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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Those who have Serious Problems with Glenn Greenwald..Is it Him or His Reporting? [View all]geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)24. I linked to a few examples upthread.
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
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.
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 nations 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 nations ethnic minorities and legal immigrants. And that is what brings us to Sanchezs 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. Its called the law. The problem is that the closed sign isnt 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, Sanchezs 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 Kilgores use of the term illegal immigration:
A substantial part of the GOP base urgently wants Republicans, who now control the entire Federal Government, to take the lead in enforcing our nations 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 nations ethnic minorities and legal immigrants. And that is what brings us to Sanchezs 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. Its called the law. The problem is that the closed sign isnt 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, Sanchezs 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 Kilgores 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
78 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Those who have Serious Problems with Glenn Greenwald..Is it Him or His Reporting? [View all]
KoKo
Jun 2013
OP
Um no. That was a PAC started by Hamsher and Greenwald. The PAC paid them.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#74
Ron Paul is right about some issues. He's also a foul racist enabling nutjob.
geek tragedy
Jun 2013
#39
He made no claims about the slides. He reported precisely what they said with no personal viewpoint
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#58
Not a Greenwald fan, but I feel like taking a shower after reading that post
geek tragedy
Jun 2013
#9
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
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
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
He took money for the precise reason he said. To write a paper about drug
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#68
If Greenwald's reporting is inaccurate, then show exactly where & how that is true.
99th_Monkey
Jun 2013
#27
He's a troublemaker who doesn't toe the party line. We need more like him.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2013
#33
I guess partly what others have said - too much opinion, not enough journalism.
nomorenomore08
Jun 2013
#37
I have never like this guy. Long before all this secret stuff came out because he is never happy
southernyankeebelle
Jun 2013
#53
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