Salon's Glen Greenwald: Ron Paul Distortions and Smears
by Glen Greenwald | Monday November 12, 2007
I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. In an otherwise informative and legitimate (and widely-cited) post today about Paul's record in Congress, Dave Neiwert claims:
Even though he claims to be a "libertarian", he opposes people's freedom to burn or destroy their own copies of the design of the U.S. flag.
He then links to two bills which Paul introduced in Congress which would, in essence, amend the Constitution in order to allow prohibitions on flag burning.
But Neiwert's claim here is, in one respect, completely misleading and, in another respect, outright false (in both cases, I assume the error is unintentional). Continue reading at Salon...
output
I love this guy (Greenwald)
Shows that the civility and honesty of Dr. Paul is respected by one who hold differing views.
So as a Progressive…
May I ask that Ron Paul supporters continue to show respect for Progressives like Glen Greenwald who are intelligent enough, and brave enough, to take a principled stance along side Conservative patriots? We have to put our (significant) differences aside for the time being.
The dangers (true) Conservatives see in a welfare sate growing out of control, we Progressives also see in the proto-fascist, one party, lawless GOP and the military/industrial complex. I hope that the last seven years have taught us that fundamentally we share a commitment to democracy and the Constitution. Let’s find a way to work together.
For example, rather than trashing Kos, post an invitation to engage in a discussion about the issues. Don’t resort to ad hominem attacks to make your point. Don’t use ridicule. In other words, follow your leader, who makes his points modestly and without vitriol. Don’t expect everyone to play nice. Whenever I raise this topic it brings out lots of vitriol. Don’t react. This happens on both sides of the political blogs and we need to learn to build back some civility in our political debates.
For example:
This is a cross post from Hullabaloo yesterday:
This post is interesting to me because I have recently spent some time reading and posting on the site Daily Paul. First, don’t attack me or rail about how crazy Ron Paul and his followers are--I know all about his positions. That said, I have been curious to learn about a growing group of Americans, mostly Republicans and Independents that consider George Bush a totalitarian and a grave danger to our democracy.
What Obama advocates is naïve because he fails to grasp the true danger that our country faces with the current regime. Or is it really Liebermanesque duplicity? This is my question. Are Ron Paul and his followers our enemies in this fight or is Dianne Feinstein?
Two or three years ago that question would have seemed absurd to me. But I no longer believe that we are simply dealing with a political problem or the style of our politics. The people supporting Ron Paul understand the profound danger that American Democracy is now facing.
Believe it or not, we are going to have to find common ground with other Americans with whom we have very little else in common. After watching the Centrist Democrats fold, one after another, I am convinced that this is the only way we can push back this current threat to the Constitution.
I don’t know how we can engage with people like Ron Paul but if we put preserving Democracy and the Constitution first, we will have to find a way to separate the political appeasers from true patriots be they on the left, right or center.
OK. Now let me have it.
Your point is well made, but
Your point is well made, but I'm never going to concede that there is any legitimacy in a political ideology that requires as its core premise that individual rights be trampled upon. Sorry, but I can't compromise my principles.
You are absolutely correct that the neoconservatives are doing this to a criminal degree, but so are the "progressives" (I must apologize again, but I cannot say that word without the quotes, because I see the ideology as decidedly regressive).
I've come to the conclusion that what we need to do in order to play nice with each other is to disseminate the notion of a two-dimensional political compass. "Left/Right" is one-dimensional and only applies to economics. The problem is that the economic left has absorbed social liberals, while the economic right has absorbed social conservatives.
But what about people like me, who are liberal in both directions? That is to say, I am an economic liberal (government out of my financial matters) and a social liberal (government out of my personal matters).
By the simplistic left/right scale, I am both left and right! So, I'd be labeled a centrist, but nothing could be further from the truth! A Centrist is a moderate; I am not moderate, I favor total social freedom and near-total economic freedom. Centrist? Not I!
We need to make people more aware of this dimensional problem, so we can more easily identify where we agree; even if we only agree in one dimension.
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
Agreed
Here’s the common ground…you believe in Reason just like the Founding Fathers. Political debate requires reason and truthfulness. What passes for political debate these days is usually disingenuous and often involves outright deception. I would rather have an honest debate with you than someone that is willing to lie. No matter how much our views may differ, honesty in debate is a demonstration of a mutual respect for our form of government.
Also, I doubt that your views are caste in stone. My views aren’t. I agree with much of what you profess but I have found that principles are like crystals—they may seem hard but they refract light in many directions.
I would rather have an
Thanks, the feeling is mutual. :-)
You're right of course. Perhaps I overstated myself. What I mean is, I have certain core beliefs that are indeed cast in stone. But my "outer skin" sort of floats on the surface of that core. I'm willing to give and take where necessary, as long as my core is not compromised. I think most people feel similarly.
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
Phoobar and anothergreenbus, you're both right!
Well, not really. However, you can both have your cake and eat it too - with Ron Paul!
He wants to bring back constitutional government. That means, a return to federalism.
What THAT means is that all of us will be able to find a state that suits us best. Phoobar will be able to find a state which is more "libertarian" in nature, while anothergreenbus will be able to find a state that is more "progressive" in nature. The states will not be mere administrative districts of the federal government, but truly diverse!
This is what plans like Free State Project and Free State Wyoming are all about, but such plans will really be able to work well when federalism comes back.
I believe this factor is one of the key points driving Paul's very broadspread support. As a libertarian, I eventually realized that, "Even socialists need somewhere to live". Likewise a left-liberal who "gets it" might say, "Even libertarians need somewhere to live".
As John Taylor Gatto put it, "People are less than whole unless they gather themselves voluntarily into groups of souls in harmony. Gathering themselves to pursue individual, family, and community dreams consistent with their private humanity is what makes them whole; only slaves are gathered by others."
Thanks for that.
Live and let live—sounds like a Libertarian motto to me. Plus I get tire of the raging fanatics on the Left/Right sites. Reality is more complex and more interesting.
Mr. Greenwald nailed it
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
*BUMP*
Another great one from Greenwald!
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
Fruitcake? Nut Job?
One would think that the most sane and rational candidate in the race would advocate getting out of our illegal iraq war.
And the most sane and rational candidate would get rid of the gulag-style secret prisons, the torture, the illegal wiretapping, and restore habeas corpus. Give us our freedom and due process back. This is what Ron Paul wants to do.
The neo-cons are the real nut jobs. They are the fruitiest of the fruitcakes. Many of the Dems in government are not far behind. There are just a lot more of these people in our government than there are people like Ron Paul, but accusing him of being crazy on this basis is like saying "everyone else agrees with me, so what I believe must be right!" Every mass hysteria is grounded in that fallacy, and believe me, there is plenty of mass hysteria out there.
America needs to wake up and elect the candidate that will actually get our government back under control, get it to respect the rule of law as written in the Constitution and give us back our freedoms. That man is none other than Ron Paul, and no one else has the integrity and the voting record that Ron Paul has to justify the public's faith in their ability to fulfill their campaign promises.
Because of Ron Paul, this election will not be about who's the biggest fruitcake or the best liar. It will finally be about freedom, the Constitution, and morality.
It was purportedly Einstein
It was purportedly Einstein who said, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I've not found a source for this attribution, but it's a great quotation anyway. The people who are calling Paul a "nut job" are the same people who think the situation in Iraq will improve by maintaining the status quo. 'Nuff said.
As to the guilt-by-association attacks so often leveled against Paul, anyone who knows anything about debating knows that such an attack is a logical fallacy. When someone says, "Joe believes that 9/11 was an inside job and Ron Paul accepted money from Joe, therefore Ron Paul believes that 9/11 was an inside job," the proper response in not to debate whether 9/11 was an inside job; the proper response is to debate whether the association makes any logical sense whatsoever. Clearly, it does not.
---Signature---
"We should have a strong president -- strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn’t have." --Ron Paul
Excellent!
This is a most excellent article! One of the most objective and thoughtful I have read in weeks! There are some wonderful links here too!
Very worthwhile to take the time to poke around.
Thank you.
I never thought about it before
now I wanna burn a flag. I wanna take my off my clothes and dance naked around the fire with a bottle of Jack Daniels while playing Slayer very loud.
just kidding. wtf?
Canada Loves Ron Paul
Hey!!
I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Now that's freedom.
wtf is that the best he
wtf is that the best he smear anyone can come up with on ron paul?
If you make it to Salon
.
Scroll down to the bottom. There is a great little video of Ron Paul talking about other candidates whom he might support if he were not running. Just straight and honest talk.
Re: the flag burning mess. Much ado. As most of us know by now, many in the press will publish any kind of salacious stuff in an attempt to smear Dr. Paul. They are fools. If nothing else, it spurs righteous indignation from the Ron Paul supporters who respond with a hot volley of emails and (sometimes) phone calls.
The Salon piece, in Paul's defense, was good and well reasoned (though I didn't read it carefully - just a slow skim).
Exceptional
I never heard of this man before last week, but he strikes me as an exceptional writer. I'm not even sure if he actually supports Ron Paul (earlier article seemed to imply he doesn't), and that just makes the article all the more impressive. We need more of this type of writer in the press.
wow
Flag burning. Now there is an urgent issue. What a goofy issue to ponder when considering a candidate for president.
What is the attraction to flag burning anyway? Are there actually people walking around me with a flag burning fetish? Something they think about all day long?
I have never ha the urge to burn a flag anyway. It's not something I think about.
So I am voting for Ron Paul.
Go Ron Paul!
Actually it's not a goofy
Actually it's not a goofy issue, as even Ron Paul himself indicates. If a candidate is in favor of legislating against flag burning it shows them to be leaning towards authoritarianism. But in that case you could probably find more dirt on them than just that.
"But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach." -- Ron Paul
The article goes on to say
The article goes on to say that Ron Paul is completely against any legislation to ban flag burning. It's a first amendment issue.
www.paulforronpaul.com
Andrew Sullivan missed the boat on this one
Sullivan wrote this a.m. of Paul's legislative history: "The flag burning grand-standing is truly saddening."
I emailed Sullivan to explain that Paul proposed the amendment and then voted against it; but the post is still up on his site. There are permalinks and talkbacks under Sullivan's article, but I don't know how to use them. Would someone more web savy than me try a different way to reach Sullivan, so he won't keep the anti-flag burning mistake on his site, please?
Thanks
On Flag Burning
I've always had this "If I were a rich man" urge to somehow manufacture 535 doormats, printed with the Bill of Rights, to present to the various politicians' offices whenever they have those debates. Something tells me most of 'em wouldn't see the humor in it...
JMR