Glenn Greenwald meet Ron Paul

[ProSense]

Greenwald:

<...>

There are many reasons why the media is eager to disappear Ron Paul despite his being a viable candidate by every objective metric. Unlike the charismatic Perry and telegenic Bachmann, Paul bores the media with his earnest focus on substantive discussions. There’s also the notion that he’s too heterodox for the purist GOP primary base, though that was what was repeatedly said about McCain when his candidacy was declared dead.

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.

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/16/elections_9/

Flashback: One person voted against the original Afghanistan AUMF

Barbara Lee
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

Ron Paul voted yes.

In 2007, the House voted to 218 to 212 to Set Date for Iraq Pullout

NYT: House, 218 to 212, Votes to Set Date for Iraq Pullout
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24cong.html

Ron Paul voted no
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll186.xml

In 2007, Ron Paul introduced the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007

Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for any planned similar acts or acts of war against the United States in the future.

States that no letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued without the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President determines sufficient to ensure the letter's execution.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr3216ih/pdf/BILLS-110hr3216ih.pdf

Of course when he introduced it in 2001, it was "for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator"

September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001

<...>

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3076ih/pdf/BILLS-107hr3076ih.pdf

Ex-Aide: Ron Paul Foreign Policy is 'Sheer Lunacy'

Ron Paul is not having the best holiday season. First the media discovered racist, anti-Semitic newsletters that went out under Paul’s name in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s. Then the New York Times did a story about the support Paul draws from white supremacists and anti-Semites.

Now there’s former Paul staffer Eric Dondero purporting to describe the ins and outs of Paul’s positions on everything from Israel (it shouldn’t exist) to Hitler (we shouldn’t have fought him) to 9/11 (U.S. authorities may have known about the attacks) to Afghanistan (we shouldn’t have invaded). He calls Paul’s foreign policy “sheer lunacy.”

Or, as the conservative Weekly Standard summarized in hits headline: “Ex-Aide Says Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & Isolationist Who Thinks U.S. Shouldn't Have Fought Hitler.”

In his 2,100-word piece, posted at RightwingNews.com, Dondero says he held several campaign and Capitol Hill posts with Paul from 1987 to 2003. At his own website, LibertarianRepublican.net, he said he was revealing much of the information for the first time. “Much of what I have to say will not please the liberal media hacks. Though, the Ron Paul diehards will find much objectionable, as well,” Dondero wrote.

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-aide-ron-paul-foreign-policy-sheer-lunacy-144730256.html

[joshcryer]

1. "anti-crony-capitalism"! HOLY SHIT!

I want to start a thread about how utterly fucking stupid that observation is. Holy shit.

[ProSense]

2. Insane, isn't it? n/t

[abelenkpe]

3. +1000 nt

[Bjorn Against]

56. He is for cutthroat capitalism not crony capitalism

I am no fan of Ron Paul, in fact I find him repulsive, but Greenwald is actually correct in that statement. Crony capitalism means business using the government for their own profit, Ron Paul opposes corporate welfare which is crony capitalism and he actually opposes it more loudly than any other candidate in the race. What he supports is cutthroat capitalism, he supports eliminating nearly all regulations and letting corporations do basically whatever they want without government interference. He supports allowing corporations to exploit people on their own, but he opposes allowing corporations to use the government to exploit people which is what crony capitalism is. His policy is every bit as bad as the policies of those who support crony capitalism if not worse, but it is not the same thing as crony capitalism.

[joshcryer]

63. No, crony capitalism means capitalism where cronyism furthers business.

An unregulated free market always, always leads to crony capitalism. Players in the market will always collude, because it is beneficial to them to do so. And because it is unregulated, because the "government won't interfere" there's nothing to stop the mafia state from forming.

[Bjorn Against]

68. No, that is capitalism but not necessarily crony capitalism

Ron Paul does support the type of capitalism you describe, but he opposes government collusion with such a system which is what would be necessary to make it crony capitalism. Crony capitalists support a form of capitalism in which the government does interefere but interferes in a way that is beneficial to corporate interests, the ideology that Ron Paul pushes for opposes all types of government interference in the market. Both are bad systems but they are not the same.

You can read up on what crony capitalism is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism

On edit: I will also provide a link to laissez-faire capitalism which is the ideology Ron Paul promotes, it is still a terrible system but not the same as crony capitalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

[joshcryer]

73. Nah, I know he thinks ideologically that Laissez-faire doesn't mean crony-capitalism...

...and indeed, free market Libertarians have been trying to make the case forever that it doesn't lead to crony-capitalism, but it always does. Just because he doesn't "believe in" (who "believes in?&quot crony-capitalism does not mean he doesn't advocate it implicitly by advocating a theory which leads to it ultimately.

Indeed, a Laissez-faire capitalist would have no problem with two or more market players colluding to form a monopoly. They just think, naively, that such a situation wouldn't happen. But it did happen. That's where we are today.

[Bjorn Against]

75. While your first paragraph may be true, but Ron Paul does not see it that way

I think you are probably right that a laissez-faire system would probably turn into a crony capitalist system, but someone like a Ron Paul would probably fight like hell to stop that from happening. He would probably lose the battle eventually because not everyone is a laissez-faire ideologue like he is, but that does not mean he supports crony capitalism it just means that he supports an ideology that would eventually result in people who hold a different ideology getting their way.

As far as what you say in your paragraph however, in that regard I think Ron Paul is likely even worse than you think. Ron Paul does not talk about monopolies much, but he knows what you say is true and he doesn't care. Laissez-faire proponents may occasionaly try to downplay the threat of monopolies, but they are absolutely opposed to doing anything to stop them as they would much rather have monopolies than any sort of government regulation.

[joshcryer]

76. I don't think wall street CEOs "see it that way" either.

For example, they wouldn't call it "cronyism" that they paid a lobbyist to get a regulation lifted which benefits them. Yet, that's one definition of "crony capitalism." If Ron Paul thinks that Laissez-faire would never ever result in cronyism it's merely a delusional belief system.

I don't think that Ron Paul or free market advocates actually believe this aspect of Laissez-faire. I know that the more educated ones have been informed of this, but just because they delude themselves, or simply reject the notion that it ends up this way, doesn't mean that Ron Paul or other free marketers are anti-crony-capitalism. It means they're idiots or at the bare minimum maliciously misinforming.

[frazzled]

4. And if Paul doesn't get the nomination, he'll be gunning for Gary Johnson

on the Libertarian ticket.

How could someone so wrong be so revered here?

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Because he's right on foreign policy.

Though, I wouldn't say 'revered'. Much of his domestic policy is plutonium to progressives.

You have to weigh it against the fatigue and desperation of those of us who want these fucking wars OVER. He's the only consistent option. My hope is that he gets the nomination, and his anti-war rhetoric drags Obama back from the center, to the anti-war left. He can do much good in that capacity.

On things like ending social security, he's dead in the water. Nobody's going to go for it, and Obama won't have to change his stance at all.

[frazzled]

90. Would you have supported Pat Buchanan for president because of his foreign policy?

Because he opposed the war in Iraq in the first place (though not for the reasons you and I would).

I just looked up Gary Johnson's foreign policy positions on his website: he is against any military deployments anywhere. That's an isolationist, Libertarian position. There is no other foreign policy on it. He doesn't fucking HAVE a foreign policy. He doesn't want a foreign policy because he doesn't believe we should be involved in anything anywhere in the world, apparently: including climate treaties, foreign aid, alliances of any kind. He quite possibly thinks we shouldn't be in the UN. I don't know because, as I said, he doesn't seem to have a foreign policy.

So big deal, he wants to end our involement in Afghanistan. So does Obama: only he can accomplish it, while maintaining a broad foreign policy in many areas.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I support the republicans throwing him Buchanan as a candidate, yeah.

That would be great. Even more easily defeated in the general election.
I don't know much about Gary Johnson.


Obama ISN'T accomplishing it. At best, he stuck to Bush's deal on ending involvement in Iraq. We still have hundreds of military bases around the world we don't need and cant afford, and are sabre rattling with Iran. It has to stop.

We might get a little more traction if Obama has to run against a completely anti-war, non-interventionist.

I'll conceed it's a risk. An incumbent in a weak economy might lose, and that would be catastrophic. But I think RP would be a better opponent in that regard. Mittens could potentially win more easily, I believe.

[TheWraith]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Frankly, with Greenwald lauding such a massively racist and homophobic bag of shit as Ron Paul--in part on his "anti imperialist" cred even though Ron Paul is on the record wanting a ground war with Iran--it just goes to show Greenwald has no credibility whatsoever.

[markpkessinger]

81. If you read the article . . .

. . . It hardly constitutes "lauding" Ron Paul. Greenwald is simply making a point. A really, really inconvenient point for some.

[arely staircase]

6. He opposes Obama's drone policy

So that makes any racist, anti-worker, anti-environmental, anti-food safety, pro-corporate, pro-states rights reactionary opinions he might hold to be irrelevent.

[TheWraith]

7. Not to mention he thinks gay people deliberately spread AIDS to straight people. nt

[arely staircase]

12. Meaning he shouldn't even be a doctor

Much less president

[ProSense]

8. Krugman said it:

<...>

Unfortunately, Mr. Paul has maintained his consistency by ignoring reality, clinging to his ideology even as the facts have demonstrated that ideology’s wrongness. And, even more unfortunately, Paulist ideology now dominates a Republican Party that used to know better.

I’m not talking here about Mr. Paul’s antiwar views or his less well-known views on civil and reproductive rights, which would horrify liberals who think of him as a good guy. I’m talking, instead, about his views on economics.

Mr. Paul identifies himself as a believer in “Austrian” economics — a doctrine that it goes without saying rejects John Maynard Keynes but is almost equally vehement in rejecting the ideas of Milton Friedman. For Austrians see “fiat money,” money that is just printed without being backed by gold, as the root of all economic evil, which means that they fiercely oppose the kind of monetary expansion Friedman claimed could have prevented the Great Depression — and which was actually carried out by Ben Bernanke this time around.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html

[joshcryer]

15. Ron Paul is the poster boy for crony-capitalism. Anyone who says otherwise...

...is either deliberately lying or an idiot. It is mind boggling to me that anyone touted by "progressives" can actually view Paul that way, it's really hard for me to believe. Who are these people and what have they done to my DU?

[arely staircase]

16. Funny how many liberals either don't know

Or are willing to overlook the fact he says the voting rights act was a bad thing or that segregated restaurants were the rights of a prOperty owner.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. Many liberals overlook his stance on voting/civil rights, which again proves that Melissa

Harris Perry was spot on!

[Merlot]

30. Don't forget his anti-choice, anti-woman views

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. And nowhere in the modern world has Austrian economics actually worked. No way, no how. n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

13. Where does Greenwald say that?

[arely staircase]

19. In the article posted above

He lauds Paul's foreign policy while ignoring the fact he is a racist. Of course those words are my analysis of GGs thesis but the thesis is his.

[Puregonzo1188]

38. That's quite a leap of logic.

Particularly since Greenwald mentioned both Paul's stance on abortion and the welfare state.

[arely staircase]

89. perhaps a bit hyperbolic, but not a great leap of logic. nt

[Luminous Animal]

28. Please see post #26 because Greenwald is right.

Paul is the only anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-surveillance state, anti-corporatist candidate.

Granted he's adopted populist rhetoric that is not supported by his legislative history but that is not Greenwald's point. His point is that the listed issues are important to the U.S. public and a right-wing Republican is the only candidate addressing them.

Greenwald says nothing about supporting Paul. He says nothing about Paul's truthiness. Greenwald is merely making a factual observation about a political candidate.

[ProSense]

31. So

"Greenwald says nothing about supporting Paul. He says nothing about Paul's truthiness. Greenwald is merely making a factual observation about a political candidate. "

...you're saying Greenwald knows Paul is a lying racist, but is only using his words as an example?


Well, Paul isn't anti war and Obama ended the Iraq war. The war he has to end now is the Afghanistan war, which Paul voted for.

[joshcryer]

44. Paul is not anti-corporatist.

Fucking liberals who believe that are idiots.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Duh. But you won't convince them by calling them idiots.

I don't know how often you've gone door to door to get people to vote for your candidate, but I can tell you, you don't sway them to vote for your candidate when they are leaning to another by calling them idiots.

[joshcryer]

65. I don't sway anyone to vote any way I want.

I know that demographics are on my side so I simply get out the vote.

[joshcryer]

14. Given his stance on Osama, he's only against targeted killing...

...if the military does it.

Private contractors?

No worries.

[Luminous Animal]

29. And not once has Greenwald said that any of his anti-democratic record is irrelevant.

Greenwald is, quite simply, making a statement about Paul's rhetoric, as a candidate - on the campaign trail, on issues that are important to the U.S. public. Issues that no other candidate is addressing. It is important information to know given that a fair amount of young liberals are supporting Paul. If Paul ends up as the Republican candidate or ends up mounting a 3rd party campaign it is wise to understand why his propaganda resonates in order to refute it with his legislative record.

[ProSense]

34. Do

"It is important information to know given that a fair amount of young liberals are supporting Paul. "

...you have evidence of this? It's certainly not clear from the polls that Paul has garnered the support of a "fair amount of young liberals."

It's certainly not the case in NJ: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100275382

In fact, other than the hype that Paul is likely to do well in the GOP Iowa caucus, there's no evidence to support any surge in his standing in any other state.

Still, he's rightfully being exposed for the kook he is.

[Luminous Animal]

42. I'm looking for the stat on young voters in your link and I don't see them.

Could you please reproduce them here?

[ProSense]

43. I

"I'm looking for the stat on young voters in your link and I don't see them.

Could you please reproduce them here?"

...do believe I asked you for evidence based on your comment: "It is important information to know given that a fair amount of young liberals are supporting Paul. "

Where's your evidence? I said it's not clear from the poll, meaning that Paul is so far behind. What is your statement based on?

[Luminous Animal]

51. So far, I am only seeing it in San Francisco and Oakland.

At the Occupy camps and fierce arguments with the under 30 crowd on the internet. But, I remember Perot's (another nutjob) campaign and I am not too worried about Paul getting the Republican nomination, I am worried about him mounting an independent campaign. Paul is definitely waging a campaign that is echoing many of the complaints being expressed at the Occupy camps and protests.

By the way, your poll only included 15% ages 18-29. (36% 30-49, 29% 50-64, 20% 65+)

[Cali_Democrat]

103. Yup

[Scurrilous]

9. Thanks ProSense.

[msanthrope]

10. But, he thinks Manning is a patriot!!! He MUST be good...

Thanks ProSense.

[Puregonzo1188]

11. What is the point of cherry picking a random paragraph from a four month old article on how the

media covers Presidential candidates, and than follow it with random, unrelated, and even contradictory information--First Ron Paul isn't truly anti-war and voted for the AUMF, then he's a lunatic because he's too anti-war and gasp didn't even want to vote for the AUFM, but did anyway (I am not sure which one supposed to be angry at Ron Paul, please tell me).

Nowhere in the article does Greenwald endorse Ron Paul, it is merely a commentary on how the media covers Presidential politics and it's wider effects. The Ron Paul section is brief and is part of a larger point about how the media treats heterodox political candidates, who Greenwald cites both George McGovern and Barry Goldwater as examples of. He even mentions Paul's positions on abortion and the welfare state.

Please cease the intellectual dishonesty.

[ProSense]

17. Here

"What is the point of cherry picking a random paragraph from a four month old article..."

...let me pull a "random paragraph" from hours old article.

<...>

Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor's once-controversial terrorism polices. In the last GOP foreign policy debate, the leading candidates found themselves issuing recommendations on the most contentious foreign policy question (Iran) that perfectly tracked what Obama is already doing, while issuing ringing endorsements of the president when asked about one of his most controversial civil liberties assaults (the due-process-free assassination of the American-Yemeni cleric Anwar Awlaki). 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.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/27-10

"Nowhere in the article does Greenwald endorse Ron Paul, it is merely a commentary on how the media covers Presidential politics and it's wider effects. The Ron Paul section is brief and is part of a larger point about how the media treats heterodox political candidates, who Greenwald cites both George McGovern and Barry Goldwater as examples of. He even mentions Paul's positions on abortion and the welfare state."

My bad, he's just holding up a racist lunatic for holding values that are about as real as his imaginary anti-war stance.

[Luminous Animal]

32. He's not "holding up" anyone. He is making a clear factual observation of

Paul's candidacy.

No one can deny that Paul is running AS A CANDIDATE an anti-war, anti-surveillance state, anti-corporate, anti- drug war campaign.

That this campaign is cynical and unsubstantiated by Paul's legislative record is not Greenwald's point.

[ProSense]

37. You

He's not "holding up" anyone. He is making a clear factual observation of

Paul's candidacy.

No one can deny that Paul is running AS A CANDIDATE an anti-war, anti-surveillance state, anti-corporate, anti- drug war campaign.

...can't be serious? No one can deny that Romney is running as the ultimate job creator.

[Luminous Animal]

45. Yes. It is a fact that Romney is RUNNING as the ultimate job creator.

What is not a fact is that Romney is the ultimate job creator.

They are two distinct things and if Romney ends up being the candidate, it is up to Democrats to offer evidence that he is not.

GWHB ran as a compassionate conservative. The fact that those words came out of his mouth and a mythology was built around that is undisputed.

The fact that he actually was one was widely challenged.

The fact that Ron Paul is running an anti-war campaign is undisputed.

The fact that Ron Paul actually is anti-war can be substantially disputed.

[ProSense]

47. So

Yes. It is a fact that Romney is RUNNING as the ultimate job creator.

What is not a fact is that Romney is the ultimate job creator.

<...>

The fact that Ron Paul is running an anti-war campaign is undisputed.

The fact that Ron Paul actually is anti-war can be substantially disputed.

...does this mean that Greenwald will be "reporting" on Romney's position as a "job creator"?

The fact is that Obama is campaigning on ending the Iraq war.

The fact is that Obama actually ended the Iraq war.

I don't expect any "reporting" of that fact from Greenwald. In fact, I think he tried to give credit to Bush.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Dude, Bush negotiated SOFA. The terms of which required

that U.S. combat troops would be out of Iraq by 12/31/2001. This is not in dispute.

Are you suggesting that Obama had the option of breaking the terms of that agreement?


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agreement,_2008#Article_30.E2.80.94The_Period_for_which_the_Agreement_is_Effective

"Article 24—Withdrawal of the United States Forces from Iraq

Recognizing the performance and increasing capacity of the Iraqi Security Forces, the assumption of full security responsibility by those Forces, and based upon the strong relationship between the Parties, an agreement on the following has been reached:

1. All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.
2. All United States combat forces shall withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than the time at which Iraqi Security Forces assume full responsibility for security in an Iraqi province, provided that such withdrawal is completed no later than June 30, 2009.
3. United States combat forces withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be stationed in the agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated by the JMOCC before the date established in paragraph 2 above.
4. The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time. The Government of Iraq recognizes the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.
5. The Parties agree to establish mechanisms and arrangements to reduce the number of the United States Forces during the periods of time that have been determined, and they shall agree on the locations where the United States Forces will be present.

[ProSense]

55. Well,

"Dude, Bush negotiated SOFA. The terms of which required "

..."Dude," President Obama oversaw the entire withdrawal of the more than 140,000 troops.

"Are you suggesting that Obama had the option of breaking the terms of that agreement?"

Only when his detractors claimed that he had no intention of ending the war, and then moving on to claim that al-Maliki forced him to.

Otherwise, President Obama inherited and ended the war.

And I'm not a "Dude."

[TheWraith]

61. If you believe ANY REPUBLICAN would have pulled out of Iraq, you're fucking nuts.

Seriously. There is no way that any Republican President would have honored that agreement--I know it, and if you're honest and not trying to rationalize away the end of the way, you know it too.

[Robb]

84. That's precisely the position Boehner took on things.

Cheney as well. "Bush ended the war, not Obama."

At some point it pays to look around and see who else is standing on the shouting line you've picked.

[Puregonzo1188]

35. Wow, out of the entire article Ron Paul is mentioned in a single sentence.

And are you disputing Greenwald's characterization of Paul's views on drone wars, whistleblowers persecutions, and the war on terrorism? And if not, what other candidates hold these views as well?

I am not a Paul fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I also despise intellectual dishonesty.

I am also totally perplexed by what your agenda is or what you are trying to accomplish. First you post information attempting to assail Ron Paul as not in fact being anti-war (calling this stance "imagined&quot than you post an article explaining how some rightwinger thinks Paul is too anti-war. Which is it? Or are you just trying to attack Paul from all sides and are hoping to be successful on at least one count?

I don't like Paul because his "free-market" economic polices are insane and he's pretty bad on civil liberties when it comes to African-Americans, women, and LGBT people. I also don't think he's really a libertarian, not that matters to me. I also agree with Greenwald's commentary on the insipidness of the media's coverage of Presidential campaigns and how they've largely morphed into meaningless charades that obscure real issues.

You on the other hand, I have no idea what you think of Ron Paul since you all over the map. And I also unsure of what you actually think of the main ideas of the articles you've posted or if in all honesty you've even read them.

Is this is even about Paul at all? Is this some sort of personal dislike of Greenwald that leads you to engage in these bizarre attempts at character assassinations as opposed to actually engaging into intellectually serious critique of his views?

Like I said, I am perplexed.

[ProSense]

40. Well

"I am not a Paul fan by any stretch of the imagination, but I also despise intellectual dishonesty."

...good because he's a racist, and I also "despise intellectual dishonesty." And speaking of that...

I don't like Paul because his "free-market" economic polices are insane and he's pretty bad on civil liberties when it comes to African-Americans, women, and LGBT people. I also don't think he's really a libertarian, not that matters to me. I also agree with Greenwald's commentary on the insipidness of the media's coverage of Presidential campaigns and how they've largely morphed into meaningless charades that obscure real issues.

You on the other hand, I have no idea what you think of Ron Paul since you all over the map. And I also unsure of what you actually think of the main ideas of the articles you've posted or if in all honesty you've even read them.

Is this is even about Paul at all? Is this some sort of personal dislike of Greenwald that leads you to engage in these bizarre attempts at character assassinations as opposed to actually engaging into intellectually serious critique of his views?

What a load!

[Puregonzo1188]

54. Thanks for clarifying your position.

I am really glad I responded to your post with not one, but two lengthy and thoughtful replies. My earlier inclinations that you were not even remotely interested in seriously engaging with other people with what is presumably differing viewpoints has been confirmed by your most recent antics.

Have fun playing this game.

[ProSense]

58. Well,

Thanks for clarifying your position.

I am really glad I responded to your post with not one, but two lengthy and thoughtful replies. My earlier inclinations that you were not even remotely interested in seriously engaging with other people with what is presumably differing viewpoints has been confirmed by your most recent antics.

Have fun playing this game.

...if the OP wasn't clear, maybe you're the one playing games. I mean, Ron Paul is a lunatic racist. What more clarification do you need?

[Puregonzo1188]

69. You've read my posts. And your OP never mentions Ron Paul is a lunatic racist.

You, not me, are the one that is playing games. Stop and have a honest conversation.

[ProSense]

71. So

"You've read my posts. And your OP never mentions Ron Paul is a lunatic racist."

...that's your issue? Well, now you know.

[Puregonzo1188]

72. No that's not my issue and you know damn well it isn't.

[MineralMan]

18. So Greenwald is a Paulite?

Hmph. No thanks.

[Luminous Animal]

33. Nope.

[Puregonzo1188]

52. No. I recommend you read the article in it's entirety.

[jpak]

22. Greenwald jumpeth ye sharke

yupeth

[WilliamPitt]

23. You should send this to Greenwald.

Good stuff.

[DonCoquixote]

24. Sigh

The best way to make Obama go left is NOT to do EXACTLY what your opponents on the right want you to do! I can agree on some issues, but this whole gilding of Obama's opponents has got to stop!

[ProSense]

25. More on Ron Paul:

Ron Paul Signs Pro-Life Personhood Pledge

On Monday, Ron Paul became the fifth candidate to sign a pledge from Personhood USA. Signees agree that life begins at conception and that as president they would work to outlaw abortion at all stages of pregnancy:

I stand with President Ronald Reagan in supporting “the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,” and with the Republican Party platform in affirming that I “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.”

Tuesday night, Personhood USA will hold a pro-life forum — via tele-town hall and radio — in Iowa. So far, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum are attending.

[Luminous Animal]

26. Apparently, unlike Greenwald, you do not understand the word

candidate. Because, without a doubt, Paul is running as the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. Whether the rhetoric he espouses on the campaign trail can be supported by his legislative history in immaterial when considering low information voters.

What Greenwald is saying is that those issues are important to the majority of Americans and especially liberals, and no other candidates are mentioning them. (And let's be clear, Obama is not a candidate yet, so there is no expectations that he will respond to anything that is coming from the GOP field.)

This is why we are seeing a surge of young progressives and liberals supporting Paul.

There is ample evidence that Paul's legislative history does not support his rhetoric. But, just like Reagan (a clear disaster for labor, but laborers supported his candidacy), facts won't matter because Paul's propagandists will be counting on the general laziness of voters to not do due diligence. And his propagandists will be as skillful as any other candidate's propagandist.

Any Democratic electoral volunteer or operative needs to: First, quit sneering at Paul's supporters and reflexively calling him a nutjob or dangerous. That strategy will immediately close down any opportunity for substantive discussion. Second, memorize and be able to communicate in a sentence or two where Paul's legislative actions do not match his campaign rhetoric. Prosense provided a few but I am sure there are dozens more. At the last Occupy event I was at, an individual had a great print out of Paul's campaign rhetoric vs his votes that succinctly pointed out the divide in a clear bulleted list with website links. Third, do not use Dondero in an attempt to discredit Paul. Paulites hate Dondero and consider HIM a disaffected nutjob.

Given that the Republican machine is wholly against his candidacy, I predict that there is no way in hell that he'll get the nomination. And when he's finally squeezed out of the primary race, I can envision him mounting a 3rd Party challenge and if Paul maintains his populist appeal, I can envision him running a serious challenge (like that other nutjob Perot did using NAFTA as the wedge.)

So when Greenwald writes that Paul is the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war candidate, he is telling you the truth. What you do with that truth in defeating his campaign is up to you.

[ProSense]

27. Oh

Apparently, unlike Greenwald, you do not understand the word

candidate. Because, without a doubt, Paul is running as the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. Whether the rhetoric he espouses on the campaign trail can be supported by his legislative history in immaterial when considering low information voters.

What Greenwald is saying is that those issues are important to the majority of Americans and especially liberals, and no other candidates are mentioning them. (And let's be clear, Obama is not a candidate yet, so there is no expectations that he will respond to anything that is coming from the GOP field.) This is why we are seeing a surge of young progressives and liberals supporting Paul.

There is ample evidence that Paul's legislative history does not support his rhetoric. But, just like Reagan (a clear disaster for labor), facts won't matter because Paul's propagandists will be counting on the general laziness of voters to do due diligence. And his propagandists will be as skillful as any other candidate's propagandist.

...I "understand the word" just fine. Greenwald has bought into Paul's bullshit lies and is using Paul to further his anti-Obama agenda.

You may be fine with "young progressives and liberals supporting Paul," based on the distortions pushed by some so-called progressive voices, but it's not fine. It's nuts.

Repeating that Paul is anti-war is a distortion. Holding up someone who is an anti-choice, anti-civil rights, conspiracy theory nut as a protector of civil liberties is delusional.

Paul is a lunatic racist. Period.

[Luminous Animal]

36. He's never claimed that Paul is anti-war and he has not bought into Paul's bullshit.

He is, quite simply, pointing out the obvious. He is reporting that Paul is running an anti-war CAMPAIGN. Which is a fact.

And where or where did I ever say that I am fine with young progressives and liberals supporting Paul? That is flat out bullshit and I request you remove it because you've blatantly fabricated a position that I did not express and, in fact, outlined a strategy to combat against.

[Puregonzo1188]

39. Stop reading the article and engaging with what it actually says.

We're only allowed to refer to cherrypicked, out-of-context quotes during two minute hate.

Stop brining up facts or do you want President Bachman (or Paul!)?

[ProSense]

41. Hmmmm?

"He is reporting that Paul is running an anti-war CAMPAIGN."

"Reporting"?

[Luminous Animal]

46. Yes. Because that is exactly what Ron Paul is doing.

Ron Paul IS running an anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-surveillance campaign. He is, as Greenwald reports, the only Republican candidate doing so.

[ProSense]

48. Ron Paul

"Ron Paul IS running an anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-surveillance campaign."

...is running an anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civil rights, anti-voting rights, anti-Social Security, anti-government campaign.

[Luminous Animal]

57. As are all the other Republican candidates.

Greenwald is writing about what distinguishes him from the other Republican candidates.

[ProSense]

62. So

"Greenwald is writing about what distinguishes him from the other Republican candidates."

...are you saying that as far as being anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civil rights, anti-voting rights, anti-Social Security, anti-government he's a typical Republican?

Something I wonder: If Ron Paul had the chance to repeal the Civil Rights Act, would blacks be allowed to smoke weed in the back of the bus?

[Luminous Animal]

70. Yes I am saying that

being anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-civil rights, anti-voting rights, anti-Social Security, anti-government he's a typical Republican.

Again, Greenwald is writing about what distinguishes him from the other Republican candidates.

And your question is an excellent way to address a liberal Paulite who actually professes to support Paul.

[Robb]

59. +1.

The rest is all "Hitler was good to his mother"'crap.

[ProSense]

66. And don't forget

his spawn:

Rand Paul, Supposed Defender Of Civil Liberties, Calls For Jailing People Who Attend ‘Radical Political Speeches’
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/31/232182/rand-paul-criminalize-speech/

[Jennicut]

96. I think some who support Paul seem to want to forget those inconvenient little truths.

The man is beyond disgusting and he is not a true libertarian anyway. He gets in his own way by being anti-choice. Does anyone not see the irony in his utter stupidity? I am for the legalization of drugs but I would get behind someone who was not racist, sexist, anti-women, and homophobic.

[Robb]

86. Leave Greenwald alone!!

[Robb]

97. Careful, you might hurt my internet feelings.

[girl gone mad]

50. k & r

Sadly, Greenwald is correct.

[quinnox]

60. Good article by Greenwald

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Uncle Joe]

92. I agree, that is a good article by Greenwald and I would highly recommend for anyone to click

on the link and read the entirety of it

[Robb]

64. The Greenwald fanclub will ignore this, amusingly,

... with precisely the same mental slight-of-hand the Paulite "liberals" use to ignore Paul's batshittery. And moments later accuse those who disagree of being in a personality cult.

High comedy. K&R.

[joshcryer]

67. It's kind of delicious, in a sadistic sort of way...

Watching people make complete idiots of themselves, etc.

[SidDithers]

77. +1...nt

Sid

[MilesColtrane]

78. I heartily endorse this post for the usage of the term "batshittery"

MilesColtrane Seal of Approval™

[Hissyspit]

95. Ignore what?

I had read the article before Prosense misrepresent it contextually. (and left the perms link out so that people can't read the whole thing.)

[Zorra]

74. I don't trust Ron Paul any farther than I can spit. Makes no difference to me what

Glenn Greenwald means by what he wrote.

I don't much like Ron Paul supporters either.

They were at Occupy Phoenix at first and they really pissed me off with their disingenuous marketing spiel.

This whole Ron Paul thing is totally beyond lame.

[MrScorpio]

79. Greewald's been dipping into the holiday liquor a bit too much lately n/t

[SunsetDreams]

80. K&R thanks Prosense

[Whisp]

82. K&R

this is the Greenwald hero? good lord. If he can't see what Paul is all about then he's either a total idiot or has an idiotic agenda.

[SunsetDreams]

85. exactly,

I suspect it is the latter.

[Faygo Kid]

93. Ron Paul is a repugnant racist.

And as an FDR admirer, I might add that government can indeed play a role in bettering peoples' lives.

[Spazito]

94. Well done, excellent OP

[Cali_Democrat]

98. It's a good thing Greenwald never endorsed Ron Paul. n/t

[dionysus]

99. one of these days glenn will stop huffing glue. until then folks...

[Cali_Democrat]

101. Yup

[Luminous Animal]

100. Kick.

[ProSense]

102. A favor

"Kick"

...this one too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002102660

[ncteechur]

104. Greenwald needs to remember that progressive does not equal libertarianism.

[MjolnirTime]

105. Greenwald just isn't much of a Democrat.

[Vattel]

106. I really like Paul's anti-militairsm, anti-war-on-drugs, anti-surveillance-state stuff.

I hate other political positions he holds. Your attempt to suggest that he is really not anti-war is laughable. He has never said that he is against all war. He wanted to get Osama and he wanted to attack Al Qaeda. So he voted for the AUMF. And he endorsed letters of marque to get Osama. So what? Unlike Obama, he didn't want a nation-building war in Afghanistan, and he speaks eloquently against the misuse of American military power in the middle east.

It is sad that someone as far right as Paul is in many respects is the only presidential candidate who is speaking out against the misuse of American military strength in stupid wars like those in Afghanistan and the war that recently ended in Iraq. But the MIC has both parties and the mainstream media pretty firmly under its control. I hope that changes.