Is that hardly anybody has ever heard of him. His appeal is restricted to the egghead set, i.e. people who think about politics 24/7 and are likely to have made up their minds a long time ago, because they live and breathe this shit everyday.

So he's not much of a threat.

He is, however, kind of a self-righteous prick.

and came across this guy's blog. He's got some interesting posts up. I don't think he's ever been reposted at DU (at least a quick search didn't come up with anything)

He's certainly not a fan of Greenwald, which means I'll have to read him more often.

It's like blini rolled with ikra and kvass on the side.

They love that shit.

It's so damned appropriate. nt

Did you pack your asbestos underwear?

Obama is, first and foremost, a politician. Between now and November he'll be subject to the temptation to move to the right, because that's how campaign-manager types think you appeal to independents. To many of the people giving him advice, policy has no moral dimension at all; it's strictly a question of what will be most advantageous politically.

It's essential, therefore, that the left not give Obama a complete free pass. When he is meeting with those political advisors, and they tell him that a particular lurch to the right would appeal to some swing voters, we want someone at that meeting -- another advisor or maybe even Obama himself -- to say, "But it would cost me some support from my base, from the people who are staffing the phone banks and knocking on doors and sending $25 and $50 checks." We have to hope that, at least some of the time, the purely utilitarian political calculus will call for moving in a progressive direction, or at least not emulating the Republicans.

Of course, that's on top of hoping that a leader will sometimes do the right thing even when it's not politically advantageous. No matter how confident you are that a leader will do that, it certainly can't hurt to add some political pressure.

I plan to vote for Obama. I hope to see him re-elected. I also hope to see him called to task whenever he does something wrong. Greenwald, as a pundit, is helping to keep these issues alive, and I applaud him for it.

Even President Obama has asked us to criticize him and hold us to account

But there's a difference between constructive criticism and the kind of criticism that Greenwald tends to engage in, which is intellectually dishonest, misleading criticisms that distort the facts and give a false impression of what's going on. Greenwald is not helping to keep these issues alive -most of the time he's being intellectually dishonest and promoting dubious arguments and, in doing so, he's misleading his readers and giving them a false impression about this President and what his administration has done

I don't begrudge him his right to do this in a free society. But when he engages in dubious mistruth and intellectual dishonesty, we also have a right to call him out on it and question what his motives are in promoting such fiction while masquerading as a progressive voice. And we also have to question what impact his misleading conduct will have on influencing people who take him at face value and to let them know the real story. And this is part of what this article is trying to do

The article, by the way, does none of that.

The argument you mention -- that Greenwald or anyone else engages in dubious mistruth and intellectual dishonesty -- is certainly a valid one for someone to make. As Luminous Animal pointed out in #96, however, the linked article does not make that argument. Instead, its principal point is that any "efforts to diminish Obama ... will only help elect Mitt Romney." (The article does link to another article in which substance, on the specific issue of use of drones, is considered.)

The linked article has apparently left you with the impression that its author would take a softer stance toward criticisms of Obama that he considered valid. It has not left me with that impression.

To say that I have no respect for Greenwald is an understatement...I have nothing but contempt.

And consenting to the President having the legal right to take away the life or liberty of anyone he wants when he wants. Why shouldn't somebody have a problem with that?

And if Obama hasn't taken advantage of these powers to the degree that he has grabbed them and ratified them, he has now set the groundwork so a Repub president can take full advantage of them.

If Greenwald hasn't mentioned Reproductive Rights or Environmental Regulations or any of those other important issues, it's probably because those two issues (murder and arrogation of extra-Constitutional power) are pretty fucking big things to just get over. Some people are trained to think of them as the most central principle to our system. I don't see that Greenwald, with his background, can compromise about these. Really, somebody should reminding us about them.

My own position? No, it isn't good. Obama must be given the chance to correct this. Perhaps the moves were political given his weakness. I'm skeptical, but he's the best hope we've got for the next four years. Now that may reduce his appeal, but it's not like Romney has fanatical support, either. If Repubs can hold their nose and act the part for him, we can still do it for Obama.

"I believe he just can't get past approving of murder."

...this guy: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

What's that saying: Give me a fucking break!

Greenwald is a tool!

...and it was taken out of context (made it seem like he "supported" the Iraq war, which he never did) and he was immediately called a CIA asset here on DU, and thrown totally under the bus. Meanwhile Greenwald gets a pass for doing the same thing, only Greenwald meant it.

People here thought I was supporting the war drums (I even stopped posting because I thought I'd get banned because of people misconstruing what I was saying). Anyone with the information available knew that we were invading Iraq. Information be damned. Evidence be damned.

It's not necessarily "unusual" that people "forgive Greenwald."

It's just fucking typical that the same group of people who bashed Juan Cole are supporters and defenders of Greenwald.

I have nothing to prove to you.

Thanks for the blue, now purple, link.

I like this A. Jay Adler @ sad red earth. Wish I'd seen him earlier.

Cheers,
Sid

And Glenn will be pleased to know that he can swing the entire national election.

Win/Win...

Seriously... most people here can think for themselves... or don't you believe that?

"And Glenn will be pleased to know that he can swing the entire national election."

...he can't, but is there any objection to pointing out that he's an asshole?


"Seriously... most people here can think for themselves... or don't you believe that?"

Example: Greenwald is an asshole and a tool.

I came up with that all by myself!

Thank you very much!

"What a bunch of worthless ad hominem."

What you basically did was ignore the OP ignore the information at the link to say any damn thing.

Dispute the information instead of offering up lame cliches.

Greenwald is a tool.

Please, go here and add to the list since you're so into Greenwald's spin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002747641

The OP makes no case whatsoever other than "Glenn Greenwald is mean to Obama when he objects to Obama's policies in many areas regarding the Middle East, terrorism, and civil rights. This is an election year and he needs to shut up and get with the program."

That's it.

Really.

He feels Greenwald is specifically targeting Obama on purpose ("politics of animus&quot and asserts that "I'm not an expert on the issues he brings up and he makes it too hard for me to dispute what he is saying so clearly he is bad." His proof for this? He cites another blogger who has the same problem with Noam Chomsky. Does he acknowledge that Glenn Greenwald railed against the Bush Administration over similar issues before Obama took office? Of course not. Does he ever prove Greenwald wrong? No, he mearly asserts he suffers from a "penetrating lack of discernment".

Actual proof? None. Ad hominem defined.

This is much in line with the continual re-posting of Greenwald's foolish support for a President taking the country into what is now widely condemned as an illegal war. He long ago realized his error and has done a 180. What a jerk, showing the maturity to adapt and evolve his position based on new information. Certainly the hallmark of an "asshole".

Another fun, and equally ridiculous, tactic seems to be to point out the topics he doesn't discuss, like the economy. It's the old, "hey, look over there!" tactic that never seems to wear out its welcome on political blogs. When you won't/can't rebut any of the issues raised, just change the issues! Glenn Greenwald has long maintained that since he is a lawyer primarily concerned with Constitutional and civil rights issues, that those areas would be where he would restrict his commentary. Imagine that, refraining from discussing topics you know nothing about. Clearly he doesn't understand blogging.

That a thread dominated by a crew of relentless Obama boosters hates Glenn Greenwald is about as surprising as Lindsay Lohan failing a sobriety test. I do find it hilarious that anyone thinks a population that increasingly supports torture and assassination by executive decree is going to be swayed by a column on Salon. The economy will decide this election, as it usually does. It basically got Obama elected back in 2008. Now, between the timid corporatist Democrats fumbling about and generally being nearly worthless while the GOP fully embraces their inner Ayn Rand as the perfect antidote to reality, we have a recipe for a potential Obama loss... along with complete global economic, environmental, and political collapse...which, let's face it, we aren't doing a great job avoiding regardless.

An increasingly ignorant (we can get into the death of public schools in another thread) and desperate population and a predatory corporate/political class are the real players in the 21st century U.S. Of course, should Obama lose in the Fall, I fully expect to see some threads laying all the blame for our ills on Glenn Greenwald and other Obama critics.

I'm sure Ralph Nader will be relieved to pass the crown.

As for the whole "Romney surrogacy" thing, here's an example of why Glenn Greenwald won't affect Obama's poll numbers:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/poll-americans-approve-targeted-killing-terror-suspects-americans

Welcome to DU.

Putting aside that the majority of the U.S. population, between 60% and 70%, supported the invasion, and around 90% supported Bush after 9/11, making them all worthless tools as well, you are still committing the same mistake as before, making an argument without any evidence. Who is it that he is not allowing to evolve, particularly with regards to Iraq? Is he really being to harsh in these cases, or is he calling into question the reasons for their change of heart? Is he bothered that they purportedly realize that Iraq was a mistake but are now in full-throated support of other potentially misguided military adventures? What's the framework here? By the way, "he changed? Fuck him. I never supported Iraq or Bush" is precisely the attitude you appear to be condemning him for.

"...whose primary argument constantly conflates terror suspects with the average American on the street. "

Actually, that is incorrect. His arguments center around the Constitutional violation of any American's rights. Location is irrelevant. He has, in fact, allowed for the possibility that the President is justified, but that this Administration's refusal to release any evidence used in determining who is slated for assassination makes it impossible to support the program. As for the poll, it simply tends to support the notion that the President's foreign policies aren't the primary driver in the upcoming election.

As for the Greenwald/Nader connection, I was, which I assume you understand, making the point that certain segments of the Left tend to obsess with the search for a Judas to hang their losses upon. If being on the ballot is the only way you influence the outcome of an election, then Greenwald really can't be a Romney surrogate after all. If he can influence an election, be a spoiler without the "candidate" handle, then the ballot point is irrelevant.

Thank you.

If the "extreme" left demoralize the base as they did in 2010 (and people sit home) then Obama could well lose this thing.

Of course, Obama does do the targeted killing because American's are bloodthirsty assholes, but what can you do. The guy wants to get reelected. I expect he'll even come out for marijuana in due course (the polls just flipped on that one, now the majority wants it legalized).

In reality Glenn Greenwald is attempting to demoralize the base from the right Libertarian point of view, so he serves the purposes of the "extreme" right very well. The "extreme" left identify with what he writes, while ignorantly not understanding what he actually means. For instance, Iraq has thousands of contractor mercenaries, Blackwater (now known as Academi after numerous name changes) et al. Glenn Greenwald does not level much criticism at these mercenaries because they are totally legitimate from a right Libertarian point of view.

what they hell they've been up to (details, not vague contracts), but can find scant information.

But if Greenwald is ALL about privatization of the military (a right Libertarian point of view), then what about his criticism here:

Really, it sounds just like that. Read it again, carefully.

My criticism of the mercenaries is that they're no different from the military.

services. Oh how libertarian is that! And he is not advocating for more prisons built but bemoaning the inhumane conditions in prisons because of the U.S. drug war and because of that drug war the resulting inhumane conditions. He is making a double point here.

Of course that's the one fucking thing Libertarians actually support. They want to imprison those who break contracts. They're find with drug runners as long as the contracts are upheld.

edit: what's even more delicious about that? His efforts to defend the "potheads" are meager at best. Hey, if you let them all go you wouldn't have to divert funds to pay for the prisons! Hilarious.

order prisoners released and 2) our judicial system is so ludicrous that pot smokers are thrown into prison.

You do know don't you that Greenwald wrote a white paper on drug decriminalization, don't you?

Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

That is not surprising to me at all. He's a Libertarian. He's actually for prison systems as "domestic services" as you call them. But only if they jail contract criminals (people who steal property, commit violence, etc). That's cool. But instead of saying "free the potheads and the prison system doesn't need as much funding" he's saying "get rid of the prisons in Afghanistan so we can pay for the prisons here."

His support for legalization is meager at best.

and yet you prevail with misrepresentation.

And no, he is saying spend the money to maintain humanitarian conditions in U.S. prisons. HUMANITARIAN.

...in Afghanistan.

“When it comes to the way money shapes American justice, nothing competes with the impact of the privatized prison lobby. Imprisoning criminals, once exclusively a government responsibility, has — like most government functions — been privatized. All over the United States, more and more prisons are managed not by government agencies but by for-profit private corporations such as Geo Group and Corrections Corporations of America. (In 2008, private prisons housed 7.5 percent of all inmate nationwide.) Those same companies accrue substantial revenues by providing contracting services to government-run prisons. They quite naturally view prisoners as their basic stock in trade and earn a profit for each prisoner they incarcerate. Like all private companies, the prison industry has an insatiable appetite for more business, and thus it agitates in favour of greater demand for its services — demand created through longer prison sentences, fewer opportunities for parole, and constant increases in the number of transgressions deemed prison-worthy. In other words, the private prison industry profits from precisely the draconian approach to penal policies implemented over the past decades… Simply put, incarceration is now big business in the United States.”

...in Afghanistan which could've been better spent on, as you call it, "domestic services." Even better, using Libertarian double speak, "domestic services for humanitarian purposes."

Whatever, it's just going in circles, now.

It is possible to argue for a better funded prison system, against prison privatization, against building massive foreign prison complexes, for a smaller prison population, and for the decriminalization of pot, all without being a contradictory hypocrite.

Maintaining our prisons is a domestic service, just like fire and police protection. It's an area rife with political abuse, particularly now with the ongoing push to privatize the whole system, but it is still a recipient of tax dollars and a part of the domestic budget at both the state and federal level.

Whatever your opinion on Greenwald's stance on "potheads", can you debate the argument that the "war on drugs" is wasting billions and putting thousands of Americans behind bars for trivial offenses? Approximately half of the current prison population is in jail on some sort of drug charge. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2109777,00.html

Who said anything about using any saved money from needless drug prosecution and incarceration for prison funding? Actually, that would be you. Can you prove that Glenn Greenwald holds that position?

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/15/debating_bushs_drug_czar_on_legalization/singleton/

To be clear, I am not arguing over whether Glenn Greenwald is a Libertarian or Progressive. I'm arguing that simply exclaiming that he is one and not the other (the core, it seems, of these "Greenwald suxors" threads) is not in and of itself proof that any of his arguments are wrong.

He spends an entire sentence on it, and uses vernacular like "pothead."

I'm quite sure he's spent quite a bit of time talking about drug imprisonment, and I don't disagree, but in that article the idiot is bemoaning paying for Afghanistan jails while not funding prisons here. "Funding prisons here" is not even relevant, we should defund the prisons so that more people are freed from needless drug criminalization.

The reason he doesn't go that far is because at their hearts Libertarians love the prison industrial complex.

In the U.S., prisons are so wildly overcrowded that courts are ordering them to release inmates en masse because conditions are so inhumane as to be unconstitutional (today, the FBI documented that a drug arrest occurs in the U.S. once every 19 seconds, but as everyone knows, only insane extremists and frivolous potheads advocate an end to that war). In the U.S., budgetary constraints are so severe that entire grades are being eliminated, the use of street lights restricted, and the most basic services abolished for the nation’s neediest. But the U.S. proposes to spend up to $100 million on a sprawling new prison in Afghanistan.

as well as our progressive Democratic state reps. Nobody here was demoralized or demoralizing - Mcdermott won with 83% of the vote.

Seems to me it was the non-lefty Blue Dogs who did not compel people through their positions or views of how to appropriately represent their constituencies who lost many of their offices.

They are just loud and contrarian and want to shit on everything except their special issues. The Blue Dogs lost in 2010, sure, that was fine. But we also lost people like Feingold and Grayson, which does fall to the middling vote suppressors.

I am not even convinced at this point that the "extreme" left is responsible for GOTV given WI and the palthy returns there.

Again, I repeat the 83% victory of my U.S. progressive representative who was elected by lefties here who appreciate his representation of of us, his constituents. And who show in droves to support him at his events, in part to help counter the $$$ spent by the RNC to take him down since they have found they can't shift our votes or support away from him.

And it's the same for my state representatives, as I can attest having participated in their innovative telephone town halls, in which they reached out to their constituents to address issues and stay informed of our views. And they're the ones fighting against initiatives that are bankrolled by oil corporations (doubtless using some of the many tax breaks they receive to be able to launch these waves of money against our best interests) and fighting for values and issues in sync with our state Democratic platform. You want to label those as "special" issues, that's your issue. They demonstrate the best of participatory democracy and none of your contrary, dismissive and just plain wrong statements alter or diminish that, them or the lefties who support them.

I also disagree with you about the Blue Dogs losing being "fine." It wasn't fine to be running and supporting so may candidates who are lukewarm or sometimes even opposed to their constituents' values and issues. It's a losing position and they are the ones who lost in droves and we lost the House. You bringing up two progressive Democratic loses (one in the Senate, which we retained despite the sad loss of Feingold ) does not change what happened. And yes, us lefties here

And in Wisconsin, you have to ignore the reality of the outside $$$$$$$ thrown against Feingold, the support he still received from progressives there and the defection not of progressives, but of so-called "centrist" so-called independents to make your argument.

And then you shit on the hard work of the Wisconson DU'ers who have been fighting on the ground, as evidenced in DU forums, against the flood of money unleashed in their state and who, despite these enormous odds against them managed to turn around their state legislature.

I single helped keep Colorado blue in 2010 by single handedly getting out around 10% of the vote we won by. This was when other states went red and we lost a lot of Democrats. Oh, we also prevented a massive military base expansion here (Pinion Canyon). BTW, do you know how much it cost me to get people to vote? Zero dollars. Nada. I did it all on fucking foot.

There's nothing wrong about my factual observation that WI Dem's didn't GOTV as the GOPers did. 450k less votes is not a joking matter. I said before the vote happened that GOTV was paramount, and I did say that the outside money had an effect. But as I said before, GOTV is the least costly thing you can do. The turnout there was horrific. I blame the ground game for that one, not money. You don't win elections with advertising, you win them with numbers.

I think there is a demoralizing effect from people saying "it doesn't matter" or "our guy is bad." The evidence is clear purely in the numbers when people don't fucking go to the polls when they're needed.

office.
And do the same for the local and state representatives from our area.
And we did it despite the $$$$ flowing against us.
We have proved our support of them and our state's Democratic platform.
We pulled our weight and I'm sick of insinuations that we haven't. Those insinuations are what is demoralizing, though fortunately you have no sway in what we do here.

You brought up the 2010 races as an example to prove your point, but it's not a factual one. Again, it was the Blue Dogs who staked out the nebulous so-called center and lost when that center inevitably shifted back over to its Republican roots.

The Wisconsin elections yielded a split decision which shows it's not as simplistic as you're defining it and also shows GOTV did happen for the Senate race there. And I appreciate the DUers who did that work and will continue to do so now and in the future.

If you consider yourself an extreme leftist but still participate in the political process and reach across the isle to get moderates or independents to vote for Democrats, good for you. That's not my experience and the numbers prove my point no matter what you say.

The center did not in fact shift, in fact demographics are only moving leftward and have been for a long time now, what happened was the moderates and independents that democrats need to get elected in some area were not compelled to vote. There are many reasons for this, including the faux rise of the "teaparty." But that doesn't excuse it.

It's all over the place and continues to provide no more proof of the twisted pretzel points you've been making then any of your previous ones on this topic.

Continue, if you wish, but I bid you goodnight.

to narrow or re-define them.

in 2010.

I was responding to your (if I understood it correctly) assertion that it was the left side of the party that caused the losses in 2010.

...who is responsible?

Who was supposed to GOTV in MI?

So the left is to blame when conservative Democrats fail to get enough votes from the middle? That doesn't strike you as just a little unrealistic and self-serving...?

Let me just repeat this so I'm sure I have it straight. Liberals should vote for candidates who are too conservative for their tastes, because appealing to the "middle" is the only way to win. But if those "moderates" lose because the middle didn't vote for them, then liberals are to blame?

I would say that if so-called "moderates" lose, then they represent a losing political strategy, by definition.

By the way, what evidence do you have for your claim that the left wasn't heavily involved in GOTV efforts in recent elections?

Are you saying that Barrett was just "too conservative" to get elected?

The evidence is clear, when Obama got elected the votes appeared, when Obama wasn't on the line, the votes somehow mysteriously dropped by a whole 6-7 points. Consistently.

edit: meant WI, obviously

There were a lot of things happening there. Walker's eight-to-one spending advantage was probably the major factor, and yes, it overcame labor's very massive GOTV effort.

I think that they focused on the cities and underestimated the rural impact. When Obama won WI it was both rural and cities that took him over. The rural people are "more conservative" and the left has a bitter distaste for them just because they're not left wing enough. Indeed, it's even called self-serving to give a shit about moderate or even conservative democrats.

But if GOTV efforts were all you needed, then people wouldn't spend money on advertising. Since Walker had eight times more money to spend, then it was all down to GOTV, and that wasn't enough.

But not insurmountable.

Last edited Sun Jun 10, 2012, 10:36 AM - Edit history (1)

"If the "extreme" left demoralize the base as they did in 2010..."

As proven by....?

Hey, maybe it was the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress that demoralized the Left? No? Not possible? The whole Public Option debacle, the failure to pursue Bush and Cheney, the pre-election fold on tel-com immunity, folding on Guantanamo, abandoning New York terror suspect trials, a weak stimulus, no Wall Street prosecutions, caving on the Bush tax cuts, stuffing his cabinet and advisors with Wall Street cronyies, etc., etc. all had no effect? It had to be a hand full of naysayers on the Intertubes?

How is opposition to execution by executive decree a "Libertarian point of view"? More importantly, how is it wrong?

How is Glenn Greenwald writing about Obama's drone bombings doing more to damage Obama or U.S. security than the policy itself?

It's not the policy, it's the whistle-blower, I guess.

...is ad hominem:

Over THIS GUY ???

Or don't you bother with such things?

I bet she can defend herself.

In any event, you didn't answer the question I asked, so I'm not sure why you responded.

so. Many of us surf du at work or other places where we need to know where a link leads before clicking on it. We never know that with Pro Sense.

but I directly brought this up with you in the past. You would have a link with a one word label and you had to actually press it to know where it went. For those of us at work we can't do that. If a link is unlabeled I have no clue if it is or isn't a DU link. And please don't tell a story and say I haven't brought this up with you because I will like the precise place where I did. Again the links in this post are fine, they go to a place I can see what it is before pressing. But many, many of your links don't do that.

On edit One of the most problematic sites for me is actually salon. I can't read the OP's link at work as it will freeze my computer. That is but one reason I so much needed people like you to actually label their links clearly.

You don't need to click anything, all you have to do is hover your pointer on top of the link and it will say where it leads. You don't need to click.

"And again... tell me where Glenn has his FACTS wrong. "

WTF does his bio have to do with the fact that he supported the Iraq war and Bush?

He's a tool. Get used to that fact.

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2012, 04:06 PM - Edit history (2)

He has spoken openly about his reluctance at the start of the Iraq invasion and his rapid conversion to full on opponent of Bush and his policies. Acknowledging a mistake and evolving to adopt a newer, hopefully better position hardly constitutes "supporting Bush and the Iraq War."

Why, that almost seems like an attempt to smear someone by distorting their previous positions...

I thought only Glenn Greenwald did that.

Maybe the point of his bio is that his education and experience make him better qualified to comment on Constitutional and civil rights issues than a random commenter on DU. I'm guessing that point wasn't really missed, though.

Pointing out where he gets his facts wrong and making your case with something stronger than declaring him a "tool" and "asshole" would be a big step toward negating any of Greenwald's presumed expertise. There are plenty of examples of people with advanced degrees being wrong, it just takes some effort and, you know, proof.

Are you assuming that because Glenn Greenwald starting actively writing and blogging in 2005 that that must also be the year he repudiated Bush and the Iraq invasion?

What past actions, did he do something to directly advance the invasion somehow?