Glenn Greenwald's political views are consistent

[frazzled]

90. And in that kind of blind inflexibility lies his failure

It's what has compelled him to speak out in favor of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision:

I want to begin by examining several of the most common reactions among critics of this decision, none of which seems persuasive to me. Critics emphasize that the Court’s ruling will produce very bad outcomes: primarily that it will severely exacerbate the problem of corporate influence in our democracy. Even if this is true, it’s not really relevant. Either the First Amendment allows these speech restrictions or it doesn’t. ...

I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people — which is what corporations are — from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood. ...

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

It is what caused him to write this fairly shocking screed against undocumented workers and what he calls "amnesty" for them:

The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.

A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. And yet the GOP, despite its unchallenged control, does virtually nothing, infuriating this sector of its party. The White House does worse than nothing; to the extent it acts on this issue at all, it is to introduce legislation designed to sanction and approve of illegal immigration through its “guest worker” program, a first cousin of all-out amnesty for illegal immigrants. ...

The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/11/gop-fights-itself-on-illegal.html

It is what drives him to ally openly with Libertarian stances, bemoaning those Republicans who are not good libertarians and praising those who are:

The current Republican Party has become the party of the Michelle Malkins, Ann Coulters, James Dobsons, and David Horowitzs -- people who scorn libertarian principles and could not be any more hostile to them. Arguably, there are few conflicts more critical to national electoral battles than this one. As Cato Institute's Brink Lindsey recently observed: "libertarians are in the center of the American political debate as it is currently framed." But nothing has undermined libertarian principles more than Republican rule of the last five years.

For this reason, intellectually honest believers in liberty and restrained government have chosen to abandon the Republican Party because it is devoted to an endlessly intrusive, unrestrained and even lawless government, precepts which could not be any more antithetical to core libertarian principles. But there is a sizeable group of individuals, empitomized by Reynolds, who claimed adherence to libertarianism but who have now fully embraced the most extremist elements of the Bush movement and the Republican Party. In doing so, they have rendered their claimed libertarianism nothing but a hollow symbol, to be trotted out -- when at all -- purely as a manipulative instrument to maintain an image of rationality and moderation ("Extremist? Me? I'm for gay marriage&quot .

That is the choice which national political figures with some degree of libertarian impulses, such as John McCain and Rudy Guiliani, are confronting.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/libertarians-and-republican-party.html

It's what causes him to give speeches to Paulite Libertarian groups:

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.
Greenwald’s speech mainly focused on civil liberties and terrorism policy “in the age of Obama.” But it was his approach to politics that got members of the Young Americans for Liberty — a Paulite Libertarian group that co-sponsored the event — excited:
The speech was stellar with too many good points to touch on in a single blog post. I would like to point out that in the Q&A at 38:00 Greenwald specifically addresses a possible alliance between progressives and Ron Paul libertarians. He also mentions Gary Johnson as a unique candidate with possibly the best chance of bringing this coalition together in a 2012 run for president.



http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/re-rise-of-the-naderites-glenn-greenwalds-third-party-dreamin/

To get paid by the Cato Institute (yes, the Libertarian Cato Institute) just because they are for making drugs legal, and to flirt with Ron Paul, while ignoring all his crazy and dangerous ideas:

Salon writer Glenn Greenwald insists he’s not a Cato Instituter (he just writes for them from time to time) — though he clearly appears to be a Libertarian, and a guy with a particular fondness for Ron Paul.
Greenwald’s consistent praise of Paul is based solely on the Republican presidential candidate’s positions on the civil liberties issues with which Greenwald is principally concerned. Paul opposes foreign interventionism, the PATRIOT Act and extrajudicial assassination of terrorist suspects, so he’s AOK with Glenn.

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/12/should-glenn-greenwald-have-to-own-the-ron-paul-blue-plate-special/

Most disgustingly, it is what caused him to freely choose to defend America's most notorious Nazi on a copyright case, and then verbally defended him after he solicited the murder of the judge in the case (Judge Lefkow's mother and husband were later found murdered in her home):

Greenwald defended White Supremacist Matthew Hale who solicited the murder of a Federal Judge on his website. That’s not protected speech. Threatening to assassinate or soliciting the assassination of someone is a crime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/us/white-supremacist-is-held-in-ordering-judge-s-death.html?src=pm

Hale solicited the murder of Federal Judge Joan Lefkow because she ruled in favor of a multicultural church who sued Hale over copyright issues regarding his use of the name “World Church of the Creator” which they were already using.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/spring/creator-crack-up?page=0,0

Greenwald defended Hale in this so called “First Amendment” case claiming solicitation of murder was protected speech.
From the above NYT link:
“Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that ”we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow.’”

Matthew Hale was later convicted and sentenced to 40 years for soliciting an FBI informant to murder Federal Judge Joan Lefkow. So Glenn is not a very good Civil Rights attorney either since he claimed the solicitation of murder was a violation of Free Speech and not a crime. Coincidentally, Greenwald closed up his law practice just after losing this case claiming he was tired of litigating full time. http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/response-to-right-wing-personal.html

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/the-glenn-greenwald-some-on-the-left-dont-know/ [div]

The so-called "consistency" you cite as a virtue is actually a deficit: As the great American thinker and poet Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in his Self-Reliance

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.