"Greatest progressive ever to live," huh/ don't believe i've seen that appelation yet. One of your homegrown ones, I blieve?

I think it's hard to argue that if a person was registered at DU when Greenwald was disparaging women's autonomy, Mexicans, federal programs, and socialism, that they have more progressive cred than a guy who has offered impassioned defenses of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.

In fact if it weren't for you and a few other posters constantly hyperventilating about the man, I don't imagine I'd hear much about him at all.

except you, in this OP I believe someone else has that title

My thanks in advance for you vouchsafing these words with a link. Then we'll discuss, maybe.

Google if you disbelieve.


Here's the link for the first two

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/10/way-to-attack-alito.html?m=1

Sincerely,

A member of the hardcore, absolutist pro-choice minority

GG note: This post was written in 2005, one month after I began blogging. It was recently dug up by some Obama cultists trying to discredit my criticisms of the President (to understand what I mean by "Obama cultists," see this 2006 post I wrote about Bush cultists: exactly the same mentality). As my subsequent writing reflects over the next many years, this post does not remotely reflect my views on immigration. My response to someone who recently asked about it is here:

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

This would be bait & switch if this OP was worth a dime.

But the folks in Brazil seem level-headed.

Oh, wait...

going to enjoy watching the Greenwald sycophants trying to defend that shitbag clown.

Sid

I don't understand what is going on here. I only see two posters talking about Greenwald...

So the OP is about his ideas, rather than those of Alito or Blackmun, the names in the OP?

Is there a graphic in the OP that only shows up if one is signed into Twitter or Facebook that explains what this about?

Please give me more to work with here. TIA.

his old blog.

This last in particular:

"I'm also in favor of reeling in the painfully overbroad Commerce Clause, which more than anything else has enabled the Federal Government to stick its claws in things which were clearly intended to be reserved for the states."

That is pretty much the rock-bottom basis for right-wing thought in this country, from the days of Roosevelt and the New Deal on down, and the argument under which progress was stifled throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 'Reeling in the painfully overbroad Commerce Clause' is the great project of the modern right, and an over-riding dogma of right libertarians.

Sad that others can't get past their hero worship to see it.

There are two aspects to Greenwald, his right wing Libertarianism and his negative Nationalism against the US. He will force every story and create narratives to fit those two agendas.

Apt and succinct, and the embrace of it by many on the left is 'why we can't have nice things' like national health insurance and strong unions and a progressive tax structure, among other things....

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States…

~ George Orwell

Would the first sentence explain the opposition to any government action, and negate a 'just war,' even if in self-defense?

Because it appears no one believes there was ever any 'just war.' Of course, most of us would simply prefer no war to exist. And I suspect there will never be a WW3, as it could never be organized due to lack of resources. But in its stead, will be small, brutal conflicts that people will justify, excuse or ignore unless they see a gun in their own face.

Would the premise of the second sentence describe people who admire Putin or other strong men - just the simplicity of it all?

The third sentence appears to be all that matters now. Hitler = Roosevelt = Stalin = Bush = Obama in current conspiracy theories. Because of LIHOP. It is defended with vehemence.

There is a place where critical thinking is stymied by a reactive emotion and why discussions on these matters end up being not discussions, but brawls and namecalling.

more fully are at this link and below are excerpts:

http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/nationalism.html

.
.
.
It is also worth emphasizing once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the USSR without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist -- that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating -- but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also -- since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself -- unshakeably certain of being in the right.
.
.
.

Greenwald:

I'm also in favor of reeling in the painfully overbroad Commerce Clause, which more than anything else has enabled the Federal Government to stick its claws in things which were clearly intended to be reserved for the states (nobody speaks on that issue more powerfully, by the way, than former Vt. Governor and fervent States Rights proponent Howard Dean).

I suppose that means Dean is a far-right libertarian to some in this thread.

The reading of the Commerce Clause arrived at in the early 1930s is the basis of just about all progressive Federal legislation; talk of 'reining it in' is wrong-headed and dangerous, and I do not care from whose mouth it comes.

adopting “an over-riding dogma of right libertarians”, correct?

I consider Gov. Dean to have been a very good Chairman for the Party, but that hardly means everything he may think or have said is right.

I have noticed he spends very little time denouncing President Obama as a war-monger and fabricator of enemies....

Eh, I suppose I should say “isn’t anti-war under the wrong president.” Greenwald didn’t get attacked like this while he was anti-war under Bush, even though that’s when he believed these things. Now he says these were statements were poorly informed and don’t represent his current world view, but since he is anti-war while Obama’s in power, he gets the epithet.

Unfortunately, you do not seem to be able to support what you say.

First, it would be nice to have some support for the assertion you are basing your engagement on, namely this parenthetical &quot nobody speaks on that issue more powerfully, by the way, than former Vt. Governor and fervent States Rights proponent Howard Dean)." This is simply an assertion by a person whose credibility and judgement are open to serious question. I cannot recall anyone else characterizing Gov. Dean as 'a fervent State's Rights proponent', nor can I recall any ringing denunciations from him on the reach of the Commerce Clause. It is true enough that he ran afoul of it a time or two while governor, with a law to restrict dissemination of 'harmful material' to minors that could have affected residents of other states than Vermont, and if recollection serves in some of the manouvering around the health care system he established in Vermont. I know he has taken positions opposing any great restriction of the Commerce Clause in debates with free-marketeer types. Standard boiler-plate about 'states being free to implement their own solutions' on various questions ranging from health insurance to legalization of marijuana, is far short of what is needed to carry the point that he is 'a fervent State's Rights proponent'. The man has been in the public eye for many years, and what comes first to mind when his name is mentioned is not state's rights.

Second, your over-facile 'isn't anti-war under the wrong president' is nonsense based on a mis-reading ( were I to be in a kind mood ) or a deliberate distortion ( were I to be in my more usual mood ) of the comment you are replying to with it. This is what I wrote: "I have noticed he ( Gov. Dean ) spends very little time denouncing President Obama as a war-monger and fabricator of enemies...." It is quite possible to oppose military engagement in Iraq and Syria without claiming President Obama is a war-monger who is telling lies about the situation to have an excuse to go to war. It would be possible for even Mr. Greenwald to do this, were he a person of different character and temper. But he seems to have an inability to express or hold any view without descending to vitriol and hyperbole, and in short order coming to treat his exaggerations for effect as statements of fact. I did not bother to comment much on his rantings when Bush was in office, but I considered him an embarrassment, and someone who was of no help at all in any project to move the mood of the public in regard to the policies in Iraq. To say he preached to the choir only would be to greatly over-state the reach of his comments, and I suspect that, among people who did not already agree with his views who were exposed to his fulminations, a good many more were moved to contempt for him and his views than were moved to agreement and support.

Mr. Greenwald's main problem is that he is against whoever is wielding government power at the moment. It is like the teenager who, asked what he is rebelling against, answers 'What have you got?' People who have any interest in seeing anything achieved, in terms of law and policy, make a great mistake if they conceive of people like Mr. Greenwald as allies because, at some moment when persons who oppose the laws and policies they desire are in office, they share for a time a target. Mr. Greenwald's target is government, though he veils this somewhat in the posture that he is attacking only corrupt and corrupting people in government. Since in his eyes virtually everyone who actually wields any power in government is corrupt or corrupting, lawless, a liar, a tyrant, in embryo if not yet in full flower, the effect is the same. The result is to inculcate a feeling in people that nothing can be done through government, which, protestations and hopes to the contrary, is to say in fact that nothing really can be done. Government is the only tool available by which people have any chance to rein in private power and achieve any degree of balance or redress in economic life. That government at present is far too much under control of private wealth and most responsive to the interests of private wealth does not change this.

What Mr. Greenwald does is act as a sort of 'left auxiliary' to the right wing in this country. He works to discredit government among the young on the left, to convince them government, the people who hold office in government, are unworthy, and so cannot be used as a tool for anything that might benefit people. Without a feeling that government is there to be used, the commitment of the young to fairness, to social justice and economic equity, will be as seed fallen on rocky ground. Private economic power, the engine of inequality and iniquity, which ensures life is not and will not be fair, is the only beneficiary. I am willing to do the man the courtesy of considering him intelligent enough, and possessed of sufficient self-awareness and understanding of the world around him, to be aware of this.

This is simply an assertion by a person whose credibility and judgement are open to serious question.

Well, I hope this isn't just another baseless accusation. I'm sure you can provide examples of when Greenwald said someone spoke in favor of something and they hadn't?

I did not bother to comment much on his rantings when Bush was in office

Yes, not many of the people trashing him now did, which is rather revealing. Especially since, again, he wasn't attacked for these comments when he made them, but rather years later - after he disavowed at least some of them and said his beliefs at this time were uninformed and often incorrect.

Mr. Greenwald's target is government, though he veils this somewhat in the posture that he is attacking only corrupt and corrupting people in government. Since in his eyes virtually everyone who actually wields any power in government is corrupt or corrupting, lawless, a liar, a tyrant, in embryo if not yet in full flower, the effect is the same.

Yes, Greenwald just hates everyone in the government:

And I say that despite my belief that — as critical as I’ve been of the Obama presidency regarding civil liberties and Terrorism — foreign affairs is actually one area where he’s shown genuine potential for some constructive “change” and has, on occasion, merited real praise for taking steps in the general “peace” direction which this Prize is meant to honor.

Just everyone:

During his 18 years in the U.S. Senate, Russ Feingold was easily one of the most interesting, intelligent, and independent elected officials. He frequently deviated from and vocally criticized his Party’s orthodoxy, and was by far the most stalwart voice among Senate Democrats in combatting the influence of corporate money in politics and defending civil liberties, especially in the post-9/11 era. His courageous sole vote against the Patriot Act in the weeks after 9/11 — underlined by a vigorous speech on the Senate floor in October, 2001, warning of the “loss of commitment in the Congress and the country to traditional civil liberties”– evinced all of those attributes. Those are the attributes that led me to advocate for his 2010 re-election and for readers here, in response, to donate over $50,000 in one day to his campaign.

I mean everyone:

I've long been an admirer of Holt for reasons going way beyond his unusually firm defense of civil liberties and opposition to secrecy. He's one of the few members of Congress who understands the evils of crony capitalism and its corrosive effect on Congress

Really, everyone:

But more important, Grayson has managed to have more positive impact on more substantive matters than any House freshman in a long time (indeed, he makes more of a positive impact than the vast majority of members of Congress generally).

You'll understand it if some of use have grown tired of the "I'll state a falsehood about Greenwald, you spend time collecting evidence showing it's wrong, I'll dismiss that and state another falsehood" game.

The presence of a white crow or two does not change the color of the flock.

I could cite a couple of Republican officials I consider decent people well suited to their offices; it does not change that I am opposed to the Republican party and all it represents to such a degree that I would consider its complete disbandment a tremendous benefit to our country and its people.

You still stand by your claim that "Since in his eyes virtually everyone who actually wields any power in government is corrupt or corrupting, lawless, a liar, a tyrant, in embryo if not yet in full flower, the effect is the same."

And again:

I'm sure you can provide examples of when Greenwald said someone spoke in favor of something and they hadn't?

I hope this isn't just another falsehood you're throwing around. Sadly, I expect it probably is.

#1 - Greenwald fan-worship runs high here and for those folks the emotional connection to him overwhelms any evidence provided that shows him to be a right wing libertarian.

and

#2 - Because of #1, many who have Greenwald figured out do not want to deal with arguing with those who have hero worship so they skip over Greenwald OPs completely.

I mean really dude, don't you think this is getting a little unhealthy? I mean, I know you hate Greenwald, and I know why. Because he exposed the illegal spying that was started under Bush, but now will be tied for all time by historians to President Obama. If someone had exposed this stuff under Bush, you would have loved them and written nothing but praise about it.

But you see, to me, and many. There are issues bigger than protecting the President from a bad decision. The Constitution. That is called the highest law in the land for a reason. All our laws, all our rights, all of the power of the government, and all the protections for the citizens derive from that document.

It isn't perfect, not by any stretch of the imagination. But it is pretty damned good, and I'll speak up and sound off to defend the rights contained therein as long as I have breath in my body. We have freedom of speech, so long as we shout and demand that we do.

Do I care about Greenwald's politics? Nope. I could give a shit less if he cast his ballot for Pat Buchanan. I wouldn't care if he voted for Mickey Mouse. The question that matters, and the one you've never been able to defeat is this. Did he tell the truth about the spying that was going on illegally by the associated intelligence apparatus of this and several other nations? Yes. He did.

By the world learning from Greenwald, we didn't elect him to become the prophet of some deity. We learned the truth. Now he could get out there and advise me to vote for David Purdue, the Republican candidate for the Senate from Georgia. I'd laugh and cast my ballot for Nunn.

My friend, you make the same mistake that all political party advocates make. You put party above policy. The Libertarians call them Civil Liberties. I call them Civil Rights. But if someone agrees with me, I don't care how they reached the destination. The Libertarians believe Government should be small and prevented from abusing the rights of the individuals by being too small to actually violate them. Whatever. I believe that Government should be large enough to protect the rights of every single individual.

One of those rights is to be secure in my person, and papers. Papers are electronic today. We learned a lot because of Greenwald, and Snowden, Manning, and Assange. That doesn't mean I'm going to marry them, or adopt them into my family. It does mean we should recognize their contribution to the truth. The same way we hold Woodward and Bernstein up to accolades. Because they found the truth, and they told us what it was.

Truth does not come from a political party. Truth comes from the delivery of factual information. While I may wish it was the case, the Democratic Party is not the keys to the receptacle of truth.

I started this by saying that it would be lain at the feet of President Obama. It will, because he didn't stop it. Oh I've heard the arguments, and I've mocked them often enough. The truth is that he had the opportunity to stop it in January 2009, and he didn't do it. You could have written the speech, I could have written the speech that he could have given. I'll summarize it now. "Because of my oath to support and defend the Constitution, I have ordered that several programs of our intelligence agencies be shut down. I believe that these programs violate the constitutional protections specifically contained in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment. Many people may disagree with this action, but my solemn duty is to protect the Constitution, and your rights contained within that document."

We would have been having these discussions because of the courage of the President, instead of the actions of Snowden and Greenwald. You can debate their motives, but as I said, I don't care about their motives, nobody does but party before policy types. Greenwald couldn't get elected dog catcher in Houston. Snowden couldn't get elected to vote registration supervisor. But they could, and did, tell the truth. And the truth was that our nation was doing some pretty bad things. Not the first time we've done bad things, probably won't be the last time either. But we can't stop the bad if we don't know what it was.

It wasn't about terrorism, we weren't spying to do anything about that. Because we didn't stop one damned thing because of those programs. It wasn't about any of the excuses that are given, and they've all been told, and rejected. It was about control, and the lack of self restraint in Government. If we could do it, we did it. If we couldn't do it, we tried to figure out a way to do it. The physically possible replaced the morally acceptable.

So bash on Greenwald all you want. But know this. You expose nothing about him. I don't care, and nobody who is thankful for the information he provided cares either. We aren't beholding to him for his political positions, they're bullshut in every reporter. We are thankful that he provided us with truth. He took the discussions that were hidden here because they were Conspiracy Theory, and made it impossible to deny. Because by telling us all about Greenwald, when we don't care, doesn't do anything to diminish greenwald. The one diminished is the one shouting. That person is exposed as a partisan hack, a person who shouts either of these two sentiments. My party is always right, which is juvenile. My party right or wrong, which is infamous. So what are you shouting my friend?

Thanks for saying what I feel and couldn't articulate. That could be an OP.

Like everything else Greenwald writes, he embellished a smidgen of fact to make it appear much worse than it was. It's a tactic many liars use. He is a very good liar.

And Snowden eventually stopped doing media appearances because every time he appeared he told several additional lies which were promptly discovered.

Greenwald has two specific agendas that tend to dovetail. #1 is that he is a right-wing Libertarian and #2 is that he is a Negative Nationalist against the US. It's not clear to me which of these is more important to him. If I was forced to guess I would say that #2 is slightly more important. The point is that he will twist every story to fit one or both of those agendas.

Was Verizon, AT&T, and all the other phone carriers providing all their information to the Government? Yes, they were. There is the subpoena. Every single phone call. In direct violation of the 4th Amendment.

So what crime were I and millions of others suspected of? What evidence of what investigation did they hope to collect?

It was a database, one of those things that are supposed to be eschewed.

So what was the lie there? For years people had theorized that this was going on, and when they attempted to post information that had been gleaned from other sources, they were denounced as Conspiracy Theory nuts. A violation of this very group is the posting of CT. Yet it was happening, and it was wrong.

So what else were we told? We were told that the NSA was spying with the GCHQ on foreign leaders. Interestingly enough, any one was worthy to be spied upon, inexplicably including the President of Germany. Because if there is anywhere that the head of a Government is going to be helping Terrorists or working against us, it's Germany?

So what else was a lie? Was it a lie that Snowden could listen in to the individual phone calls? The NSA says yes, but this is the same NSA that swore for years that none of this was going on. Perhaps we could consult with the one demonstrated liar in the story. General James Clapper. The one person who has demonstrably lied, is the head of the Government agency you want to believe when they say they aren't doing something.

Interesting isn't it? The one group that has been lying consistently, is the one you turn to in order to find truth. That would be like returning to the Priest who just molested you to find comfort in the psychological horror of being molested.

I don't know if everything Snowden said was true. I really don't. I don't know if the NSA is listening to every phone call, reading every single email, etc. I do know that they are listening to quite a bit, and reading quite a bit. I suspected, or perhaps believed before Snowden. But my concerns were cast aside until Snowden.

Let me ask you this. If Bush was still in the White House when all this broke, would you take the NSA's word that they aren't doing things? Of course not. You would be leading the crowd shouting that this was wrong and they're lying. You would expect them to prove it. Well, they are spying on us, and they're not supposed to. Again, my fidelity to the principle of Civil Rights demands that I speak out no matter who is violating them. If it's a White Cop conducting an illegal search of a black man, I'll say it's wrong. If anyone violates those rights I hold sacred then you can count on me to speak out.

I've defended the President when he was right. I've taken issue when I thought he was wrong. I oppose all Civil Rights Violations, no matter who is doing it. There is no excuse, no reason valid enough to violate those rights. We see what happens when those rights are eroded, and I'm fighting hard to make sure they don't erode any further, and I'm even hopeful that we'll see some rollback on some of those erosions.

All the excuses for these programs have been laid bare, and disproven. All of the assertions have been discredited. All that is left, is the one thing we won't do. We won't admit it's wrong, and bring an end to it.

Again, you're looking at the political agenda of Snowden, and Greenwald. I'm looking at the evidence that they have presented, and the reactions of the intelligence game players. If Snowden was nothing but a liar, why do those sources insist that he did irreparable harm?

There are four reasons that people turn "traitor". Money, Ideology, Conscience, and Ego. But here's the secret, it's never just one of those, it's always a combination. Oleg Penkovsky for example, Ideology and Conscience. Aldrich Ames. Money and Ego. He wanted cash, and he thought he was smart enough to get away with it.

So what drives Snowden? Money? Hard to spend any money when you're in hiding from a CIA hit squad, which will inevitably get you. Ideology? Sure, to some extent. Conscience? Sure, somewhat. Ego? Absolutely, but that is normal. You can't do work vital to the nation if you don't think you're pretty special.

But the end result, is that Snowden, and Greenwald, and many others provided us with information that we needed to drag these programs out of the shadows of CT into the light of informed discussion. That many of the Conspiracy Theories were proven correct are relevant, especially if the technology and technique that has been demonstrated can be applied to other applications. Then those CT's appear true, and probably are.

So in summation, we know the Government is doing things they're not supposed to. And we know that a majority of the people want them to stop. Now, if you want to keep up the no such agency talking points, you can. Nobody will believe you, because that has fallen into the category of CT.

are really about. Whether they really care about a supposed security or surveillance state.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5612553

My guess is that their silence will be deafening.

there are plenty of people who have wanted to catch them in a lie, and many of these people are base enough to tell their own lies in order to try to make Greenwald and Snowden look bad. But scrunching your eyes shut and stamping your feet and wishing you had the goods on Greeneald and Snowden has fuck all to do with reality.

Will they condemn what Putin is doing with Russia's internet access?

No, of course not. They are not interested in the truth. They are not against surveillance or excessive security.

They are against the United States and that agenda colors everything they do and say.

Teddy Roosevelt never said any of that shit!

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
-Anonymous

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.


"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
-Bertrand Russell


I couldn't find Teddy's quote but thought these might help.

Since he split the progressive vote from the republican party, I chose Teddy.

All of those quotes are apropos to the thread.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Greenwald on his old positions(and there's a link to this in the blog post, so people omitting it are being intentionally deceptive):

That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had zero readers. I've discussed many times before how there were many uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics full-time - due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom, propaganda, etc. I've written many times since then about how immigrants are exploited by the Right for fear-mongering purposes. I'm 100% in favor of amnesty, think defeat of the DREAM Act was an act of evil, etc. That said, I do think illegal immigration is a serious problem: having millions of people live without legal rights; having a legal scheme that is so pervasively disregarded breeds contempt for the rule of law; virtually every country - not just the U.S. insists on border control because having a manageable immigration process is vital on multiple levels. But that post is something I wrote literally a few weeks after I began blogging when nobody was reading my blog; it was anything but thoughtful, contemplative, and informed, and - like so many things I thought were true then - has nothing to do with what I believe now.

(And I thought Greenwald was awful because he always thinks he’s right and never admits mistakes…)

The funny thing is, I went back and looked at DU threads mentioned Greenwald between ’04 and ’08 (went through the first two pages of results). I didn’t find anyone criticizing him or calling him a libertarian at the time, most of the comments about him were praising him. It’s funny that he’s gotten more criticism for these positions after he stopped believing in them then he did when he believed in them.

Oh, the truncation you made here is also quite telling:

I'm also in favor of reeling in the painfully overbroad Commerce Clause, which more than anything else has enabled the Federal Government to stick its claws in things which were clearly intended to be reserved for the states

Full quote:

I'm also in favor of reeling in the painfully overbroad Commerce Clause, which more than anything else has enabled the Federal Government to stick its claws in things which were clearly intended to be reserved for the states (nobody speaks on that issue more powerfully, by the way, than former Vt. Governor and fervent States Rights proponent Howard Dean).

Huh, why would anyone cut off the very end of that sentence?

And works as a lobbyist for Big Pharm.

The rhetoric is extreme rightwing, and Howard Dean's affiliation with it could only reflect poorly on him.

He's way more popular here than Greenwald and people need to see the error of their ways.

He did oppose some elements of the law, as many of us did, but he called the decision upholding it a good decision, except for the portion relating to MediCare expansion. He did call it 'governmental malpractice' for any governor to refuse the MediCare expansion, however.

I think the onus is on the opposition here to demonstrate Gov. Dean can be accurately described as a 'fervent State's Rights proponent'. Mr. Greenwald's word in a parenthetical aside is not nearly sufficient to establish it as a fact.

would be stripped out as a violation of the commerce clause before the opinion was issued.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1609171

To be blunt, the governor's heart is a lot greater than his grasp of policy or jurisprudence.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/673218

Governor Dean's program for reducing the # of uninsured adults was quite poor compared to that of . . . Mitt Romney.

I do not agree that is so, personally.

It is hardly sufficient to call him a 'fervent State's Rights proponent', or present him as an eloquent spokesman for the idea 'the Commerce Clause must be reined in to keep the Federal government's claws out of things best left to the states', though. It is not even clear he thought ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional would be a proper decision, rather than a desirable one; a decision actually in accord with the meaning of the Commerce Clause, and not merely one which would produce his preferred result. I always thought the case so clear on the grounds of the taxing authority that the Commerce Clause had no real relevance.

I do think, though, that a number of people felt, and still feel, something is a little off about being told they must purchase a specific product from a commercial enterprise, and I have some sympathy for that view, whatever my feelings on it as a question of policy, and political necessity in present conditions, might be.

My preference was, and remains, 'MediCare For All', with acceptance of MediCare patients a condition of holding a license to practice medicine anywhere in the United States, which I think is well within the legitimate reach of the Commerce Clause....

credibility by invoking Dean rather than accurately characterizing Dean's Gadsen flag bona fides.

The idea of the mandate is indeed not one anyone should feel 100% with as a matter of governing principle. But it was the nose under the tent for (necessary) state intervention in that industry, and it is rare that the nose is the most attractive part of the animal.

effort to hide the praise for a prominent Democrat at the end of the sentence
2. Reveal that the comments are 9 years old and not contemporary
3. Reveal the disclaimer at the top of at least one of these posts stating that the individual thinks most of their beliefs at the time were ill-informed and wrong.

I'll admit that it's difficult to find transcripts of speeches Dean made a decade ago. That's usually why most people don't dig up comments made 9 years ago and ask for supporting evidence. You do seem aware that Dean had his legal representation argue for a narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause, so I'm not sure why you think it's so outlandish that Dean would have spoken in favor of the position he was pushing for legally (or why Dean's actions in the court seem to elicit less of a response from you than Greenwald's remarks in a blog's comments section).

I suppose it's possible that Greenwald was making up the whole thing in an effort to undeservedly praise Democrats. Unwarranted praise for Democrats is what he always gets attacked for here, no?

He mis-characterized Gov. Dean, in an attempt to make his own views seem both more mainstream and more palatable.

Mr. Greenwald's views on the matter are those of the extreme right, and those of an extreme right libertarian, and the characterization of them as extreme is justified by the terms in which they are expressed: referring to the Federal Government as 'sticking its claws in things' is a staple of far-right rhetoric.

I repeat that the reading of the Commerce Clause emerging in the 1930s is essential to most progressive legislation, and that to undermine it is exceedingly dangerous, and that undermining it is a very long-term project of the right wing in our country.

I will also repeat my extended comment above, as you still seem puzzled by my willingness to draw distinctions between a sound public servant with whom I may disagree on a point or two, and a gadfly purveyor of vitriol and hyperbole in pursuit of self-aggrandizement, secure in the knowledge he will never have to reckon with the consequences of anything he proposes, since he will never be in a position where he must exercise power or accept responsibility.

"First, it would be nice to have some support for the assertion you are basing your engagement on, namely this parenthetical &quot nobody speaks on that issue more powerfully, by the way, than former Vt. Governor and fervent States Rights proponent Howard Dean)." This is simply an assertion by a person whose credibility and judgement are open to serious question. I cannot recall anyone else characterizing Gov. Dean as 'a fervent State's Rights proponent', nor can I recall any ringing denunciations from him on the reach of the Commerce Clause. It is true enough that he ran afoul of it a time or two while governor, with a law to restrict dissemination of 'harmful material' to minors that could have affected residents of other states than Vermont, and if recollection serves in some of the manouvering around the health care system he established in Vermont. I know he has taken positions opposing any great restriction of the Commerce Clause in debates with free-marketeer types. Standard boiler-plate about 'states being free to implement their own solutions' on various questions ranging from health insurance to legalization of marijuana, is far short of what is needed to carry the point that he is 'a fervent State's Rights proponent'. The man has been in the public eye for many years, and what comes first to mind when his name is mentioned is not state's rights.

Second, your over-facile 'isn't anti-war under the wrong president' is nonsense based on a mis-reading ( were I to be in a kind mood ) or a deliberate distortion ( were I to be in my more usual mood ) of the comment you are replying to with it. This is what I wrote: "I have noticed he ( Gov. Dean ) spends very little time denouncing President Obama as a war-monger and fabricator of enemies...." It is quite possible to oppose military engagement in Iraq and Syria without claiming President Obama is a war-monger who is telling lies about the situation to have an excuse to go to war. It would be possible for even Mr. Greenwald to do this, were he a person of different character and temper. But he seems to have an inability to express or hold any view without descending to vitriol and hyperbole, and in short order coming to treat his exaggerations for effect as statements of fact. I did not bother to comment much on his rantings when Bush was in office, but I considered him an embarrassment, and someone who was of no help at all in any project to move the mood of the public in regard to the policies in Iraq. To say he preached to the choir only would be to greatly over-state the reach of his comments, and I suspect that, among people who did not already agree with his views who were exposed to his fulminations, a good many more were moved to contempt for him and his views than were moved to agreement and support.

Mr. Greenwald's main problem is that he is against whoever is wielding government power at the moment. It is like the teenager who, asked what he is rebelling against, answers 'What have you got?' People who have any interest in seeing anything achieved, in terms of law and policy, make a great mistake if they conceive of people like Mr. Greenwald as allies because, at some moment when persons who oppose the laws and policies they desire are in office, they share for a time a target. Mr. Greenwald's target is government, though he veils this somewhat in the posture that he is attacking only corrupt and corrupting people in government. Since in his eyes virtually everyone who actually wields any power in government is corrupt or corrupting, lawless, a liar, a tyrant, in embryo if not yet in full flower, the effect is the same. The result is to inculcate a feeling in people that nothing can be done through government, which, protestations and hopes to the contrary, is to say in fact that nothing really can be done. Government is the only tool available by which people have any chance to rein in private power and achieve any degree of balance or redress in economic life. That government at present is far too much under control of private wealth and most responsive to the interests of private wealth does not change this.

What Mr. Greenwald does is act as a sort of 'left auxiliary' to the right wing in this country. He works to discredit government among the young on the left, to convince them government, the people who hold office in government, are unworthy, and so cannot be used as a tool for anything that might benefit people. Without a feeling that government is there to be used, the commitment of the young to fairness, to social justice and economic equity, will be as seed fallen on rocky ground. Private economic power, the engine of inequality and iniquity, which ensures life is not and will not be fair, is the only beneficiary. I am willing to do the man the courtesy of considering him intelligent enough, and possessed of sufficient self-awareness and understanding of the world around him, to be aware of this."

seem both more mainstream and more palatable."? Or is it now OK to throw around accusations without evidence?

And yet this mis-characterization was made, and not made without purpose. The purpose I suggest is a reasonable inference from the act.

I note that in all your comments, you neglect to engage the substance, namely that the view of the Commerce Clause Mr. Greenwald expresses is that of the extreme right, and a staple of right libertarian commentary, as well as dangerous in the extreme to maintainance of progressive laws and policies established in the new Deal.

Very few people overall even think he is progressive. They are people with an agenda that completely goes against anything progressive. They are disruptors and enjoy what they are doing. They are fringe elements who grasp at CT's like they are their life blood. Kind of an unfair way to address Greenwalds supporters. They are about as progressive as Greenwald himself. It is agenda based, not reality based. The comments about Greenwald still have no bearing on the actions of the White House. That is also being used as an angle to serve an agenda and to look away from what is happening. Both sides are into the dog and pony show.