Glenn Greenwald ain't no Libertarian, Part 2: Wall Street

[MannyGoldstein]

(Second in a series on pervasive lies spewed on the Internet)

Rachel Maddow calls Glenn Greenwald "the American Left’s most fearless political commentator".

Bill Moyers says that Greenwald is ”the most important voice to have entered the political discourse in years.”.

Michael Moore says "The first thing I do when I turn on the computer in the morning is go to Glenn Greenwald’s blog to see what he said. He is truly one of our greatest writers right now."

Sounds like these folks think Greenwald's a Liberal - but others know better. A small but vocal group on the Internet is working 24/7 to let us know the truth: that Glenn Greenwald is in fact a Libertarian, and that his work is an existential threat to Democrats. That Greenwald attacks Democrats from the right because he's a far-right kook, not from the left because he's a Liberal.

Are Maddow, Moyers, and Moore mere rubes for the Koch brothers and Ron/Rand Paul? Is Greenwald truly a Libertarian bent on destroying what's left of good government, and turning the 99% into Soylent Green?

Yesterday we were shocked to find that Greenwald's stated views on Social Security and Medicare are substantially to the left of our Democratic president and many/most Democrats in Congress: he doesn't think these programs should be cut strengthened, no way, no how. Sacrebleu! Doesn't sound very Libertarian!

Perhaps we'll have better luck today: let's review Greenwald's record on the regulations that fetter Wall Street, that prevent the creation of an Ayn Randian paradise on Earth. Surely Greenwald must be in favor of freeing the wealthy and powerful from their nanny-state chains, and is working tirelessly to keep them from being unfairly prosecuted by The Most Liberal President Ever, yes?

For your review, here's some of Greenwald's handiwork on the subject:

The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions

"Zero Accountability": Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s Refusal to Prosecute Wall Street Crimes

Immunity and impunity in elite America

And then there's these:

Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street’s ownership of government

Another Goldman executive named to key government post as its profits skyrocket

The events preceding Goldman Sachs’ new “blowout profits” which starts In May, a former top IMF official noted: "the finance industry has effectively captured our government."

Sounds kind of... well, Liberal. Like that difficult woman from Massachusetts who somehow sneaked into the Senate.

Oh well, we seem to have struck out again today in proving Greenwald's Libertarian cred. Again, he appears to be a good bit more Liberal than our Democratic president and many/most Democratic members of Congress.

Of course, this hardly disproves that Greenwald is the result of a torrid 13 seconds between Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan in the bathroom at CBGBs - America is the land of baseball after all, it takes three strikes before we're out. Let's see if we can't nail Greenwald in our next installment. Or, maybe, just maybe, we'll find out that Greenwald ain't a Libertarian at all, that there's a group of people on the Internet who really, really really want us to know things that are simply crap.

Stay tuned.

[grasswire]

1. the critics must have gotten Tuesday night off...

...perhaps to watch "America's Got Talent"

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Perhaps they've realized their strategy was absurd

Coming soon: "Moonbat Glenn Greenwald makes Paul Krugman look sensible."

[billhicks76]

38. Exactly

Where are all the paid shills? Give it a minute

[RufusTFirefly]

2. K & R!

'Cos I'm, like, a New Deal Libertarian.

As for the blue linkers: I welcome their hatred.

[joshcryer]

3. Why would a Libertarian be for Wall Street?

They think the government protects Wall Street. Oh, wait, you basically established that in the OP.

The Libertarian ideal would be to prosecute the bankers and to not bail out the banks. Basically allowing the entire country to go to shit.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Why would they want to prosecute bankers?

Perhaps there's something about Wall Street I don't understand. Isn't Alan Greenspan a Libertarian?

[joshcryer]

14. Libertarians would prosecute bankers behind faulty loans.

Because they were "bad loans." Technically they'd make the bankers "pay back the losses" (but because of the utter expanse of it, the tens of billions or so the bankers owned in capital vs the trillions in the bailout, it's immaterial, literally a rounding error), so their prosecutions would be swift. Hundreds of thousands of bankers, agents, robosigners, you name it, made to go into indentured servitude.

Meanwhile they would have absolutely allowed for millions of foreclosures, tens of thousands of banks to fail, etc, etc. No bailout whatsoever. Global great depression.

Here's how fantistical Libertarians viewed the subprime mortgage crisis (though the image of gulags I've made here isn't mentioned, of course, because I'm just extrapolating the underlying views): http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic150416.files/plmc.pdf

So, really, Greenwald's statements are not inconsistent with Libertarianism at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Would Greenspan want bankers prosecuted? nt

[joshcryer]

42. Greenspan shifted from being a gold standard kook.

To being just another desperate Fed trying to reign in the utter insanity and chaos of capitalism.

There's a great video out there where he basically admits it's all wrong. It's amazing he didn't bring the global system to utter collapse. Well, he nearly did, but not for lack of trying.

[rhett o rick]

73. If my memory serves I think he said he was shocked that CEO's would put their own

well being before their company's. He basically said he has been wrong most of his life.

[joshcryer]

74. Yeah, here's the video, 40 years of wrong ideology.

I don't say that absolves him of his wrongheadedness but he was completely crushed.

[merrily]

49. Believing that the government works hand in hand with Wall Street is

not a concept that is new or limited to libertarians, if that is a hallmark issue. I haven't seen Rand admirers, like Ryan, doing a hell of a lot to try to drive a wedge between Wall Street and the USG.

[joshcryer]

76. No, really?

Different ideologies can have overlap? Fascinating!

[merrily]

89. That was not the point.

[joshcryer]

90. Yes it was.

Amazingly, people who have different opinions can have them! Amazing! Who would've thought!

[merrily]

91. You're telling me what my point was? That's always fun

You might have focused more on what I said about people like Ryan, but you obviously know my thoughts better than I do, so I apologize for seeming to contradict you about my own thoughts.

When a discussion gets to the level of "No, it wasn't," "Yes, it was," it seems to me to have degenerated to the toddler level.

Talk to you another time.

[uponit7771]

6. He's sure not left of center, he's an opportunist who'll use anyone to make a buck... been there

... done that with his type... TShirt has shrunk already.

Wonder how many versions of his book he'll promote before it's all said and done

[sabrina 1]

7. Wait, all people who write for a living, all political pundits eg, are OPPORTUNISTS?

All of them are 'using anyone to make a buck'?? Is Rachel just using the Kock Bros to 'make a buck'?

I am not following your logic at all.

Should writers work for nothing??

Is it now a crime for a writer to 'make a buck'?

Is it a crime for a writer to WRITE ABOUT PEOPLE.

Is it 'using people' when Writers use SOURCES in their writings?

Or is there something different about this writer that most people haven't noticed?

I look forward to your explaining this for us.

[uponit7771]

8. Strawman, no one indicated all writers were. GGs a leach, every time he and his homeboy get busted

... in a lie or half truth he minimizes his assertions.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Example?

Thanks!

[sabrina 1]

12. Yeah, I was trying to think of a 'lie' Greenwald has told and can't think of any offhand. He HAS

made errors, going way back to when we were all cheering him on for his daily esposures of the Bush gang. And what most people always appreciated about him was that when he made an error he always corrected it. Airc he did in his 'Updates'. That is what gained him so much credibility on the Left. The Right of course ALWAYS hated him. But what else is new for them to want to silence someone like Greenwald who told the truth about Bush and the lies he told and the torture etc.

I'm simply flabbergasted to see some of the same vitriol here that I used to see from the Bush supporters on Greenwald's blog. He was great at slapping them down though, it was a joy to watch.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. It's certainly an interesting dynamic.

Human behavior is fascinating!

[scruboak]

54. +1. n/t

[sabrina 1]

10. The strawman is the one you built. A political writer is contacted by a source with material

that turns out to be of great interest and value to the American people, that their Govt is spying on them, and he has the courage to publish the exposures. This is generally called a 'scoop' in the world of journalism and in fact that is what most Democrats called those journalists during the Bush years when Whistle Blowers came forward and their leaks were published by journalists.

What I'm trying to figure out is when some on the Left, who if you recall took the exact opposite position regarding news outlets SITTING on stories, in fact when they NYT DID NOT publish the first exposure from a Whistle Blower that the Bush admin was SPYING ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, the Left went BERSERK, and rightly so.

So what I'm trying to find out is when these few on the Left who were screaming the opposite tune back then, suddenly switched positions and now view journalists who actually are doing what they claimed they wanted, 'leaches' and other nasty names.

Can you explain this? It makes absolutely ZERO sense, (especially the childish name calling). And who is Greenwald's 'homeboy' btw?

[billhicks76]

39. I Can

Fake sock-puppet profiles that have been built up and managed over years. They will agree on safe, domestic popular democratic issues that mean nothing to them to gain credibility. They have one mission only...discredit Snowden, Greenwald, Tice and Drake. They are their to make us accept NSA and to punish whistleblowers to intimidate future disclosers of the TRUTH. NSA is a racket for military contractors just like the Iraq war and the Drug War with its private prisons. They cry and they whine and the flag comments. They ALWAYS show up in tandem with another prolific Snowden hater to try and convince us what we know is right isn't. Spying on average Americans in aggregate is common sense to oppose so they have their work cut out. Disgusting that a site like this that was against all these things under Bush could get hijacked like this but it is a war on average Americans so what do you expect? Check out this bit of slime in the news today :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025046363#post9

[sabrina 1]

61. That would explain it. But you have to wonder what good it all is, it isn't working now that people

are far more aware of these tactics. If anything, MORE people support Whistle Blowers than they did BEFORE these obvious and nasty attacks on them personally became more vitriolic.

What they apparently have not taken into account is the natural suspicion that arises when people see such a dedicated effort to try to silence someone. It does the opposite, it makes, even people who weren't that concerned before, wonder 'what are they trying to hide'?

And the very fact that the effort is so intense to KEEP the truth from the American people, actually gives me HOPE. I thought we had lost all of our power as a people, that they were too powerful now to stop. But THIS EFFORT shows that they STILL need to fear the people learning what they've been up to. Which means they do not have as much power as I, at least, thought.

[billhicks76]

71. Well Said

Not just people's natural suspicion of commenters mission to stamp out this discussion but just in general peoples natural aversion to being spied on.

[sabrina 1]

86. Of course, that too. I can't think of anyone I know who is buying the 'we're just collecting and

storing data' story. Most are thoroughly creeped out by the whole idea of strangers spying on their phone calls, their emails etc.

It's like having thousands of peeping toms peering in people's windows. We have no idea who these people are. Most work for Private Security Corps, Bush's policy of privatizing National Security, for PROFIT. It is despicable imho.

[Aerows]

64. Yes

They shouldn't make any money, should live in a hovel and be relegated to a lunatic right wing hobo shouting insanities throughout the streets if they criticize President Obama.

[sabrina 1]

66. Ah, thanks for the explanation, I was having a hard time getting answers to my questions!

Lol!

[Aerows]

67. I know.

It is getting nuts in here.

[merrily]

11. All authors promote their books, including Obama and both Clintons.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Elizabeth Warren's promoting her book

Must drive the Purity Democrats crazy!

Haw-haw!

[joshcryer]

18. What did you think about her cheering Bill's bankruptcy actions?

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Huh?

Link?

[joshcryer]

22. I take it you haven't read her book?

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Part way through the audiobook.

As you know, my literacy ain't great.

[joshcryer]

25. She says nice things about HRC fighting "that awful bill."

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Oh yeah, that.

But then Hill changed next time the infernal thing showed up, IIRC?

(You don't get to be a Harvard Law prof without being very aware of who has the juice. I know a few - they hate Warren, in part because she's so much less of a suck up than they are.)

[joshcryer]

30. HRC did a good old Obama-style abstention.

Lame of her to do that after "claiming" that she was "fighting" against "that awful bill." So it passed without her saying a damn thing about it. But then, not all Senators are super fighters. It's a shame, for example, Warren won't cosponsor the "Ending Secret Law Act." I don't know why she's hesitant.

[Aerows]

78. Are you SERIOUSLY

implying that Elizabeth Warren is a right winger?

[joshcryer]

80. Nah, just that she's no more left than Mark Udall.

Mark Udall being Third Way, btw.

[Aerows]

81. LMAO

You know what? I like her, and I like Udall, too. I'm not sure how you calling them "third way" Democrats seems to benefit your obvious ill opinion of them, but both of them are Democrats that I respect.

I am a Democrat. I respect good Democrats.

[joshcryer]

82. I voted for Udall.

I don't see what the issue is.

[Aerows]

83. I voted for President Obama twice.

That doesn't mean that I can't object to some of the decisions he makes, particularly where the Patriot Act is concerned.

[joshcryer]

84. Who says you can't object to anything?

I'm really confused by this line of discussion.

[sabrina 1]

17. Good point, according to that poster EVERYONE who writes a book and promotes it, is a 'leach'.

I'm going to think of that now every time I see someone promoting a book they have written.

Btw, I have not read Greenwald's book, but have heard it is excellent. I intend to buy it now, especially with all these attacks on him I feel compelled to show support for, as Moyers et al have said, one of the great writers of these times'.

[merrily]

48. Moyers' show is one of the few on TV trying to inform Americans, rather than cheerlead

consistently for one side or the other. I have forgotten what they call that, but I think it starts with a j. Juryism? Jeneralism? Something like that.



But, again, we seem to be discussing Greenwald and Snowden, rather than the actions of the USG. Why, I wonder?

[sabrina 1]

60. Our Government is violating our Constitutional rights, that is a fact that most on the Left

used to agree with. Now we are seeing a huge effort to deny that fact from a few on 'our side'. To do so, they use the old 'attack the messenger, don't talk about the message routine'. It isn't working and it won't work.

However, I wish I still believed that the problem was the Bush administration and that getting rid of them would begin the process of restoring the rule of law in this country.

But it's worse than we thought, THAT is the real issue now. It wasn't just the Bush gang.

I suppose it's better that we know that now because you can't fix something unless you know where it is broken. We didn't know that, now we do, so fixing it, while it will not be easy, should be more effective than just looking in the wrong places for a solution. Iow our solution didn't work so what now?

[Rockyj]

70. OMG Just because Glenn Greenwald isn't a big fan of Obama...

...and he calls corporate Democrats out on their policies doesn't mean he's a far right kook! What's going on here?

[madfloridian]

15. He posted his stances that are FAR from libertarian in nature. Here they are..

Greenwald tried to defend himself, but it's made no difference here. The same 5 or 6 keep on repeating over and over and over that he's a libertarian.

It annoys the hell out of me. It's childish. He may not be especially likable, he may be critical of Obama....but he is not a libertarian.

Here are some of his views that a libertarian would not have... in his own words.

here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);

* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);

* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);

* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);

* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);

* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

* criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);

* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);

* using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;

* co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardim , JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);

* co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);

So just bring it on. I have decided that if I want to continue to post here after 12 years of doing so responsibly I will have to accept that some here will pick apart every word, every source, every link. Some will continue to watch for my every post to rip it apart. Some will tolerate no criticism of the president, which is a dangerous thing for this country.

My usual disclaimer...my late hubby and I worked for, donated to, and campaigned for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

I do not approve of some of his policies at all. I will say so. So you will just have to nitpick.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Disagreement is one thing

Lying like crazy when your lie is clearly a lie is another thing. The latter should be stopped.

[sabrina 1]

21. Thanks MF, it won't make a difference for people with an agenda, for everyone else, it will and has.

I believe they KNOW he is not a Libertarian, not that that matters when the issues are so huge that most people do not care one bit about his personal political affiliations.

And what's funny about this is that the Left loved Drake who was a Republican. I don't recall the same 'omg, he's a Republican' hysteria back then. On the contrary, Blake was praised for having the courage to stand up especially since he WAS a Republican.

They don't annoy me, to be honest. I believe what they are doing is getting MORE support for Greenwald and Snowden as we saw here on DU already. Because people despise these nasty personal attacks and tend to want to defend their targets, as happened with Clinton.

[joshcryer]

29. "Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid"

Those are the only opinions held by Greenwald that cannot be consistent with Libertarianism.

"repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street" - explained above, Libertarians prosecute bankers who make bad faith loans and who screw over their clients

"advocating for robust public financing" - he supports Citizens United so he is a liar, but combining the two this is perfectly in line with Libertarians, because they would think PACs would make great competition to public financing

"condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption" - sure, Libertarians believe laissez-faire capitalism is immune from real corruption (though it is objectively the most corrupt system possible)

"attacking oligarchs" - lol he works for one...

"arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform" - again the privatizing people believe their system is the best, and therefore nothing can compete with it, so a public option would be fine

"criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power" - sure, that's government corruption and cronyism, just really a repeat, it's "government protectionism"

[madfloridian]

32. Oh lordy...

[joshcryer]

33. Tell me about it...

Still waiting for HRC to seat those delegates and cause a coup at the National Convention.

[Luminous Animal]

43. Um no...

Called for the prosecution of Wall Street in the aftermath of the melt down. He was calling for the prosecution of those who fucked over the system.

He does advocate for public financing which would undermine Citizens United because ALL public financing involves matching funds. Greenwald and the ACLU advocate for a level playing field.

Wait what? How can he condemn wealth corruption while believing wealth corruption is not possible?

Indeed. And he acknowledges that and has stated that if he does not have independence, he will walk away.

Word salad. Honestly, what you said here makes no sense at all. He advocated for the public option when it became clear that universal health care was "off the table."

"Government protectionism" are trade and business barriers, AKA regulations that look out for the 99%. Greenwald advocates for financial regulators that don't run rough shod over the rest of us.

[joshcryer]

45. What Libertarian is against prosecuting thieves?

Public Financing would ban Citizens United because the public doesn't have unlimited coffers like the plutocrats do. There's no way the public could "match funds" of non-affilated super-PACs using Citizen's United ruling.

Libertarians believe that if the unfettered free markets were to have their way then corruption would be minimized or even eradicated because magically no one would do business with corrupt individuals (this is proven abjectly false). Indeed, letting the banks fail, prosecuting the bankers (and every person who signed a piece of paper on a dud loan), that's all in line with this ideology.

His working for an oligarch doesn't matter, the main thing is that he's pushing click-bait journalism that shuts down activism in place of outrage politics. But he never pretended to be an activist of any caliber.

Here's a Libertarian arguing for a public health insurance option. It's hardly damn inconsistent.

Libertarians believe that regulations are government protectionism because monopolists run the lobby and keep the playing field to their advantage. Small businesses, therefore, can't compete because to Libertarians regulations keep them out of competition.

[Luminous Animal]

46. Okay.

There is a difference between matching funds financing for campaigns than advocacy financing of positions. Public financing of elections would make a big difference especially on local and state levels. And on local and state levels is where democracy percolates up.

Greenwald has never once advocated for unfettered free markets. Where do even get these notions? Holy hell man... he has spoken at the Socialist convention every year for the past 5 years.

He has presented himself as an activist since he wrote his first book, "How Would A Patriot Act".

OMG! I hope anyone who is paying attention to this exchange clicks on that link! Really dude? Here is and excerpt to your link:

It is not okay for you to decide to put a rope around someone’s neck and deprive them of oxygen. And if you decide to withhold from someone the medical treatment they need to keep breathing, you’re killing them just as surely. Hold on now, am I saying that healthcare is a right? No, I’m not, and it isn’t, it’s a commodity just like milk and eggs, and like milk and eggs you can’t have any unless you pay someone who knows how to produce it. But once again, I’m not talking about healthcare. I’m talking about health insurance. It’s not the doctors who are seizing control of that life-or-death decision, it’s the insurance companies. Decisions about the lives of American citizens – the kind of decisions that we would only entrust to a quorum of legislators or a panel of duly appointed jurors, are being made every day by private citizens. And it’s not a terrorist or a murderer whose life hangs in the balance. It’s mine.

Hahahaha! And there is so much else crazy there!

[joshcryer]

47. I'm saying the views aren't inconsistent with Libertarianism.

Not that Greenwald is a Libertarian.

Anyway, no one said Libertarians are sane. I am merely pointing out that the positions used to debunk the idea that Greenwald isn't a Libertarian, due to how convoluted Libertarianism is, aren't really positions that debunk anything. They're vague, wildly interpretable from the point of view of a free marketer.

And thus are hardly strong positions to take. If Greenwald was a socialist he'd advocate for single payer, which I don't think he has ever done. Even Ron Paul wants to keep Social Security, he just wants to phase it out. Not cut it, mind you, his phase out would not cut a dime from current recipients, but younger people could opt out, that's what he wants to do.

[merrily]

50. Luckily, Libertarianism (or not) has nothing to do with whether the info disclosed is true (or not).

[Autumn]

57. Are you saying the six things you posted are consistent with Libertarianism?

I'm confused.

[spooky3]

72. From a later post, I'd say he is. But that

Post provides interpretations of libertarianism that are far from the positions I believe they typically take. For example, they would typically NOT favor most prosecutions because those would have to be based on a statute or other law that restricts business actions, which they typically don't favor. Prosecutions require paying public servants' salaries and expenses, something libertarians typically like to limit. And they have a strong belief in the self-correcting nature of markets, e.g., that consumers and others would learn which banks, etc., aren't good for them to deal with, and go to the competition instead, forcing the bad apples to change or go out of business.

See http://www.lp.org/platform

in particular, the passages about reducing the size of govt, abolishing tax agencies (which provide the means for funding prosecutors, etc) and "we favor free-market banking." It's hard to square those with their decrying fraud and criminal behavior in other passages, unless you presume that they have a VERY narrow scope of what constitutes criminal or fraudulent banker behavior.

[billhicks76]

40. The same ones

It doesn't matter because most Americans are inherently against these NSA intrusions. It's human nature. They can't blog it away.

[AgingAmerican]

23. It appears the NSA protagonists

...have rethought their strategy from last night?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Sure is strange.

Sensed a change earlier today. Could be ion changes in the air due to a weather front moving in.

Who knows?

[AgingAmerican]

27. Or they ran out of popcorn...

nt

[Luminous Animal]

44. Yep. And haven't quite nailed it yet.

[woo me with science]

31. K&R

for exposing the lies.

[Oilwellian]

34. Brilliant

I look forward to Part 3.

K&R

[vlakitti]

35. Your observations are devastating.

Thanks for them.

Of course Greenwald's on the left. It's bizarre to say otherwise. I used to read him on Salon years ago and he was a leftist then, too. Noam Chomsky is occasionally very hostile to the whole political elite, including corporate Democrats, but presumably no one is so out of touch as to claim he's somehow on the right.

Greenwald and Chomsky and Ralph Nader can be sectarian, off the wall and wrong at times, but Jesus Christ people they're on our side and their views are important.

[TBF]

51. As a worker they are on MY side -

but I can see how corporate types can view it differently. And that frankly is important - the corporate types who tired of the bible thumpers in their own (repug) party have moved over here.

[sabrina 1]

87. They ARE on our side, they are a threat to those whose agenda is to protect the status quo who also

KNOW they are on our side, but who struggle hard to try to turn US against them. Why they keep trying is beyond me since they've been trying for years and failing so spectacularly, not changing a single mind, except maybe for turning people against THEM, you would think they would try something new. Like maybe addressing the ISSUES for a change rather than continuing what has probably accomplished the exact opposite of what they are trying to do, gathered MORE support for the people they attack.

Greenwald is more Left than some on this forum, that is obvious. He always was.

However, it doesn't matter what he is, what matters is what he has done, and that is, as Moyers et al have stated, a great service to the American people.

I'll take Moyers' opinion over almost anyone's and certainly over the Greenwald bashers any day.

[Fuddnik]

37. Goddamn kicked and fucking rec'd.

I'm sooo fed up with these BOGgers who are so determined to bring him down, because casts asparagus upon their deity.

[Luminous Animal]

41. 1 of his smearers keep insisting that he went on a CATO tour. Yes, he went on that tour as a liberal

Liberals should do more of that. Directly debate and confront an audience that is already inclined against them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. Never mind....

Never mind that Greenwald has long standing ties to the Koch-funded Cato Institute (he’s going to claim that he only wrote 2 articles for them but as Exiled points out that’s “utterly absurd”)

Never mind that Greenwald has been openly identified in the press as representing “the libertarian Cato Institute” when quoted in articles. See also here.

Never mind that Greenwald was a keynote speaker at a Cato Benefit Sponsors Event.

Never mind that Greenwald was Ron Paul-curious, a man who would be the most anti-union president since at least Grover Cleveland, if not in U.S. history.

Never mind that Greenwald has spoken to college libertarian groups where he suggested the possibility of a coalition between progressives and Paulites for a Gary Johnson presidential run.

Never mind that Greenwald defended the Citizens United decision. Excellent rebuttal to Glenn’s CU argument here. Also here.


So here’s my challenge/offer to you, Glenn. If you want people to stop calling you a libertarian, how about you put your money where you mouth is? You may have worked with SEIU at one point on a campaign, but I don’t know that except for you saying it. I don’t read every one of your columns, but I don’t think I ever recall seeing one about labor, except to slam SEIU for trying to co-opt Occupy, which I don’t think is entirely accurate anyway.
Glenn, you have one of the biggest platforms of any progressive on the internet. And lord knows we unionists could use someone like you to direct anger and harsh words at the capitalists.

So why not use one of your columns for labor issues. Prove to the world that you care about these issues. If your Salon column is reserved for your standard material, publish it somewhere else. You are Glenn Greenwald after all.

For every labor article you publish at Salon or another important site, I will teach myself more about the issues you care most about and write 2 researched blog posts at LGM or a larger site about them. Admittedly, this may not be entirely fair since our forum is much smaller, but hopefully the 2 for 1 offer helps.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/06/my-challenge-to-glenn-greenwald

Challenge fail!

Nevermind he called Romney a Moderate to boot!

[MannyGoldstein]

53. Sounds pretty damning

Stay tuned for the rest of the series... I'm sure we'll get to the bottom of what this difficult man does.

[Mnpaul]

65. Does this make Hillary a Libertarian?

She has "long standing ties" to the Koch brothers as well. They sat on the board of the DLC and took a pile of money from them.

[Mnpaul]

69. Oh noes!! Ron Wyden exposed as a Libertarian as well

NSA Surveillance: What We Know; What to Do About It

Keynote speakers: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), member of the Senate’s Select Committee on Intelligence; Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI); Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Panelists include: Siobhan Gorman, Wall Street Journal; Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian; Barton Gellman, Washington Post; Charlie Savage, New York Times; Jameel Jaffer, ACLU; Laura Donohue, Georgetown University Law Center; David Lieber, Google; David Dahl, SpiderOak; Jim Burrows, Silent Circle; Bruce Schneier, Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Law School; Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies, Cato Institute; and Julian Sanchez, Research Fellow, Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it


another crappy smear shot to pieces

[AgingAmerican]

88. Wow, I didn't know that the ACLU was libertarian!

[ProSense]

56. Greenwald: Ron Paul most "anti-crony-capitalism" candidate

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/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733#post164

The fact that he attributes these qualities to Ron Paul means he's either delusional or simply against the Democratic Party. He spend all his time defending the Pauls against Democrats.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate corporate taxes and preserve oil subsidies. Did you know he's really a RW Republican? Greenwald's favorite politicians are frauds, and the fact that he doesn't know that means he's clueless. Anyone backing these frauds or making excuses for Greenwald support of them is trying perpetrate the fraud.

Ron Paul Calls For 'Nullification' Of Obamacare: 'Pretty Soon ... We're Just Going To Ignore The Feds'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-paul-calls-for-nullification-of-obamacare

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

Rand Paul backs bill that could lead to crackdown on states where voters legalized weed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663470

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024945439#post33

Greenwald is not the left.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023321760


Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294827

Then he got defensive.

@Wolfrum Thanks: of course Obama = better than Paul on those issues for progressives - though I do say Endless War jeopradizes entitlements

http://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/153169132471328768

Greenwald does exactly this: Hype Ron Paul based on soundbites. One can find any number of clips or writings contradicting these soundbites, as with the anti-war claim. You're opposed to the death penalty, but would let people die without health care?

Let's look at the numbers: There were less than 80 executions in the U.S. last year, the lowest in 40 years. Tens of thousand of people die each year without health care

Greenwald doesn't for a second consider that Paul's positions are propaganda.

"Endless War jeopradizes entitlements"?

What the hell does that mean? You know what jeopardizes "entitlements": getting rid of them and believing they're unconstitutional.

Is slavery an entitlement program?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100294914

Debunking the "Ron Paul Cares About Civil Liberties" Myth

Last week Glenn Greenwald won the Dumbest Tweet of the Week award with this beauty, about Ron Paul:



<...>

http://angryblacklady.com/2011/12/28/debunking-the-ron-paul-cares-about-civil-liberties-myth/

Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711

Disappointing those who 'stand with Rand'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742805

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. yep they ignore all evidence because its hero worship!

Of a libertarian!

[hootinholler]

59. So. Fucking. Transparent.

[Whisp]

62. Greenwald is a snivil libertarian. n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

63. This subthread is like watching the monkey cage at the zoo. Shit is being slung.

[cantbeserious]

68. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[ucrdem]

75. Let's see, if he can get his digs in, he's agin' it.

There. The mystery of Greenwald solved in 10 words. Thank you.

[Aerows]

77. I'm waiting for declarations

that Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore and Bill Moyers are right wingers.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. They're not?

That would be inconvenient.

[raouldukelives]

92. Moyers has gone so far left he's right!

Thom Hartzmanns werks fer Putinz!
Yargle blargle!
Also,

Obligatory associated emoticon:

[840high]

85. k/r - with great pleasure.