Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
24. I linked to a few examples upthread.
Tue Jun 11, 2013, 06:58 PM
Jun 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2995403

Classic "Ron Paul is tireless champion of constitutional freedom, the only principled candidate running for president, is an exciting phenomenon, and has totally done nothing to indicate he supports racism. Why do you say I support him?"

He was also a Tea Party type on immigration in 2005:

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

he 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.

GOP inaction when it comes to illegal immigration is at once mystifying and easily explainable. There is a wing of the party – the Wall St. Journal/multinational corporation wing – which loves illegal immigration because of its use as a source of cheap labor. And while that wing of the party is important because of the financial support it provides, it is a distinct minority when it comes to electoral power.

The real reason Republicans treat the need to address the illegal immigration problem like a trip to the dentist -- as something they want to avoid at all costs -- is because they have been convinced that adopting an aggressive stance on illegal immigration will cost them too many votes among the nation’s ethnic minorities and legal immigrants. And that is what brings us to Sanchez’s Op-Ed, which illustrates just how unconvincing and baseless that alarmist view really is.

With absolutely no hard data or even evidentiary inferences of any kind, Sanchez emphatically announces that the reason GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore lost the election in Virginia is because he was too strident about the evils of illegal immigration. And she warns other GOP candidates that they will face a similar fate unless they modulate their tone and soften their position. Here is the crux of Sanchez's warning:


Republicans nationally should draw a number of lessons from the party's unsuccessful effort to take back the Virginia governor's mansion this month. . .

When it comes to immigration, dropping the word "illegal" into any anti-immigration proposal is not likely to work electoral magic. . . . Republicans embrace anti-immigrant fervor at their peril. The party is perilously close to adopting as its immigration policy the hanging of a "closed" sign on the border. To do so would be a gross mistake that would oversimplify the problem and set back all the efforts of President Bush to build bridges to America's growing population of Hispanics while finding a workable solution to a complex problem, one with far-ranging political consequences for the party over the long run.


The “substance” of this claim is facially ludicrous and easily dismissed. There already is a “closed sign on the border” when it comes to illegal immigration. It’s called the law. The problem is that the “closed sign” isn’t being enforced because the Federal Government, which has its interfering, power-hungry hands in virtually everything else, has abdicated its duty in one of the very few areas where it was actually meant to be: border security.

While her policy argument is easily dismissed, Sanchez’s political analysis is odious in the extreme, as this line of thinking is what has brainwashed countless spineless Republicans to steer clear of illegal immigration, even while the crises intensifies every day. But the political warnings Sanchez issues is without substance, and for years has been misleading Republicans into a self-destructive fear to tackle this problem.

To “support” her warning to Republicans to back away from illegal immigration (is it even possible for most Republicans to go back any further? What is less than zero?), Sanchez asserts, without a shred of evidence, that large numbers of Hispanic and Muslim suburban voters in Virginia were turned off by Kilgore’s use of the term “illegal immigration”:




And of course gets all angry when people point it out.

Dude's been a progressive for less than 8 years, and sees fit to appoint himself as pope of what it means to be a progressive.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

it's not about Greenwald Enrique Jun 2013 #1
pppfffffffttttt VanillaRhapsody Jun 2013 #2
You forgot the smiley to go with it.. Fumesucker Jun 2013 #4
No, Greenwald was slobbering over Ron Paul back in 2007 geek tragedy Jun 2013 #12
and no one here cared Enrique Jun 2013 #23
He was a puny blogger back then, no? OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #35
Nobody cared about Glenn Greenwald period back then--very few hits. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #40
I think he was with FireDogLake at that time Whisp Jun 2013 #46
He's never been with Fire Dog Lake. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #49
He was on FDL's payroll. AtomicKitten Jun 2013 #69
Um no. That was a PAC started by Hamsher and Greenwald. The PAC paid them. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #74
Bzzzzz. Wrong answer. AtomicKitten Jun 2013 #75
This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Jun 2013 #38
Ron Paul is right about some issues. He's also a foul racist enabling nutjob. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Jun 2013 #47
Greenwald was outspoken in denouncing geek tragedy Jun 2013 #65
This message was self-deleted by its author seaglass Jun 2013 #70
I quoted directly. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #71
Yes, all the criticisms Kelvin Mace Jun 2013 #77
His reporting is often very sloppy and that is true in this case. pnwmom Jun 2013 #3
This... SidDithers Jun 2013 #14
+1000 baldguy Jun 2013 #15
I've heard this a couple time here and haven't seen what it is about. Whisp Jun 2013 #48
This is one example of his overblown "reporting." pnwmom Jun 2013 #50
thanks for that link and quote. yep, wee bit over the top. Whisp Jun 2013 #54
He made no claims about the slides. He reported precisely what they said with no personal viewpoint Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #58
Here is a classic DU Greenwald bashing thread chock full of insights Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #5
Not a Greenwald fan, but I feel like taking a shower after reading that post geek tragedy Jun 2013 #9
It was hosted happily in GD for nearly a week, why? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #10
Eh, when he started promoting Ron Paul that was enough for me to dismiss him geek tragedy Jun 2013 #13
I stopped reading him when he supported the Iraq war, DU brings him up constantly Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #20
I linked to a few examples upthread. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #24
That counts as promotion in my book. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #28
Nice thing about quoting Sullivan is that if you change your mind you can geek tragedy Jun 2013 #31
He wasn't writing when he supported the Iraq war. Please read this. I'd really appreciated it. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #51
I had a melt down when that post was allowed to stand and had a melt down in Meta.. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #52
No surprise there. William769 Jun 2013 #22
To be fair that is a golden oldie, but that thread changed the way I think of DU. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #25
General rule is that if it's possible to be an asshole on a given subject, geek tragedy Jun 2013 #30
Be sure to check out the recommends on that thread. QC Jun 2013 #26
Greenwald is an opinion writer, not a reporter. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #6
^ I am of this opinion as well^ Raine1967 Jun 2013 #32
He comes across as wanting to be 'right'. randome Jun 2013 #7
He has integrity noise Jun 2013 #8
He's a Paulite/Libertarian. He hates both the Dems and the Rethugs. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #16
He is neither... Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #56
Then why did he take money from the Cato Institute for his white paper? And why pnwmom Jun 2013 #63
He took money for the precise reason he said. To write a paper about drug Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #68
Deliberately printing falsehoods ≠ integrity baldguy Jun 2013 #17
+1 Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #57
Secret Blackwater Contractors Surveying all of us and Small Business... KoKo Jun 2013 #11
Look who "progressives" are making common cause with: ucrdem Jun 2013 #18
So he's a Paulite, libertarian, that explains flamingdem Jun 2013 #19
He is neither a Paulite or a libertarian. Luminous Animal Jun 2013 #55
He left out his flamingdem Jun 2013 #61
I'll be perfectly honest olddots Jun 2013 #21
If Greenwald's reporting is inaccurate, then show exactly where & how that is true. 99th_Monkey Jun 2013 #27
I know...many of us ask what IS IT ABOUT GREENWALD? Reporting or Hate of Him? KoKo Jun 2013 #36
Yes. blue neen Jun 2013 #29
He's a troublemaker who doesn't toe the party line. We need more like him. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #33
He does the bidding of the Koch Brothers. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #60
But, does he have a girlfriend in Hawaii? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #62
Boiled down to it's very essence...you. Ikonoklast Jun 2013 #64
Not really. I never voted for a surveillance state. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #67
I'll desnark for a moment. OilemFirchen Jun 2013 #34
What OilemFirchen said, especially the Skidmore Jun 2013 #41
I guess partly what others have said - too much opinion, not enough journalism. nomorenomore08 Jun 2013 #37
Greenwald is now more of a Left Anarchist than Right Libertarian FarCenter Jun 2013 #42
It's about not worshipping Obama. DesMoinesDem Jun 2013 #43
I feel the same way about him as I did eissa Jun 2013 #44
I've never had a problem with Glenn Greenwald, Blue_In_AK Jun 2013 #45
I have never like this guy. Long before all this secret stuff came out because he is never happy southernyankeebelle Jun 2013 #53
Both. I consider them inseparable. Chan790 Jun 2013 #59
He speaks truth to power, which makes many uncomfortable -nt- b.durruti Jun 2013 #66
He's abrasive, confrontational, always looks tired from overwork.... I like that. reformist2 Jun 2013 #72
All he needs to do is write a few columns about how handsome Barack Obama is. cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #73
It's because he is gay. The Link Jun 2013 #76
I dislike him because of your post. jeff47 Jun 2013 #78
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Those who have Serious Pr...»Reply #24