Glenn Greenwald’s Mitt Romney Surrogacy

[TiberiusB]

154. I never supported Bush pretty much on anything, but...

Putting aside that the majority of the U.S. population, between 60% and 70%, supported the invasion, and around 90% supported Bush after 9/11, making them all worthless tools as well, you are still committing the same mistake as before, making an argument without any evidence. Who is it that he is not allowing to evolve, particularly with regards to Iraq? Is he really being to harsh in these cases, or is he calling into question the reasons for their change of heart? Is he bothered that they purportedly realize that Iraq was a mistake but are now in full-throated support of other potentially misguided military adventures? What's the framework here? By the way, "he changed? Fuck him. I never supported Iraq or Bush" is precisely the attitude you appear to be condemning him for.

"...whose primary argument constantly conflates terror suspects with the average American on the street. "

Actually, that is incorrect. His arguments center around the Constitutional violation of any American's rights. Location is irrelevant. He has, in fact, allowed for the possibility that the President is justified, but that this Administration's refusal to release any evidence used in determining who is slated for assassination makes it impossible to support the program. As for the poll, it simply tends to support the notion that the President's foreign policies aren't the primary driver in the upcoming election.

As for the Greenwald/Nader connection, I was, which I assume you understand, making the point that certain segments of the Left tend to obsess with the search for a Judas to hang their losses upon. If being on the ballot is the only way you influence the outcome of an election, then Greenwald really can't be a Romney surrogate after all. If he can influence an election, be a spoiler without the "candidate" handle, then the ballot point is irrelevant.