Glenn Greenwald’s Mitt Romney Surrogacy

[TiberiusB]

62. What information?

The OP makes no case whatsoever other than "Glenn Greenwald is mean to Obama when he objects to Obama's policies in many areas regarding the Middle East, terrorism, and civil rights. This is an election year and he needs to shut up and get with the program."

That's it.

Really.

He feels Greenwald is specifically targeting Obama on purpose ("politics of animus&quot and asserts that "I'm not an expert on the issues he brings up and he makes it too hard for me to dispute what he is saying so clearly he is bad." His proof for this? He cites another blogger who has the same problem with Noam Chomsky. Does he acknowledge that Glenn Greenwald railed against the Bush Administration over similar issues before Obama took office? Of course not. Does he ever prove Greenwald wrong? No, he mearly asserts he suffers from a "penetrating lack of discernment".

Actual proof? None. Ad hominem defined.

This is much in line with the continual re-posting of Greenwald's foolish support for a President taking the country into what is now widely condemned as an illegal war. He long ago realized his error and has done a 180. What a jerk, showing the maturity to adapt and evolve his position based on new information. Certainly the hallmark of an "asshole".

Another fun, and equally ridiculous, tactic seems to be to point out the topics he doesn't discuss, like the economy. It's the old, "hey, look over there!" tactic that never seems to wear out its welcome on political blogs. When you won't/can't rebut any of the issues raised, just change the issues! Glenn Greenwald has long maintained that since he is a lawyer primarily concerned with Constitutional and civil rights issues, that those areas would be where he would restrict his commentary. Imagine that, refraining from discussing topics you know nothing about. Clearly he doesn't understand blogging.

That a thread dominated by a crew of relentless Obama boosters hates Glenn Greenwald is about as surprising as Lindsay Lohan failing a sobriety test. I do find it hilarious that anyone thinks a population that increasingly supports torture and assassination by executive decree is going to be swayed by a column on Salon. The economy will decide this election, as it usually does. It basically got Obama elected back in 2008. Now, between the timid corporatist Democrats fumbling about and generally being nearly worthless while the GOP fully embraces their inner Ayn Rand as the perfect antidote to reality, we have a recipe for a potential Obama loss... along with complete global economic, environmental, and political collapse...which, let's face it, we aren't doing a great job avoiding regardless.

An increasingly ignorant (we can get into the death of public schools in another thread) and desperate population and a predatory corporate/political class are the real players in the 21st century U.S. Of course, should Obama lose in the Fall, I fully expect to see some threads laying all the blame for our ills on Glenn Greenwald and other Obama critics.

I'm sure Ralph Nader will be relieved to pass the crown.

As for the whole "Romney surrogacy" thing, here's an example of why Glenn Greenwald won't affect Obama's poll numbers:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/02/poll-americans-approve-targeted-killing-terror-suspects-americans