boneheads reactionary Sarah were not the team to pull off an upset.

But it turns out Obama was a closet centrist. HIs blurring of ideological labels is a classic centrist avoidance tactic. Talk about post partisanship is actually a code word for allowing the corporate status quo to continue to decimate the middle class with no real challenge.

[jenmito]

17. So you're now disputing your (and Greenwald's) claim that Dems. vote for the most centrist or

conservative they think can win. Thanks for proving me right. :hi:

[Armstead]

21. No, the leadership rigs the system against liberals

Rather than contradicting the statement, this confirms it.

While Republicans run as proud conservatives and promote their philosophy, the Democratic Party elite run far away from liberalism as if it were a disease.


The visibility and viability of candidates is largely steered by the power brokers in collusion with the media and the money masters.

And in presidential politics, candidates who even remotely liberal are either brought down by the corporate centrist power brokers or forced to reject their own liberalism in favor of mushy triangulation.

Remember what happened to Howard Dean? Although he is basically a moderate, I distinctly remember all of the Democrat poobahs saying how he could never make it because he was too far left. DLC jackasses went on TV talking about how wild and crazy Dean was....and when Dean made the mistake of getting enthusiastic on night, they used it to marginalize him as a cartoon with the Dean Scream.

Then when John Kerry ran, his basic liberalism was downplayed to portray him a war hero. When he asked on a TV show whether he is a liberal, Kerry hemmed and hawed and gave the obligatory disclaimer that "I don't think labels are that important...blah de blah."

[jenmito]

22. First of all, "Democrat poobahs"? Using "Democrat" as an adjective is not what Democrats do.

Secondly, you originally wrote that you agreed with Greenwald on this statement: "...Democrats prop up the most centrist or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it’s always better, more politically astute, to move to the right.” You said nothing about them portraying themselves as liberals and then becoming the "corporatist" they "really" are. You're changing your story.

[Armstead]

34. Oh for Pete's sake. You know exactly what I am talking about.

You may not agree with it, which is fine. But don't nit pick it to death with irrelevant hair splitting.

They don't portray themselves as liberals...Instead, like Obama they use ambiguous fancy talk designed to sound okay to liberals, without actually getting to the heart of the matter. And trying to also sound acceptable to conservatives at the same time.

They very seldom say "I am a liberal, and here's why...."

This Is in contrast to Republucans, who make no attempt to disguise their conservative ideology. They may be repugnant to us, but you know where they stand.

PS I know what you are referring to in my use of the word Democrat. However it is a form of the word that is also used by Democrats on occasion....It is especially popular among your centrist friends, like the New Democrat Coalition.

[jenmito]

40. If you and Greenwald were right,

Hillary would've won-not Obama. To remind you, this is what you agreed with: "...Democrats prop up the most centrist or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it’s always better, more politically astute, to move to the right.”

And I am NOT a centrist. I'm a liberal. You're the one who used "Democrat" as an adjective-not me.

[Armstead]

46. The 08 primary was more subtle anhd complicated that that

Basically it boiled down to two centrist candidates, and which centrist would get the most support.

What waqsw also a factor were us liberals who did not want to see a return of the Clintons to the WH, and figured Obama might not be a repeat -- which he has turned out to be.

It ius important to emphasize that I do not put all Democratic politiciansd in the category I referred to. There are some really great clearly liberal/progressive Democrats in Congress sands elsewhere.

They are not the problem.

[jenmito]

49. If that makes you feel better about what you originally said you agreed with,

I can't change your mind. But I will only say that the quote you agree with was not what happened in '08. And Obama was and is more liberal than Hillary.

[Armstead]

52. I don't need to feel better about agreeing with that quote

I believe, as a general rule, it is correct.

There are always exceptions, but it is a good summary of what I have observed happening over the last several decades.

I would feel better if I thought it wasn't true. I would prefer that it was otherwise.

[Arkana]

25. Then explain how exactly

the entire Progressive Caucus exists if the Democrats actively run from liberalism at every chance they get.

And John Kerry IS a liberal, whether he chose to admit it or not.

[Armstead]

33. Because not all Democrats are of the type I was referring to

There are a number of really great progressive/ liberal Democratic politicians, such as those in the Progressive Caucus.

The problem is that they are treated like unwanted poor relations by the Establishment Democrats who have the money and power.

They get elbowed aside, as they were in the Health Care debate, by people like President Obama and other Corporate Centrist Democrats with access to the money and power.

Why, for example, is the eminently sensible Progressive Caucus budget proposal not even being considered?

If the power structure of the Democratic Party were more like the Progressive Caucus and the other staunch liberals, the above statement would be incorrect. Alas, Greenwald was all too accurate in his assessment.

[Mimosa]

57. Armstead, I was hooked the way you described.

Now I'll never trust again. I trusted Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. He lives in Brazil becaue the US will not allow him to bring his

partner here. This is a common situation. They are not welcome to live here. One is, but not the other. So they are not.
I know lots of people in such situations. I do not see it as an area that should be subject to eye rolling judgement toward those who wind up living abroad. Not everyone lives where they were born, and often it is love that makes them move, of course.
Senator Kerry has been trying to reverse this immigration injustice. While in the Senate Barack Obama voted against the Uniting American Families Act which would have stopped this shit all those years ago. It is what it is.

[seaglass]

38. Brazil issues permanent visas to same sex partners, the US does not.

Greenwald may love living in Brazil, who knows, but he does not have a choice to both live in the US and live with his partner.

If I as a woman did not have the right to vote, that would trump any other issue for me. Sorry if that displeases you. Not saying that Greenwald's human rights are his ONLY and OVERRIDING concern as you seem to think, but I wouldn't blame him if it were.

If you actually read Greenwald you would know that he spends very little time writing about LGBT rights, that his focus is on civil liberties and war - two areas in which Obama's record is extremely poor.

[Vattel]

10. I'm sorry

but this is just too stupid to even waste time addressing its content.

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. Then why bother to comment at all?

:rofl:

[vaberella]

29. But you kicked it with your post.

If I find a thread that's not worth my time I don't give it the promotion with a post.

[Jakes Progress]

20. Sure, I know the point of the OP was to skewer GG

but if you read the article you can't call yourself a liberal and be against him.

My favorite lines were the part where he concisely explained why the county has gone so far right.

“The Republicans,” he says, “have long lived by what they call the Buckley Rule: always support the furthest-right candidate who can plausibly win. That’s because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats prop up the most centrist or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it’s always better, more politically astute, to move to the right.”

If he didn't occasionally dish on Obama, he would be the darling of DU. No one here would unload their hate and bile at him if he just genuflected to the president. To many here, only complete and unfaltering approval and praise is accepted. If you don't give it, everything you say is attacked.

Oh well.

[pmorlan1]

23. lol

Anyone who reads Greenwald on a regular basis has to be rolling with laughter at your feeble attempt to paint him as a phoney. lol

[Arkana]

24. I thought Greenwald was a fire-breathing liberal--why on earth

would he support Johnson in any capacity?

[vaberella]

28. I thought Greenwald was a Libertarian? n/t

[ReggieVeggie]

36. shows how perceptions can bias opinions

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. Great question, isn't it? I knew he was a phoney. Just like Hamsher,

who teamed up with Grover Norquist of all people. Not to mention former Repuke & uber progressive Arianna, who sold out her progressive "ideals", and many progressive journalists/bloggers to boot. Looks like these progressive icons feet are made of mere clay like everyone else. :rofl:

[krabigirl]

50. He is a civil libertarian.

[Keith Bee]

26. Greenwald & Maddow

Pretty much the last real journalists we have. Unrec for this envy-driven drivel.

[Tarheel_Dem]

42. Well, you likes who you likes.

:rofl:

[johnaries]

31. Just confirms what some of us already knew. Thanks for posting! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

43. I wonder what Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren think of this?

Just brings them to mind....

[liberalpragmatist]

47. Greenwald is basically a libertarian

... with a laser-like focus on civil liberties and executive power issues. He is sympathetic to some liberal concerns on economic and redistributive issues, but his prime focus is on traditionally libertarian concerns. He isn't a Democrat, though, and his priorities aren't necessarily aligned with those of most Democratic voters.

That doesn't negate his critiques. I get tired of Greenwald at times, but he's a useful voice on those issues - issues which are often ignored by the DC establishment. Rather, it's just something to keep in mind. There's no reason one can't accept his critiques in certain areas (i.e. civil liberties) without accepting his overall political advice.

[Tarheel_Dem]

48. While I disagree with your assessment, I do appreciate the calm way you...

presented it. It seems to be common practice at DU to denigrate anyone who questions DU's "liberal" icons, and I use the word "liberal" sarcastically, with regard to Greenwald. I realize that there's a faction at DU who also admire Ron Paul, and I think it's dangerous to present Libertarians as anything other than radical. While they may agree with "liberals" on a couple of issues, their doctrine is a dangerous one, and seems to promote the "you're on your own" theory. I don't see how big government liberals can have any emotional or practical connection to these folks, in any way.

[frazzled]

51. "he’s either hostile to progressive politics, or he’s a political nitwit"

Yes, and yes.

Anyone who has followed Glenn Greenwald from the beginning of his blogging (before salon) knew his following was entirely (wacko) libertarian. You'd also know that he wrote in his first book that he had never voted for a president, and thought George Bush was pretty okay until ... well, you know. He's inconsistent, and yes, focused on single issues (why else would he choose to take on America's most famous neo-Nazi as a client ... ignoring hate in favor of a narrow view of the first amendment).

I think Glenn Greenwald should start the Narcissist Party, and run for president himself. If he can tear himself away from Brazil.

This article very rightly points out Greenwald's narrow view of "progressivism": it involves first amendment, state secrecy, war, and gay rights ... and almost nothing regarding a host of issues such as education, worker's rights, income disparity, women's issues, etc. That's not progressive. The people means everyone.

[Tarheel_Dem]

53. Wish I could rec your post!

:thumbsup:

[TomCADem]

54. Erwin Cherminsky > Glenn Greenwald - Greenwald Has Never Said He's A Liberal

Look at Greenwald's pro-corporation stance on Citizens United. Glenn is a pundit, a smart legal pundit, but I don't understand why some folks quote him as some sort of liberal spokesman. He is not. Neither is Jon Turley who is often called a liberal legal scholar even though he also supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Why do they get so much airtime over other liberal legal scholars like Cherminsky and Sunstein? Because they are bombastic and are willing to attack Democratic Presidents from the "left" even though they really are not from the left.

I personally prefer Erwin Cherminsky as a liberal legal scholar:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/22/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky22-2010jan22

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns is a stunning example of judicial activism by its five most conservative justices. In striking down a federal statute and explicitly overturning prior decisions, the court has changed the nature of elections in the United States. At the same time, the conservative justices have demonstrated that decades of conservative criticism of judicial activism was nonsense. Conservative justices are happy to be activists when it serves their ideological agenda.

Since Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, a central feature of Republican and conservative rhetoric has been to attack judicial activism. The phrase is never defined with any precision and has often been used to refer to decisions that conservatives simply don't like. But if judicial activism has any meaning, it surely refers to decisions that overturn laws and overrule precedents. In contrast, judicial restraint occurs when courts defer to the other branches of government and follow precedents.

By this definition, judicial activism can be good or bad. Brown vs. Board of Education was activist in that it declared unconstitutional laws in many states requiring the segregation of the races in education. To do so, the justices overruled a 58-year-old precedent upholding such laws. But virtually all agree today that Brown was one of the greatest moments in Supreme Court history.

To conservatives, though, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a liberal outcome. President George W. Bush declared: "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. . . . I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists." The 2008 Republican platform declared that "udicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public."

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. Excellent post. I'd never heard of Cherminsky. Thanks for the headsup! (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

55. Dishonest and spintastic horseshit with a link to a dishonest and spintastic blog.

These tactics are very familiar.