I can't really respond to much in Glenn Greenwald's 83,000 word screed on Ron Paul, as it keeps bringing up arguments I've never made, and so don't know how to defend. Neat debating trick, but not much I can do with it. I urge readers to give it a look-see themselves, as it is eloquent in parts, and unintentionally funny in others (my favorite bit was "if I wanted to invoke the same manipulative tactics and verbatim phrases that Klein used in pretending to respond to what I wrote -- and I don't and won't -- that would mean that I would...prance around saying things like," at which point he writes four examples of manipulative smears he doesn't want to, and steadfastly refuses to, levy against me. Classy). But, at the end of the day, it doesn't advance our dispute very much.So let's get back to the beginning. Greenwald writes that "anyone -- like Klein -- who grants themselves license to weigh conflicting priorities while denying it to others is acting hypocritcally." I agree! Good thing no one is doing it. The genesis of this argument is that Dana pointed out Paul's reprehensible record on abortion and argued that "Paul doesn't deserve the endorsement of any thinking person committed to individual rights." Greenwald did not argue that she was wrong in any particular way, but instead blasted her for even mentioning his pro-life record, used Harry Reid's positions to accuse her of hypocrisy, then attacked Dana for creating the "standard" that "anyone who is pro-life ought to be removed from good company," which, of course, she hadn't done, said, or even implied. I then wrote a post saying that Paul is running"a protest candidacy, and a useful one at that," but if we allow constitutional rights to be cleaved from reproductive rights -- if, in other words, we let admiration for Paul's courageous positions render us unwilling to hear criticism of his dangerous positions -- then we let him split the progressive coalition best able to argue for a broad restoration of rights, and so we will end up with neither reproductive freedoms nor constitutional protections. Paul is a useful entrant in the debate, but endorsing him, which is what Dana was arguing against, endorses a whole range of retrograde positions on economic justice, gender, and race, and creates a coalition composed largely of pissed off constitutional lawyers and disaffected Naderites. I don't imagine that's much of a winner. And there's much more to the guy than that. THE RON PAUL WE KNOW.
I can't really respond to much in Glenn Greenwald's 83,000 word screed on Ron Paul, as it keeps bringing up arguments I've never made, and so don't know how to defend. Neat debating trick, but not much I can do with it. I urge readers to give it a look-see themselves, as it is eloquent in parts, and unintentionally funny in others (my favorite bit was "if I wanted to invoke the same manipulative tactics and verbatim phrases that Klein used in pretending to respond to what I wrote -- and I don't and won't -- that would mean that I would...prance around saying things like," at which point he writes four examples of manipulative smears he doesn't want to, and steadfastly refuses to, levy against me. Classy). But, at the end of the day, it doesn't advance our dispute very much.So let's get back to the beginning. Greenwald writes that "anyone -- like Klein -- who grants themselves license to weigh conflicting priorities while denying it to others is acting hypocritcally." I agree! Good thing no one is doing it. The genesis of this argument is that Dana pointed out Paul's reprehensible record on abortion and argued that "Paul doesn't deserve the endorsement of any thinking person committed to individual rights." Greenwald did not argue that she was wrong in any particular way, but instead blasted her for even mentioning his pro-life record, used Harry Reid's positions to accuse her of hypocrisy, then attacked Dana for creating the "standard" that "anyone who is pro-life ought to be removed from good company," which, of course, she hadn't done, said, or even implied. I then wrote a post saying that Paul is running"a protest candidacy, and a useful one at that," but if we allow constitutional rights to be cleaved from reproductive rights -- if, in other words, we let admiration for Paul's courageous positions render us unwilling to hear criticism of his dangerous positions -- then we let him split the progressive coalition best able to argue for a broad restoration of rights, and so we will end up with neither reproductive freedoms nor constitutional protections. Paul is a useful entrant in the debate, but endorsing him, which is what Dana was arguing against, endorses a whole range of retrograde positions on economic justice, gender, and race, and creates a coalition composed largely of pissed off constitutional lawyers and disaffected Naderites. I don't imagine that's much of a winner. And there's much more to the guy than that. 
