It’s rather amusing to watch Glenn Greenwald attempt, yet again, to insinuate that President Obama is no different than a Republican.
In a Twitlonger he likely jotted off because of the pushback he received in response to his vapid tweet earlier this morning, Greenwald compares President Obama and Rob Portman’s evolution on marriage equality: Rob Portman attributed his position shift to finding out that his son is gay and Obama “partially” based his position shift on the fact that he has gay friends.
Both Obama and Portman are selfish and narcissistic, Greenwald claims, but that’s how political positions are often formed and how political progress is achieved:
Re: Portman & Obama: get as angry as you want, but:
(1) if, as many have argued, it’s “selfish” and “narcissistic” for Portman to switch his gay marriage view because he realized the effect discrimination will have on his gay son (and I don’t disagree with that characterization), then the same must be true of others who attributed their switch on gay marriage to realizing that discrimination harms gay people close to them, as Obama did when explaining his switch (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama/story?id=16316043&singlePage=true).
(2) What Portman did is incredibly common. The primary reason there has been such a monumental opinion shift on gay marriage is because more and more gay people have come out, which made more and more people realize that those close to them were gay, which in turn made them less willing to support discriminatory laws:
It may be selfish and narcissistic to support equality only once you realize inequality harms those you care about, but that has been a very common dynamic – among people from both parties and across the ideological spectrum, whose switch from opposing gay marriage to supporting it was triggered by a very similar experience to the one motivating Portman.
That’s why coming out has been such a powerful act: because people are less willing to support discrimination when they they realize it harms those they care about. It’s true in general: it’s much harder to demonize people when they’re familiar.
I wish it weren’t that way. It’d be nice, for instance, if fewer people supported US militarism and aggression and civil liberties abridgments because those who are victimized are Invisible and Distant Others, but, as Tejun Cole pointed out (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/03/teju-cole-interview-twitter-drones-small-fates), that “empathy gap” is a major reason why US aggression and militarism are tolerated: because it doesn’t kill people whom most Americans care about.
Portman’s explanation is far from aberrational or confined to one ideological group: it’s how political opinions are often shaped and how political progress is often achieved. And it’s definitely the leading reason why so many people who opposed gay equality a short time ago now support it.
I suppose that’s one way of looking at it, but it’s not the only way, according to this brilliant and must-read comment from Balloon Juice commenter NCSteve:
I call bullshit, not on Greenwald, who Mistermix rightly calls out for engaging in the fallacy of equivocation, which is what 90% of his oh-so-reasonable post-Bush communications come down to, but on Mistermix for his heh indeedy to Greenwald for attacking Obama for his timidity on the issue.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Looking back, it all seems easy, but in 2007, the idea DADT would be gone by 2010 and DOMA would be on the path to extinction would have been met with incredulity. And itâs not just law, itâs the attitude. I have no doubt that there are still more than enough haters and violent homophobes to make being openly gay in most places a daily struggle with idiocy and danger. But when a majority of straight opinion moves from a range between violent hatred and âwhatever they do in private is their own business but donât do it in publicâ to one where a majority of straights can face the idea of PDAâs by gays with, at most, a shrug or a smile in five years, thatâs a pretty remarkable thing. It certainly took a fuck of a lot longer for us to get from Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) to a world where an interracial couple doesnât get a second glance in a restaurant in North Carolina.
No president has spoken so forcefully, so openly and so often, before running, while campaigning or in office, in support of LGBT rights. No one now seems to remember how surprising, even jarring, it was to hear a candidate talk about gay rights so often and openly in 2007. No one seems to recall that prior to his election, putting an anti-gay measure onto the ballot was a standard Republican presidential election turnout tool whereas, by 2010, they had to sneak them onto midterm ballots to get them to pass and by 2012, they largely surrendered.
Obamaâs entire âevolutionâ on gay marriage was a calculation, but it wasnât a calculation about what was in his best interest. It was a calculation on how best to assemble majority for change in the shortest possible time. The entire essence of leadership by a president in generating majority support for minority rightsâreal leadership, not the shrill pulpit pounding and gallant windmill tilting that idiot Firebaggers equate with leadershipâis to move majority opinion from point A to point B by getting out just slightly ahead of where the majorityâs thinking is and publicly engaging in a dialogue that is ostensibly about his own supposed tortured evolution on the issue. At the same time, the same president whoâs supposedly struggling with the issue also engages in very public mainstreaming efforts, both substantive and symbolic. And always, the president hovers just very slightly outside the comfort zone of the people whose opinions heâs trying to move until, finally, they achieve their breakthrough moment and think theyâre the ones ahead of the curve.
The mainstreaming efforts recontextualize the way the public views the issue. The dialogue ostensibly about the presidentâs own supposed struggle to grow becomes the framework by which the public works through its own issues.
This is precisely how Lincoln moved a white northern majority that, however it felt about secession, was largely virulently racist into acceptance of emancipation. Itâs how Johnsonâfor all his faults and beginning in his days as Senate majority leader who depended on racist southern senators for his majorityâslowly assembled a white northern majority for an assault on segregation. Itâs the same game Kennedy played throughout his short term.
The change in straight attitudes toward gay rights during the course of the Obama Administration has been stunning. Iâm not saying he did it all himself, because that would be foolish. Johnson couldnât have done what he did without the Civil Rights movement and the powerful symbolic presence of the ghost of John F. Kennedy to push him past the finish line. Lincoln couldnât have freed the slaves without the Radical Republican factionâa faction that abused and scorned him even as he privately acknowledged that his aims were theirs.
But anyone who thinks Obama just went along with what was already happening and would have inevitably happened in the same time frame rather than very systematically and deliberately if gently, leading public opinion through a dramatic evolution to a desired destination is blind as only the smugly cynical or tendentious libertarian purity trolls can be. He didnât do it alone, but to refuse to grant him his fair share of credit for the radical transformation in both the legal landscape and social attitudes is at best small-minded and at worst churlish.
Precisely. All of it.
Moreover, considering Greenwald’s own “evolution” on certain political positions, his implicit criticism that President Obama’s evolution on marriage equality is borne of selfishness and narcissism is simply too hypocritical for me to let pass without comment.
Back in 2005, when Greenwald was 35 years old, he wrote the following about the scourge of “illegals”:
Over the past several years, illegal immigrants have poured into the United States by the millions. The wave of illegals entering the country is steadily increasing. The people living in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico know this flow has to be drastically slowed and then halted. The situation is so dire in that region that the Democratic Governors of Arizona and New Mexico were forced to declare States of Emergency as a result of the flow of illegals into their states and the resulting, massive problems which it brings.
The parade of evils caused by illegal immigration is widely known, and it gets worse every day. In short, illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone. Few people dispute this, and yet nothing is done.
In the last year or so, Greenwald added an update to his post, and blamed “Obama cultists” for “digging back six years in [his] archives to find something to discredit [him].” (Silly, but typical.)
Now, is it possible for people to change their political positions on issues like same sex marriage, or immigration, or the Iraq War (which, by the way, Greenwald supported before he didn’t)? Absolutely. Is it possible that such political positions are formed based on critical thinking and not out of political expedience, selfishness, or narcissism? Â Absolutely. Is the opposite true? Again, absolutely.
But nothing screams “selfish” and “narcissist” like pointing to the fact that you were a noob to blogging as the reason for committing to virtual paper your conservative positions on “illegals” (nice terminology there, pal), and then blaming “Obama cultists” for the reason your old wingnutty positions have come to light. And, as NCSteve’s comment demonstrates, there’s an alternative explanation for President Obama’s “evolution” that does not begin and end with “he’s just like a Republican.”
As I’ve written before, I’m willing to give Greenwald the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he was politically uninformed in 2005. (Two full years after the beginning of the Iraq War which Greenwald supported, but never mind that.) Maybe Greenwald didn’t change his position out of selfishness and narcissism (because he knew he couldn’t be considered a “progressive” voice on the left while holding positions on immigration anathema to progressivism.) Maybe he had a true “come to Jesus moment.”
But why won’t he make that same allowance for anyone else, whether the president himself or the president’s supporters? Why won’t he give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with his views on everything? If you hold a nuanced position on drones? You’re a babykiller. If you have a nuanced position on the NDAA, you would defend President Obama if he raped a nun on live television.
No breaks for Obama. No breaks for Obama supporters. Breaks for Greenwald.
Thus is the logic of Glenn Greenwald. And given the slurs that Greenwald hurls at Obama supporters, and his willingness to leverage rape to make a political point, Greenwald’s disdain for President Obama seems more like a personal grudge than anything based on principle.
[cross-posted at ABLC]
Corner Stone
Finally! Now, at long last, maybe we can begin to have a clear headed and rational discussion on this issue.
burnspbesq
On a full Saturday of college basketball and lacrosse, please forgive me if I don’t have even a second to worry about what Glen Greenwald thinks.
However, while watching the Yale – Cornell lacrosse game on Yale’s YouTube channel, I discovered that Greenwald’s legion of zombies can find an entire hour and 21 minutes of the Great Man there.
Keith G
Deja Vu.
scav
@Corner Stone: raised eyebrow, singular
Time for more coffee.
c u n d gulag
Uhm…
Portman did this because it was a family member who was gay!
And that, sans some gay rights for his son, he might not be able to have as happy a life as he might have.
And then Portman would have to continue to help support his son, even from the grave.
President Obama made his change, because of the influence of staffers and friends – in other words, people who he wouldn’t have to support if they got f*cked-over, because of anti-gay laws.
Glenn, much as I loved him years ago, is now reduced to being an annoying troll, too much of the time.
One who is like that proverbial ‘stopped clock.’
And I’ll repeat what I said earlier – it’s too bad that, because of nepotism, none of our politicians in this country, especially Republican ones, are related to any unemployed people.
Or, poor people.
Then, some sh*t might just change…
Just Some Fuckhead
Greenwald says something douchey, Obots shit themselves. Rinse, repeat.
Baud
Thanks, Imani. We needed a backthread to prevent the other thread from burning out of control. ;-)
Nicole
Well, you know, in 2005 Greenwald’s relationship with his Brazilian boyfriend was still pretty new, so he needed time for his views on brown people coming to the United States to evolve.
BobS
@Just Some Fuckhead: Also, the sun rose in the east this morning.
Bob In Portland
Since the coup of 1963 Presidents don’t really have a say on wars and how we conduct them, so blaming Obama for what’s out of his control is a waste of breath. It would be nice to have a President that was actually liberal but that’s not allowed by the permanent government.
Todd
By bashing on Greenwald, you disdain the hopes and dreams of well connected Log Cabin Republicans and wealthy glibertarian white males, thus crushing their dreams of hedonic privilege at the expense of everybody else.
Discuss…
pamelabrown53
@Just Some Fuckhead: Just Some Fuckhead is just some fuckhead: rinse and repeat.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Just Some Fuckhead: The Guardian’s odd hiring decision notwithstanding, this Obot thinks Greenwald is about as interesting and influential as Jane Hamsher. So slightly more influential than the Naderite purity trolls who post here.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
At least we’re all talking about Glenn Greenwald, said Glenn Greenwald as he stroked his white cat.
eemom
LMAO again.
Dayum, I must have done some good deed in the last week that I am being rewarded for.
aimai
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
Bwa-ha-ha.
Richard
Greenwald’s love affair with Ron Paul sank whatever respect I had for him. The cherry on top of those posts portraying Paul as being somehow mister progressive in comparison to the worse than Hitler Obama was the fact the weasel was insisting that he wasn’t endorsing Paul.
Fuck that shit.
eemom
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
Is that what the kids are calling it now?
Amir Khalid
@burnspbesq:
I hope the basketball and lacrosse went better for you than the football did for me. (Not that I was surprised, mind you; I figured Liverpool were about due for another defeat, and so it came to pass.)
I agree that life is too short to be spent worrying about what political pundits think — except, of course, to flame them for entertainment.
eemom
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
They have Naomi Wolf too. Talk about losing all respect for something…
chopper
@Nicole:
I wish I could declare the thread over with this post.
Pinkamena Panic
@Just Some Fuckhead: JSF shills for pie, I stop giving a fuck.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Amir Khalid:
Did you catch Everton-Man City? The Toffees were intense and focused. Held on to the 1-0 lead for thirty three minutes while a man down, got the second goal at the ninety-third minute. Impressive.
taylormattd
Another point that is lost on that Ron Paul apologist: fucking Portman is a republican who has zero empathy for anyone else, except for when oops, it affects him directly. A lot of the criticism of Portman focused on the fact that he, for example, still doesn’t give a shit about the poor.
Soonergrunt
@eemom: Well, the America-bashing is sooo much richer when done by Americans, you know.
Pooh
I dunno, I think that support for civil unions if not SSM is precisely analogous to active hostility to any recognition of lgbt rights whatsoever. Good god, Greenwald is a tool.
Amir Khalid
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
Yeah. Everton showed some real guts there. What’s happened to Manchester City, though?
Just Some Fuckhead
I think there could be some merit to the idea that Portman has always been pretty liberal about gay rights and is simply using his son as a convenient way to change his position and therefore avoid some of the fallout from the right. Who’s gonna hate on the guy for trying to do right by his kid?
This was certainly the case with Obama and his “change of heart”. No one seriously thinks he was ever against gay rights. It was just a political position.
Just Some Fuckhead
I think there could be some merit to the idea that Portman has always been pretty liberal about gay rights and is simply using his son as a convenient way to change his position and therefore avoid some of the fallout from the right. Who’s gonna hate on the guy for trying to do right by his kid?
This was certainly the case with Obama and his “change of heart”. No one seriously thinks he was ever against gay rights. It was just a political position.
Baud
In related news, today I learned there is a thing called “Twitlonger,” which is apparently the most appropriately named product in the history of mankind.
Joel (Macho Man Randy Savage)
Christ, we already have a 360-post troll thread.
LongHairedWeirdo
Not defending Greenwald, but consider that he may be holding Obama’s feet to the fire, which is a good thing.
Obama shouldn’t get a free pass; he should be congratulated when he’s done good, and then immediately told that it’s not good enough, he has to do more. Because he does. And it’s shitty for him, because it means he never gets to rest, and say “there, it’s done” until he finally leaves office.
But that’s the job.
And he needs to know that there are people who loathe the Republican party line, but will still savage him if he steps out of line, because “better than the assholes” isn’t good enough.
That’s part of the job too.
That doesn’t mean everyone has to bash Obama all the time. But it means that someone who bashes Obama isn’t necessarily doing a bad thing.
chopper
@Just Some Fuckhead:
then why did portman wait until just now to announce his change of heart? even assuming he wanted to wait until it was clear he wouldn’t get the veep spot that was clear months and months ago. he’s known about his kid’s teh gaye for 2 years.
LT
I just want to say, Thanks John! Awesome blog!
Todd
@taylormattd:
Oddly enough, neither do Log Cabin Republicans or wealthy glibertarian gay males.
chopper
@LongHairedWeirdo:
you obviously haven’t read greenwald.
Jamie
Of late I’ve wondered if Glen has ever had a president/presidential candidate that he fully supported.
Zandar
@LongHairedWeirdo:
Saying “Not defending Greenwald” and then defending Greenwald makes it defending Greenwald.
Also, Greenwald kind of ran out of the whole “benefit of the doubt/I’m holding Obama’s feet to the fire” excuse sometime around the first or second week of February 2009. The last four years has been Greenwald trying to put the rest of him in the fire as well.
Chris
Please proceed, Glenn.
How, exactly, do these immigrants wreak havoc culturally?
Do you mean anything by that other than the standard Huntingtonian trope about how “them immigrants’re destroying our pure Anglo-ness by turning us into a country of spics?”
Just Some Fuckhead
@chopper: Doesn’t the two year delay support my hypothesis?
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@Just Some Fuckhead: Rob Portman continued to cast anti-gay votes after his son came out.
Davis X. Machina
@Amir Khalid: Liverpool are rapidly becoming a non-factor, aren’t they? That 2005 night in Istanbul is fading fast into memory…
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Amir Khalid:
Some over-strategizing by Mancini today, but, overall, I think Mario Balotelli brought a lot of spirit to that team that they need to replace now that he’s gone.
But what do I care? My Red Devils are now 15 points clear of City. Glory, glory…!
Chris
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
Jesus! What did Ernst Stavro Blofeld ever do to you?
Silly as he may have been, he doesn’t deserve that sort of comparison…
Todd
@Jamie:
Probably was pretty keen on Romney, both times. Liked the cut of his jib.
Preznit Codpiece may have garnered some praise at the “mission accomplished” banner.
chopper
@Jamie:
no. very few purity-types ever do, for obvious reasons. tying yourself to a candidate means tying yourself to his or her flaws, and then that reflects on you; GG can’t properly castigate obama supporters for being ‘supporters of child murder’ when his own fave dude then turns around and supports a drone policy. besides, libertarianism means never admitting any fault at all.
the closest i’ve seen him come in years has been tongue-bathing ron paul, but he made sure to not go too far with it.
Eric U.
shouldn’t we call him, “eventheliberal” Greenwald?
chopper
@Chris:
well you know, they drive like this, while white guys drive like this…
chopper
@Just Some Fuckhead:
but the last six months don’t.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy: Well yeah, because that was the party’s position right? I’m clearly being too nuanced for the prevailing crowd. I am not saying Portmanteau didn’t make anti-gay choices or take anti-gay positions. He did. So did Obama. I’m saying it is entirely possible that Portman made political calculations, like Obama, and doesn’t otherwise give two shits about the culture wars. He comes from the money wing if the Republican Party. He married a Democrat. He isn’t a Gays Must Die funds.
Chris
@LongHairedWeirdo:
I doubt if Greenwald has anywhere near the clout required to hold anyone’s feet to the fire. When MLK demanded action from white liberals, he had an entire organized civil rights movement with all the voters that implied behind him. What does Glenn have?
Amir Khalid
@Davis X. Machina:
Bite yo’ tongue.
scav
@Chris:
Yes, let us raise a glass and ponder that question deeply on St Patrick’s day, an earlier wave of the dreaded immigrant menace to Anglo culture.
Chris
@scav:
Would you like your Internets through the postal service, or as an email attachment, or what?
Just Some Fuckhead
Fucking autocorrect.
Yutsano
@Chris:
Cookies?
? Martin
@chopper:
The electoral calculus has changed in the last few weeks with the Prop 8 case coming up and non-legislative Republicans signing on in favor of gay marriage in surprising numbers. And the polling in just last few months has taken a dramatic turn. It’s not that support for it has necessarily improved, but since Democrats did so strongly in 2012, â of the public now believe it’s inevitable – even if they oppose it. The window to shut that whole thing down closed when Romney lost and Dems kept the Senate. That SCOTUS is taking up DOMA and Prop 8 is a sign that it’s done. There’s no stopping it. The right is largely giving up and with that they’re unlikely to punish politicians for supporting as they would have just 6 moths ago.
Plus, Ohio has a same-sex marriage amendment coming up in November. It’s polling 52-37 in favor. He can’t afford to be in opposition to it in Ohio any more.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Just Some Fuckhead:
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@Just Some Fuckhead: Well that makes me feel ever so much better about Portman’s war on my civil rights. Thanks for mansplaining it to me.
Todd
@Chris:
Hipster progressives.
CorbinDallasMultipass
I agree that Greenwald is off base.
But from my understanding, Greenwald is also overlooking the context of this entire discussion. There is a “trend” of a lack of empathy with Republicans. Atrios originally pointed to a Ed Kilgore article about Mark Sanford’s interview which describes him as having “empathy … for other public figures recovering from sex scandals and personal humiliations.” Atrios also brought up Mona Charen about ADHD.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/03/as-it-always-is.html
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2013/03/missing-empathy-gene.html
When it comes to minimum wage for the poors, medicare and SS for the masses, republicans can’t empathize. But when Dick Cheney’s daughter is gay, then empathy galore.
There’s a bit of straw manning here in that the argument was never about Obama or any Dem specifically, it was about general attitudes within the political parties and how they approach things across the spectrum of policy, not just gay rights. I can’t imagine Greenwald doesn’t read Atrios or wasn’t aware of the context of the past empathy/hypocrisy discussion.
khead
OVER 300.
I figure…… I’m already betting on NCAA games and this will be free money.
chopper
@? Martin:
and again, why wait until just now if he really gave a shit? it’s not like he was up for reelection in ’12.
seems to me he’s read the writing on the wall and doesn’t want to be the last rat off the ship, to mix metaphors.
Eric U.
I am not sure why Portman got so much criticism over his announcement, is it just pushback to the praise? Didn’t see much praise, but I didn’t go looking for it either.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Eric U.: From my POV, he spent two years voting against gay rights, including filibusters, and sat on this enlightenment during a presidential campaign during which, admittedly, gay issues were not a huge issue, which I’m guessing is one of the reasons he finally came out.
DO you know if Kasich is talking about this one way or the other?
Mark S.
Jesus, people, is this how you want to spend your Saturday afternoon? This is GG in a nutshell: He hates Obama because he’s black; he loves Ron Paul because of the racist newsletters Paul ghostwrote back in the 90’s. Also, GG hates Mexican immigrants.
Now let’s spend a bunch of time discussing some Ted & Hellen comment. It would be about as productive.
Eric U.
@Mark S.: I don’t think that’s really fair to Greenwald, but he is definitely a concern troll. It’s one thing to attack from the left as an ally, but that isn’t what he does.
? Martin
@Just Some Fuckhead:
But those were entirely different choices. Obama advocated in favor of everything but marriage and made a choice to be hands-off on marriage. But he didn’t oppose it either – he didn’t favor a marriage amendment. And while he was hands-off, he advocated for repealing DADT and DOMA and extending benefits and rights to gays and to civil unions. That is, he was pushing forward on issues that could be advanced federally and leaving one aside that could not – but his position didn’t hold back any progress for gay marriage.
Portman was not hands off on the issue. He was actively opposed to it:
Now, two of those are pretty old, and I’m fine giving him a pass on them, but his Aug 2010 vote isn’t. And apparently that’s right around the time his kid came out. But since then he voted in favor of the amendment to strip LGBTs from VAWA. That was weeks ago. Why wasn’t he advocating in favor of supporting LGBTs there like Obama was? Or on federal benefits. Or on DOMA. Or on DADT?
This is hardly in any way equivalent to Obama. This isn’t hands-off. This is actively trying to make things worse for LGBTs – even after his kid came out. Makes you wonder if instead of a gay son, if he had a gay daughter if his VAWA vote would have been different.
Sorry, but it still reeks of FYIGM from Portman.
LT
@Jamie:
BEST BALLOON JUICE COMMENT EVER.
Have I said Thank you, John!? Yes? Okay then.
raven
@Mark S.: Lil Bit got her summer doo.
patroclus
Actually, I’m watching the NCAA b-ball, but I’m also venting about Dear Leader Greenwald at the same time. He’s gay, but he almost never writes about gay issues. He did that one post a few years back praising Obama’s stellar record on gay issues, but since then, nada, zippo, bupkis. And then today, he leaps to the defense of Rob Portman, a Republican who has never done one thing for gays or lesbians, and then he doubles down when criticized.
Look, I’m glad that Portman switched his position, but until he actually does something on actual policy, his “switch” means nothing whatsoever. It’s just political posturing because his son is a cute soccer player. Obama, however, has an actual record – which the Dear Leader knows all about because of his one post on the matter. It’s not just DADT, DOMA and ENDA either – there’s a lot more.
To equate Portman, who has done nothing and Obama, who has accomplished a sea change on gay issues, is mind-bogglingly out-of-context. And Dear Leader Greenwald knows it all too well. But a troll has got to troll, so Dear Leader Greenwald trolls.
West of the Cascades
That is the best single comment I’ve ever read – thanks to ABL for frontpaging it.
One of my favorite clips ever is the youtube video of Mark Grisanti, a Republic legislator from my old hometown of Buffalo speaking on the NY State marriage equality bill, announcing his vote for it. When I feel cynical and overwhelmed by the purity trolls like Greenwald, I pull it up and listen to it – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfN26t5yk8 – as a reminder that sometimes people do the right things for the right reasons and that sometimes critical thinking and “weighing the evidence” actually matters yet in this world.
Chris
@patroclus:
Reminds me of some of those supposedly socially liberal Republicans, who never ever write about gay rights or women’s rights or whatnot, except in the format of “you liberals say you love gay people and women, yet you defend Muslims, and Muslims have honor killings! How can you do that? HYPOCRITES! QED.” Women and gays don’t matter, as you can see from their otherwise total silence on the subject, until they suddenly serve a purpose as a rhetorical device, after which they promptly go back to not mattering anymore.
The tweet from this morning had exactly that ring of cleverness to it.
? Martin
@chopper:
He was up for VP consideration in ’12. He’s far from going to be the last rat off the ship, so I don’t think it’s that. And I will credit him for being aware enough of the issue to perhaps do the ‘inevitable’ calculation and figure he might as well try and score points with the electorate by being first off the ship.
I’ll be really specific. I think February 28 was the day he decided to change is position publicly. That was the day amicus briefs were due before SCOTUS on Prop 8. Among those briefs were a surprising number of Republicans. And good for them. But Portman was given the opportunity to sign on, and he didn’t. 3 fucking weeks ago he couldn’t make this principled stand! Those briefs have marked a turning point because it made clear that this is no longer a partisan for partisan sake issue. And I think when he saw all of who signed on, it signaled to Portman that it was safe to go public – but he needed that sign.
burnspbesq
@Bob In Portland:
Too funny.
Just Some Fuckhead
@? Martin: .. and when he had decided to switch his political position, he used his son’s homosexuality as the motive to insulate him from the culture warriors on his own side.
chopper
@? Martin:
exactly. ‘gay rights’ is not a unitary issue, there are a number of laws, proposals etc. that fall under the umbrella of gay rights, and looking at all of them obama’s worst position on one of them may have not led to any positive change (but at least it didn’t slow anything down), while on other issues he actively worked to move gay rights forward.
i can’t point to a single facet of gay rights that portman was not hurtful on.
obama and portman are apples and oranges with regard to gay rights. GG is tweeting about how they’re both fruits. big fucking deal.
burnspbesq
@Amir Khalid:
Duke 12-4 Towson, so yeah, it went well. Also too, Hull 1-2 Nottingham Forest, which was equally good.
Liverpool is a year away, but they’re moving in the right direction.
chopper
@? Martin:
yeah he was on the list for veep, but that decision was made what, 6 months ago? if he really gave a shit about the issue and was just waiting for the VP decision then why wait until just now? why not make a ‘principled stand’ last october when he was in the clear?
patroclus
@chopper: Exactly! Our criticism of Obama was because he only supported civil unions and went out of his way to say that he didn’t support marriage, although he supported all the benefits of marriage. So, Obama was certainly worthy of criticism – for not doing all he could to help GLBT’s, but not for actively opposing our interests. Obama was just being mealy mouthed and not adequately supportive – not downright evil and bigoted.
Portman is different – as summarized above, he voted for a frickin Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; he voted to strip GLBT’s from the VAWA; he has an active evil bigoted history. I’m pleased that he’s rhetorically shifted, but I want to see actual policy changes from him and actual votes before I leap to defend him like Dear Leader Greenwald has. I like his son, but I’m awaiting actual policy changes from the Dad before I’m gonna praise him.
Dear Leader Greenwald, who has written about Obama’s fantastic record (after evolution) has no such compunction – in Dear Leader Greenwald’s world, Portman is equivalent to Obama. My respect for Dear Leader Greenwald, already very low, has gone way down today. He knows better than this, yet he decides to troll nonsensically.
taylormattd
@CorbinDallasMultipass: This is exactly right, and it is why ABL is correct to call Greenwald an asshole.
This entire discussion is about Portman being a republican hypocrite who, although he claims to have come around on gays because of his son, nevertheless still shits on the poor and women.
It had nothing whatsoever to do with “he changed his mind” or “why’d he take so long?” Greenwald’s post is evidence that each and every thing that happens every day can be turned into a cudgel for bashing Obama.
Greenwald’s posts are morphing into tortuously verbose version of that “Thanks Obama” meme.
ruemara
@LongHairedWeirdo: Considering BHO’s record on LGBT rights, how exactly, is this
twittweet holding his feet to the fire? Please, enlighten me.? Martin
@chopper: Read the rest of my comment.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Pooh: “Good god, Greenwald is a tool. “
No, tools are actually useful items. GG is an irrelevant has-been who is flailing around looking for another 15 minutes of fame.
cocktailhag
You know, sometimes y’all sound like people criticizing movies you haven’t seen. There is some validity both in Greenwald’s criticism of Obama over SSM, just as there is in ABL’s criticism of Greenwald having a personal grudge against Obama.
As a longtime reader, and admittedly, a fan of Greenwald, I could explain to you how you’re right, as well as how you’re wrong.
Greenwald despises most of the same things we all do: the captured media, the Republican Party, government secrecy, corporate lawlessness, the growing police state, Blue Dog democrats, Wall Street, etc.
He has also been a fierce defender of, among other things, the Occupy movement, free speech, openness in government, and academic freedom as well; and brings needed passion, erudition, and yes, occasionally long-windedness, to his advocacy for these causes.
It was not, I must point out, a poor hiring decision for the Guardian to take him on; his posts are consistently “most viewed” each and every day, despite/because of his prodigious output.
But he is no partisan. In his legal career, his work often defended noxious free speech, because it was, well, free speech. And yes, he was practically a G-lib until the War on Terror really got going. At that point, he became one of Bush’s most relentless critics, which catapulted him to fame. He approaches subjects as the lawyer he is, and sadly, that makes him pretty disappointed in President Obama.
He was a pretty reliable Obama supporter, too, until Obama abruptly caved on FISA, allowing the telecoms to walk after violating a giant pile of federal laws that allowed Bush to spy on Americans in unprecedented (and blatantly unconstitutional) ways.
Further, the fact that his partner is Brazilian and he is forced to live there because of discriminatory US marriage laws does personalize the issue, in ways the bitchy commenter above made inadvertently clear.
Most of the things Greenwald doesn’t like about Obama are the same things I don’t, and most of you don’t either: “Forward, not Back,” with the banks/torturers/spies/etc, the continued existence of Gitmo, adoption of right wing memes like “family budget,” continued support of the drug war, and on and on.
For a liberal, it’s kind of hard to say Obama hasn’t been a tad disappointing, given the golden moment of his emergence, when he could have made a real difference (minus, say, Tim Geithner, Eric Holder, and other corrupt Wall Street toads).
I think Greenwald’s complaints about Obama are off base in this case, for the same reasons mentioned above, but more often than not they aren’t.
Greenwald is a writer, and Obama is President. Neither are jobs in which one can reasonably expect, nor demand, infallibility.
Both will make mistakes, but I give both credit for doing what they can, and criticize them when they don’t.
DavidTC
This is the kicker.
Obama didn’t _make a statement about gay rights_ that was ‘far enough’ until societal pressure pushed him.
Portman _actively fought gay rights_ until he ended up in a situation where he personally was affected.
Those are nowhere near the same thing.
And, as others pointed out, the only way Obama didn’t go far enough, gay marriage, is something that is not actually up to him. He never made any sort of political decision that would harm gay rights. Considering the reflective pushback Obama gets for _everything_, it seems reasonable for him to not insert himself in a conversation, until he made the calculation otherwise.
If we believe the _most cynical_ interpretation of his behavior, he chose not to burn political capital on gay marriage until he realized that there was no way that issue could harm him. And, well, that didn’t really cause any harm to gay rights. It is not a moral obligation for the president to be outspoken about _every_ progressive issue, especially if it’s simply a failure of _speech_ while behind the scenes, politically, he works progressively. It’s not _awesome_ behavior, but whatever.
Meanwhile, there are people thinking that maybe Portman’s conversion was equally calculated, but the problem is that was calculated _the other direction_. If he’s always been secretly not anti-gay, but just acted anti-gay until he felt society change and the excuse of his kid coming out….fuck, that makes him a _worse_ person, knowingly and actively causing harm to gays.
I’d much rather people who were ‘honestly’ morally opposed to it, and legitimately think they are trying to keep people from getting ‘hurt’ by being gay, than someone who _knows_ better and has decided to hurt gay people to further his political career. Better stupid than evil.
And if we choose not to believe the cynical interpretation, if we choose to believe that Obama really wasn’t pro-gay marriage until he spoke to some gay friends about the problems they were having, and Portman was really was anti-gay until his son came again…again, not the same thing. Not knowing some of the struggles that gay couples have until you speak to one of them and they tell you…is not actually the same thing as chasing them around with pitchforks until it turns out a person you love is one of the people you’re chasing.
chopper
@? Martin:
I did.
JSF was arguing that portman actually maybe was secretly liberal on gay marriage, and my point was that he’d have come out sooner if that was true, that instead he’s doing it just now because it’s politically safe. I’m not sure if you’re disagreeing with me here.
askew
@Mark S.:
Yep.
Eric U.
I have to admit to being a coward in 2007 and hoping nobody on our side really went to bat for marriage equality at that time. I have thought for a long time that the party of family values should have no problem with marriage equality, but they manage to twist these things in their favor until everyone realizes it is stupid. I just didn’t think the country was quite ready for it. I know this makes me a horrible person for ever being wrong, and just as bad as Portman.
Just Some Fuckhead
@chopper: I just made the point that he followed his party’s platform until he made a political decision not to. I don’t think his decision was prompted by his gay son, since as you mentioned, he’s known about his kid for two years.
I think, as Martin has adequately pointed out, it was a good time politically to make the change he made.
As far as the comparisons to the degree of anti-gay between Obama and Portman, it isn’t a clean trade-off but only one of the two politicians was in party that actively and fiercely opposed gay rights.
I think the only reason he invoked his son in his own political switch was to insulate himself from the far right. Of course, it may have been a factor. In the real world, it was probably a half-dozen things all converging at once (over a long period of time) that caused him to switch his position.
Bob In Portland
@burnspbesq: Heh heh.
minutemaid
Why doesn’t wr0ng on everything Greenwald fluffer Cole chime in on this. It will be more interesting than his other posts as of late where he talks about what a shithead he was growing up and how he has a new cat and what he watched on Netflix last night and other boring shit nobody cares about.
Ben Franklin
@cocktailhag:
You have mistakenly assumed this thread has any other objective than to give commenters some respite from mainland political imbroglios/high-5’s. The goal is to entertain, and you can only take the mellow out of their Saturday with counter-intuitive rationale.
scav
@Eric U.: perhaps a little OTT if you didn’t actively work aganst marriage equality. At best/worst a sin of ommission or something of the ilk. Large grey area. For a criminal analogy and flavor, Did you just not actively go to the police to tell them all the details of a murder you witnessed at the first possible instant or did you drive the getaway car? It’s exactly this grey area that’s getting a bit ignored.
Heliopause
@Just Some Fuckhead:
To put this in more understandable terms, one might say that Glenn Greenwald is Richard Sherman while Mistermix and Imani Gandy are wide receivers for the Arizona Cardinals.
patroclus
@cocktailhag: But this post by Dear Leader Greenwald didn’t concern any of the issues you mentioned – it concerned gay rights, and more specifically, the issue of gay marriage. A subject about which the Dear Leader is very familiar, but about which he only infrequently writes about. Depite his positions on any other issues, on this issue, he is wrong. Portman is not equivalent to Obama on gay marriage by any stretch of the imagination – it is not even arguable. And on other gay issues, Portman isn’t equivalent to Obama there either; primarily because Portman has yet to anything whatsoever on those issues while Obama has done quite a lot.
What Dear Leader Greenwald did was the classic definition of trolling, and while I will not call him a racist for doing it, I can easily see why others would. He knows better – he wrote one post several years ago which demonstrates Obama’s stellar record on gay issues. He hasn’t written one on Portman because Portman has a terrible record on gay issues and Dear Leader Greenwald does not criticize Republicans on gay issues. Dear Leader Greenwald does, however, criticize Obama – even on gay issues.
I am astounded that anyone would defend the Dear Leader on this; even while I am pleased about Portman’s rhetorical shift. Would that the Dear Leader hold Portman to any standard at all; let alone the standard that he subjects Obama to.
cocktailhag
@Ben Franklin: Evidently.
kc
I often agree with Greenwald,* but damn, he’s a douchebag.
Probably best to ignore him when he does something like this; it seems like obvious attention-whoring.
*Not on this.
Johnny Coelacanth
@minutemaid: “he talks about what a shithead he was growing up”
We could talk about what a shithead you are now, but why discuss the obvious?
Mnemosyne
@Heliopause:
I guess this is what I get for not following sports, but when I hear “Richard Sherman,” I think of this guy, so I have absolutely no clue what your metaphor is supposed to mean.
cocktailhag
@patroclus: I did say, as I recall, that Greenwald was wrong this time. And as for the statement about immigration, I’m certain it was ripped from context, but even then it wasn’t entirely incorrect; it was prescient. Look at what happened to Arizona since he wrote that, for instance. Now it has a right-wing Governor and some of the most repressive immigration laws ever contemplated. If that doesn’t represent “cultural” damage, I don’t know what does.
Remember who has historically supported illegal immigration: exploitative employers.
Ben Franklin
“He hasnât written one on Portman because Portman has a terrible record on gay issues and Dear Leader Greenwald does not criticize Republicans on gay issues.”
The normative value of slamming republicans on gay matters is zero. All we need do is sit back and watch/listen to them. It doesn’t require a script, because it isn’t news. OTOH, when a liberal with much social audacity, goes polling, then we start trolling.
‘Natch !
patroclus
@cocktailhag: What has happened to immigration since Greenwald blessed us with his opinion is that it has virtually ceased across the Mexican border. In terms of net migration, the bad economy since 2007-08 caused the whole problem to virtually disappear. I would hardly call that prescient – more like ill-timed and wrong.
You make a good point about the political ramifications though. Despite the problem disappearing as an actual practical matter, the screaming by Greenwald and his allies did cause a political backlash from which we are still trying to recover. You can say it was out-of-context if you wish, I disagree.
I’m pleased that you at least disagree with Greenwald on gay marriage and the alleged equivalence of Obama and Portman. What’s weird is that Greenwald allegedly supports gay marriage and gay rights generally. He has a strange way of showing it, that’s for sure.
El Tiburon
Bullshit. Greenwald claimed no such thing.
It is a distinction worth noting. If one takes an action because of a selfish or narcissitic, that does not mean that person is selfish or a narcisis. I may be the most giving and compassionate person in the world, yet, for purely selfish reasons want to protect my child from prosectution from the law even if I know they are guilty. I am taking a very selfish act to protect my child – yet that doesn’t make me selfish.
Yet, you attributing falsely that Greenwald made that claim shows your true colors. Which is no surprise to anyone here.
kc
@Chris:
We have to press 1 for English?
Just Some Fuckhead
@El Tiburon: I guess you all are done flinging poo in the other greenwald thread?
patroclus
@Ben Franklin: Indeed, that is the Dear Leader’s calculation – he doesn’t criticize Republicans on gay issues; when he deigns to discuss gay issues, defending Republicans with terrible records on gay issues is what he instead does. Because…well, he wants to criticize Obama instead.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@cocktailhag:
So…Fortune cookies are prescient, then? I think not.
Wow. Just fucking…Wow.
Greenwald doesn’t even try to pull that shit in his (very late) defense of that piece. He’s just trying to brush it off as a youthful indiscretion, not some kind of psychic hucksterism.
Wow. The depths. Interesting times, indeed.
Ben Franklin
@patroclus:
defending Republicans with terrible records on gay issues is what he instead does. BecauseâŠwell, he wants to criticize Obama instead.
We have low expectations for republicans on this and other issues. Political expediency is not the bar we want Obama reaching for….
El Tiburon
Uh oh, sometime liberal apostate Johnathan Chait pulls a Greenwald and dares to invoke Obama’s conversion in an article about the selfish Portman.
What a maroon and a troll. I expect an ABL hatebomb in, oh, about never.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Ben Franklin:
Yeah, Glenn only sets the bar high for the GOP when it comes to appointing the kind of Supreme Court justice who would support Citizens United– support for that decision being, to Greenwald, a positive.
Ben Franklin
Chait;
By Portmanâs own account, in other words, he opposed gay marriage until he realized that opposition to gay marriage stands in the way of his own sonâs happiness.
Yes Portman’s NIMBY is comparable to Obama’s GUMBY.
Cassidy
Another day, Greenwald is wrong and an asshole. Anything new?
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: I always picture you like this: http://youtu.be/GEStsLJZhzo
Ben Franklin
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
The case, Citizens United v. FEC, presents some very difficult free speech questions, and Iâm deeply ambivalent about the courtâs ruling. There are several dubious aspects of the majorityâs opinion (principally its decision to invalidate the entire campaign finance scheme rather than exercising âjudicial restraintâ through a narrower holding). Beyond that, I believe that corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture. But there are also very real First Amendment interests implicated by laws which bar entities from spending money to express political viewpoints.
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/
I keep hearing the din of misunderstanding on GG’s position on this. Is he saying CI is good, as though that simplistic conclusion is supported by the facts of another grey area of the Law?
It is possible the nuance is beyond the scope of some; but the majority of you?
Omnes Omnibus
@Ben Franklin:
Priceless. Absolutely priceless.
Ben Franklin
@Omnes Omnibus: thanks…
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: It just amazes one how often Greenwald is completely misinterpreted by those who read and react to him! How can this be? The man is the very model of lucid, transparent, and self-contained communication. Clearly any time numerous people have similar negative reactions to something he’s written it’s merely coincidence, or the result of an opposing hive mind. Otherwise there’s simply no other explanation, because it clearly could not possibly be the result of what he actually writes!
El Tiburon
Well, if this don’t beat all.
Another fucking troll has the temerity to include one Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his conversion in an article based on the Selfish Rob Portman.
And this over at Charles Pierce’s home at Esquire. And be warned: he also includes Ken Mehlman. Oh, I can’t wait for ABL to clean this guy’s clock as well.
So,
cocktailhag
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): For Pete’s sake. The cultural consequences I clearly outlined are hardly the result of anything GG did, but merely that too much immigration has the power to enrage and embolden the right in ways that turn out to be pretty damaging (Brewer, Arpaio, et al…)
More insidiously, it drives down the wages of tradespeople/laborers of all types, exacerbating inequality, which is one reason labor has always favored stricter immigration laws.
Since the only thing you can grasp is reflexive victimhood, maybe you should think about how inequality and immigration go hand in hand. The immigrants themselves are neither here nor there; they are mere pawns in a game being played at a much higher pay grade.
GG sees this, as do I, and you quite obviously don’t.
cocktailhag
@different-church-lady: Why don’t you read it? You so clearly haven’t, that your criticisms have no merit.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: Apparently you’re not shrieking loud enough for the other Greenwald pod-people to come take ABL down.
Ben Franklin
@El Tiburon:
Now you’ve done it. Pierce will now be persona non grata…# ? . Less than 1000-more than 10?
Ben Franklin
@cocktailhag:
The Bleatings will continue, until our morale improves.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
Of this there can be no doubt. The lemmings over here are an incredible bunch.
With confidence I can state that most of the GG haters rarely if ever read Greenwald. In fact, most of the comments begin thusly, “I rarely read Greenwald, but…” or “I’ve read a few tweets so I am an expert…”
And the reason I can state this with confidence is that I read GG regularly and the accusations tossed his way by rabble over here are so ludicrous as to be laughable. Rarely does anyone dispute his substance – but show their juvenile turd-tossing propensity. In fact, everytime one of the front-pagers here (sans Cole) does one of their smear tricks on Greenwald and I do my thing, I always get personally smeared as well. For whatever reason, GG brings out the inner-bully in folks here.
Really an interesting phenomena.
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
Clever and funny misdirection, there.
El Tiburon
@Ben Franklin:
I don’t want to pull an ABL and be vague and make false accusations, but Pierce didn’t write this, some contributor named Joe Keohane wrote it AT Pierce’s joint.
different-church-lady
@Ben Franklin: Pierce didn’t write that. Just sayin’…
Ben Franklin
@El Tiburon:
Xactly my point. They don’t read anything Atlantic, because of some boob who wrote, contrary to the collective.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Poe’s law strikes again.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Ben Franklin:
Shorter Greenwald: The campaign finance laws prior to Citizens United were nearly toothless, but instead of fitting the laws with dentures, it’s best that the SCOTUS pull the teeth and let the F.E.C. gum us to fair electioneering.
Shorter Greenwald Update: Since GE and Newscorp can get their corporate viewpoints aired, it’s only fair that other corporate views be aired (pay no attention to that crazy guy in the hall who suggests that the FCC should be getting corporate conglomerations’ hands off of media outlets, instead).
These are not liberal or progressive statements. These are the words spoken through a closed door, the speaker whispering sweet nothings to you as he drowns government in the bathtub.
different-church-lady
@Ben Franklin: Says the guy who can’t even read a by-line.
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
Huh?
cocktailhag
@Ben Franklin: You got that right, and the hive mind is in the mirror. Sheesh. Read, people! Then, after careful contemplation and perhaps an adult beverage, commence typing.
different-church-lady
Well, that settles it I guess: the only people who could possibly disagree with something GG writes are people who haven’t read it!
Wait, I’m starting to lose track… were we talking about Greenwald or L. Ron Hubbard?
Ben Franklin
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
He has a point about disparate groups needing some exposure. I like Publicly Funded Elections, but realize my zeal to remove all lobbyists from D.C. creates another sinkhole for those self-same groups.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@different-church-lady: The pod people think that Glenn Greenwald (he of the third update to clarify what everybody misunderstood to be his point in the first and second updates) is a good writer. That’s how you can tell there’s a corpse under their beds.
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
I’m sure you have read more Hubbard than Greenwald. Did I spell everything correctly?
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@Ben Franklin: She misspelled His Name! Stone her!
different-church-lady
@Ben Franklin:
How should I know? According to this thread I can’t read!
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
Of course you can read. Do so !
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Ben Franklin:
You two need to get a room.
With Greenwald.
El Tiburon
I keep trying to get out of this morass but they keep pulling me back down.
Now this Chris Cilliza dbag mentions Obama changing his mind as well when discussing the Selfish Rob Portman.
Why the insistence on including Obama with Portman on this issue? Is it a coincidence? Is it some kind of Jedi mind-meld?
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: Look, I realize set theory is not the easiest thing in the world to grasp, but I’d think you’d at least get the idea that all ducks are birds but not all birds are ducks.
cocktailhag
@different-church-lady: No, I’m saying that your disagreements with GG would be more useful if they took into account the totality of his work. Like most people, including myself, he struggles with being betrayed by politicians he once supported. If you are going to attack a writer for their ideological apostasy, you’ve picked an easy, but wrong, target.
But you are blissfully unaware of that fact. That’s okay, but it doesn’t make what you say particularly enlightening.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: Lazy pundits are lazy?
Everything gets more attention when you mention President Obama?
Ask Glenn why he does it. You do have your Glenn blow-up doll sitting beside you as you type, don’t you?
El Tiburon
Okay, now I think I am being Punked. Or The Onion has hijacked the internet toobz. I don’t know this NPR, but it must be some kind of Greenwaldian inspired ObamaHateFest site.
This is unreal.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@El Tiburon: “Now this Chris Cilliza dbag…”
Old news, everyone with at least a half-functioning brain already knows Cilliza is a douchebag.
Get with the times!
different-church-lady
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy: Here, I’ll explain it for them: all mentions of Portman and Obama in the same article are support of the idea that Portman = Obama.
Yeah, it’s gotten that stupid now.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
El Tiburon
Even Cole’s arch-nemisis is on the ruse.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@different-church-lady:
FIFY.
Ben Franklin
@El Tiburon:
‘Tip of the spear”? If Cheney couldn’t move the needle, Portman surely will.
Ben Franklin
@El Tiburon:
He invokes Ronald Reagan in pushing for marriage equality – “Ronald Reagan said all great change in America begins at the dinner table, and thatâs been the case in my family” – and concludes:
What is this deal with RWR? Is he the linchpin for all ideas political? (scratch that question)
cocktailhag
Well, one thing’s for sure, and that’s that GG’s comment threads make this place look like Romper Room.
El Tiburon
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
You’ve been trolling around begging for some attention.
So, you have seen me post at least 3-4 articles from others invoking Obama in a similar manner than Greenwald.
If you can mature up a bit and leave the schoolyard taunts at home, would you care to enlighten me why it is only Greenwald who gets the treatment? Should Chait, the guy at Esquire and NPR get some of the treatment?
Omnes Omnibus
@cocktailhag: Sorry to disappoint.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: How many of those other articles included the following statement:
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@cocktailhag:
Let’s revisit your comment that kicked this off:
No economics in there. Just a justification: The illegals made me do it! They made me pay them at a wage lower than that which is legal! They made me persecute anyone who like them!
Then you doubled down on it.
Pay no mind to that the culture of racism that abounds down there amongst Anglos, whether the victims of that culture have roots in the US that go further back than those Anglos or whether they’re undocumented immigrants. Brown people just force some white people to lose their shit. Ever hear this bad joke:
Q: What do 10,000 battered women all have in common?
A: They just! wouldn’t! listen!
You just modified that joke- but you weren’t joking.
And pay no mind that the entire piece, as Greenwald wrote it, was nothing but a string of racist dog whistles: “…illegals…,” “…parade of evils…,” “…wreaks havoc…”. Jebus. You have to be willfully ignorant to miss that.
different-church-lady
@cocktailhag: Being illiterate, I can’t actually read what you have written here, but from the arrangement and shape of the letters I get the sense that it’s vaguely insulting.
Ben Franklin
@Omnes Omnibus:
sorry to disappoint, nothing. Fixed.
Mnemosyne
@El Tiburon:
So, uh, the fact that NPR (Nice Polite Republicans), Republican apologist Chris Cilizza, and the Fonzi of Freedom are all jumping on the “Obama=Portland” bandwagon proves that Greenwald was right all along?
Gosh, yes, having people on the right lining up to back up Greenwald’s claim totally convinces me that Greenwald was right all along. Let me guess — next you’re going to quote David Frum as proof positive that all the Obots are wrong on this.
Ben Franklin
@different-church-lady:
I get the sense that itâs vaguely insulting
Yes, but it’s not directed at you, as far as you know…..
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: I dispatched your argument in the prior thread, pointing out how your own defense of Greenwald hinged on pretending that ONE reason Obama changed his mind was the same as Portman’s ONLY reason.
But then, of course, Greenwald himself helpfully clarified that that wasn’t what he was saying, leaving you squished under the wheels of the Glennbot Express.
So I think I’ll just keep pointing at you, and laughing.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
Yeah, see, here’s the thing: the statement you are referring to is not in the original tweet that caused Mistermix and ABL to get all wadded up, is it?
Just to be clear: I linked to FOUR separate articles from different sources who are saying the (basically) the same thing as Greenwald. And those four sources are of some merit and influence.
So, it appears that Greenwald is not that original. It also appears that the underlying premise presented in Greenwald’s original tweet may have more to it than just the need to be a troll on Greenwald’s part.
But please, twist yourself into a pretzel to hold onto the company line.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Nonsense. People read Jon Chait, and on domestic policy he’s really sharp, and I’m sorry to say I think a lot of people take Chris Cillizaa seriously
cocktailhag
@different-church-lady: Good. It was meant to be.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: You might want to scroll to the top of this comment thread to remind yourself that ABL actually made Glenn’s Twitlonger (teehee!) the topic of this post…
El Tiburon
@Mnemosyne:
No. It means the point Greenwald was making in his original tweet is a point being made across the spectrum. On this topic I don’t know if there is a right or wrong.
Except now you have a host of people who are backing up Greenwalds assertion that there is not a big difference in the conversion of Portman and Obama on a certain level.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon:
HERETIC!!!1!
El Tiburon
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
You are correct and I was wrong on that point.
El Tiburon
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
The political blog at Esquire has no merit or influence?
NPR has no merit or influence?
Reason has no merit or influence?
Chris Cilliza at the Post has no merit or influence?
That you don’t like them does not mean they have no merit or influence. You are simply showing your ass here.
ruemara
@El Tiburon: Except that they’re all quite wrong and/or intellectually lazy. I guess you mean on the absolute shallowest of levels.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@El Tiburon: I misread your post. I thought you said they were of “the same merit and influence” as Greenwald. Which made me laugh. As does discussing the “reason or merit” of Nick Gillespie.
cocktailhag
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): That very culture of racism wouldn’t have been stoked without the reality that illegal immigration does have deep social costs, from which both sleazy employers and right-wing hate mongers profit. This is not news to anyone unemcumbered with partisan blinders.
FlipYrWhig
@cocktailhag: come the fuck on. No one writing about immigration by “illegals” leading to “wreaking havoc… culturally” means that it gets right-wing politicians elected. They mean that it makes the USA a place with too many brown people who don’t speak English. Here’s a piece by Ruben Navarrette on CNN in 2007: Fear of losing culture fuels immigration debate.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: I don’t think it helps your case as much as you think that _other_ glib, self-regarding media dinks with axes to grind about Obama make the same bogus comparison Greenwald did.
Ben Franklin
@ruemara:
I guess you mean on the absolute shallowest of levels.
Dare I say it? Balloon Juice?
nellcote
@El Tiburon:
It’s hackatude of the first order. Both sides do it don’tcha know.
El Tiburon
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
That’s some funny shit.
The only way you could dispatch my argument or Greenwalds is if either of us have ever said Obama and Portman’s conversions were the exact same. Point out where Greenwald (or me) ever said that anywhere.
Greenwald clearly, and I mean CLEARLY stated in his original tweet: Is there a big difference…
So, it is you in your convoluted mind who wants to revise the record to claim Greenwald said the conversions were the same. He did not. So, that ONE of the reasons Obama evolved matches the ONLY reason Portman evolved does not exclude Greenwald (and Esquire and NPR, et al) assertion that the two have similiarities.
For example, you and Mnemosyne have a trait in common that you are both obtuse and contrarian. Other than that, I don’t know if you are exactly the same. But you do share a few traits. (tee-hee-hee-tee-hee-haw-haw-hee)
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
Perhaps Reason and Cilizza.
But explain NPR and Chait and the dude at Esquire.
Ben Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
regarding media dinks with axes to grind about Obama
Your answer is to foul the well with proscribed reading? The worthwhile sources in our times is shrinking, as we speak.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: yeah, I guess Greenwald’s point was really to say “is there a big difference? Actually, yes, and it’s too bad that my usual shtick about Obama being too similar to Republicans can’t apply. Score one for the O-man!”
cocktailhag
@El Tiburon: Careful… You can get kicked out of the church for such heresy.
Ben Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
Score one for the O-man!â
If only we could agree..
El Tiburon
@ruemara:
By ALL do you reference the writer at Esquire? Chait? And the author at NPR?
Your assertion is a classic case of being intellectually lazy.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: Greenwald can never fail, he can only be failed.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Appeals to anonymous authority are hard to argue with.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
You linked to four different sources that put Obama and Portmann in the same context.
You did NOT link to four different sources that said “(basically) the same thing as Greenwald.”
And I’m really unclear about why you think a Cavuto mark gets him off the hook on this.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: the similarity is that both are politicians and both changed their public position on same sex marriage. The reasoning behind the switch isn’t actually very similar, in that one’s friends and one’s children are not particularly analogous. So it’s not particularly surprising that writers would take the idea of similarity as a jumping off point, but it’s obnoxious to make the discussion into “yes, it was the same process in both cases.” I think “I used to be anti-abortion until my daughter got pregnant” is much less resonant than “I used to be anti-abortion until my friend got pregnant,” because the latter requires a broader sense of empathy. Empathy for your child is easy.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
It’s hard to criticize the President over everything he said, or didn’t say, or I’m projecting into his intent with all these people criticizing what I say, or don’t say, or projecting into my intent!
— Glenn Greenwald
different-church-lady
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy:
Deliberately. By robots under the control of Barack Obama.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@cocktailhag:
Sleazy employers are the root cause of the economic problems attributed to the exploited workers. Flaws in the character of racists are the root cause of racism. Racism doesn’t go away as the unemployment declines.
different-church-lady
@cocktailhag: Whatever it is you just said, you take it back!
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
I will ask again: who has ever said it was the same? Answer: nobody. Ever.
This is what is so infuriating about these type of debates, especially when it comes to Greenwald: Nobody ever argues or debates the actual question posed by Greenwald.
So, now you are doing the same thing. You are altering the original context in that Greenwald was claiming it was the same thing. He never said that. Ever.
FlipYrWhig
@Self-Righteous Little White Guy: or, “isn’t it sad that Obama has all these mindless followers intent on defending everything he does?” Retweeted by 387.
eemom
omfg, this is hilarious.
Ben Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
Empathy for your child is easy.
Oh, now the scales have been removed from my eyes. It’s so much easier when the answer is simple. These complicated discussions about the diff twixt Obama and the republicans make it very difficult to separate the chaff from the wheat. Thank you, kind sir.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
GG: Is there a big difference b/w Portman switching on gay marriage b/c of his son & Obama because of his gay friends?
EVERYONE ON BJ ALL DAY LONG: Uh, yeah, here’s why…
EL TIBURTON: Why won’t any of you address the question?
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@FlipYrWhig: Irony is dead. I blame Obama.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
No.
Try this: My stance on gay marriage is predicated on the fact that I think we should all have the same and equal rights. My stance on abortion is predicated on the fact that I think that decision should be left up to the woman. Period. My positions on these two issues have nothing to do with any personal influences every. I have never felt any different on these issues.
So, my stance on gay marriage has NOTHING to do with Obama or Portmans evolution on the matter. We have NOTHING in common in that context.
Your example fails. It still relies on an evolution based on a personal experience.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: are you fucking kidding me?
See, I’m not quite sure if you’re fucking kidding me, and that’s why I’m posing a honest question in that manner. Just out of idle curiosity with an open mind. No, I haven’t ever heard of a rhetorical question, why do you ask?
cocktailhag
@FlipYrWhig: We’re talking about effect, not cause, here. I happen to have worked in the construction industry for over twenty years and have seen first hand what happens to wages and quality when greedy and rapacious employers are allowed to hire, essentially, slaves.
It makes all of us poorer.
The immigrants aren’t to blame, it’s the employers. Might I remind you that “amnesty,” as it’s so derisively called was only accomplished by antilabor Reagan, and no one touched it again until similarly antilabor GWB.
Their dirty wars and policies created illegal immigration (I’m talking about you, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and on and on….), and lo and behold, they can take the wars home, to their advantage.
This isn’t rocket science, except here it seems to be.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
No.
Go back and read the first 30 comments on this post and you show me where anyone dealt with Greenwald’s original question.
Just one. I double-dare you.
I will be waiting for your (non)response.
Omnes Omnibus
@El Tiburon: Read comment 5.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
Look, I’ve been dealing with the cultish-Greenwald haters going back several hours over two separate front-page posts on this same topic.
So, if I am unable to see irony or rhetorical flourishes, then forgive me.
If you will ask the question again, I will do my best.
El Tiburon
@Omnes Omnibus:
okay, you got me there. Can you find me another in the top 30?
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: what are you on about now? I didn’t say either one of those was the right way to feel about abortion or to talk about abortion as a political issue. I don’t think it was that difficult to follow, but maybe I said it wrong or something. The point is that empathy within the family is not a particularly far leap to make, while empathy with friends is a little bit farther, and empathy with strangers is farther still. Anyone saying “I used to believe X, but then I saw how it affected my child, and then I changed my mind” is always less praiseworthy than anyone saying “I used to believe X, but then I saw how it affected my friend, and then I changed my mind,” which is in turn less praiseworthy than “I used to believe X, but then I imagined all the people I’ll never meet who might be affected by it, and then I changed my mind.”
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: What about the 400+ responses to mistemix’s post on the actual tweet? Must we re-read all of those too? Because my sides still hurt from laughing at your insufferable idiocy.
Ben Franklin
@El Tiburon:
They don’t dare answer; or their remains will be consigned to the Gulag.
Publish or Perish.….
FlipYrWhig
@cocktailhag: that’s a fine way to think about illegal immigration, but that’s not what someone who says illegal immigration wreaks havoc “culturally” means.
Ben Franklin
@FlipYrWhig:
Gawd. Are you dog-paddling?
different-church-lady
@Omnes Omnibus: I will use this opportunity to point out that I find “L’ing OL” on the internet to be unseemly, and steadfastly refuse to do so in this instance.
ruemara
@El Tiburon: No. Because I can figure out the difference between an ally that moves to a full acceptance of SSM with a great record on gay rights over all-WITH NO PARTICULAR SKIN IN THE GAME-and an enemy who suddenly supports SSM-BECAUSE HIS SON WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THE BIGOTRY HE HAS SUPPORTED. I could care less what the masthead is over someone’s writing. Even if I like the writer and usually agree with them, even if I agree with the simple, shallow statement that both Portman and Obama have moved from not supporting SSM to supporting SSM, in no way shape or form does my prior statement regarding the past actions of both men leave my mind. IOW, fuck whoever says they’re the same, it’s damned silly considering the record.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Why?
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
So, what is your point then about a child’s abortion and a friend’s abortion? Unless you are backing up Greenwald’s claim?
My point was to demonstrate TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT versions of arriving at a stance on gay marriage and abortion.
Obama = Portman in that they have similar stories on their evollution to gay marriage.
El Tiburon (does not =) Obama and Portman on how they got to their stance on gay marriage.
So, when everyone here goes into Greenwald rage because he is wrong, I am trying to point out (as did Chait, Esquire, et al) that the argument has merit.
Keith G
@Mnemosyne:
Poisoning the well, much?
I don’t know if there can be such a thing as Greenwald Derangement Syndrome, but I do note an interesting level of ad hominem attacks when his work touches on the Executive Branch. Some of us sound like CPAC. Oh, joy.
While GG is the example extraordinaire. It happens to a lessor degree with others.
Ezra recently wrote about the blatant hypocrisy of the Congressional GOP in the face of Obama’s efforts to make progress and was feted here just a week after he was excoriated for being a Villager who proclaimed false equivalencies.
And there’s Milbank and there is Cilliza and there is EJ Dionne and there is Collins. How ’bout Matt Taibbi? Nope.
Let’s make this child’s game easier. Who are the anointed truth-telling columists/comentators/reporters? Or is anyone who might have typed a critical notion about the current President not worthy? Which might clean out everyone.
Surely there is someone, yes?
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: aargh. The rhetorical flourish you’re failing to see is that when Greenwald says “Is there a big difference…?” he clearly means it as a rhetorical question with the answer, which he finds obvious, being “no.” If someone says, “Am I crazy, or…?”, likewise, he doesn’t REALLY mean he’s unsure whether he’s crazy and just waiting to hear your opinion for more information.
You’d be on more solid ground if he had said “Show me the difference between Portman and Obama on this” or even “What’s the difference between Portman and Obama on this?”
Omnes Omnibus
@El Tiburon: I don’t know why I should. I did what you asked. In addition, most of the discussion here is a continuation of the earlier thread, so I find it a bit disingenuous to limit things to this thread. Personally, I think the comment by NCSteve that ABL front-paged sums up the differences quite well. YMMV.
El Tiburon
@Omnes Omnibus:
I was referring to this specific comment:
EVERYONE ON BJ ALL DAY LONG: Uh, yeah, hereâs whyâŠ
You know BJ better than me and you know damn well that probably less than 10% of all comments (especially regarding Greenwald) are serious attempts to deal with the issue at hand.
That is all.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: Oh, Lord have mercy. Yes, you can come up with a way that both conversion narratives are similar, especially compared to having been right all along. But the ways they are different are very important, most particularly because empathy for friends is a bigger leap away from pure self-interestedness than empathy for a child is. So, sure, both the Obama and Portman stories are similar by comparison to a lot of other political stories about why people believe what they believe. But, within the kind of story that they are, conversion stories, they’re not very similar to each other. I mean, you can say that Stephanie Meyer and James Joyce are similar to one another because they both wrote novels. They’re more similar as kinds of people than either of them is to someone who never wrote a novel. But they’re not similar as novelists.
Mnemosyne
@El Tiburon:
Well, at least now you seem to realize that Greenwald’s original point isn’t nearly as strong as you first claimed since you’re reaching this hard. On a certain level, my cross-dressing uncle is my aunt.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
Ok, now I am with you. And I really don’t want to get all Greenwaldian here, but the simple fact is Greenwald never claimed they were the same or identical. I believe this is a distinction worth noting. And this is part of what I’ve been fighting all day.
BJ commenter: Greenwald said Obama is the exact same as Portman…
El Tiburon: Where did he say that?
BJ commenter: You are such an idiot aren’t you?
El Tiburon: Can you leave the taunts behind and let’s talk about the topic…
BJ Commenter: LALALALALALALALALALALA….
El Tiburon
@Mnemosyne:
Do you even know what Greenwald’s original point was? I’d love to hear you characterize it.
Keith G
@cocktailhag: Illegal immigration is horribly destructive – first to the health and safety of those who illegally pass and then to the communities who have to deal with an underclass that poses a variety of unique social and economic problems.
The conservatives business folk I knew in the 80s and 90s loved them their “illegals” tho. One such guy flipped distressed houses using workers he picked up at well known gathering points to do the weeks worth of manual labor before putting the houses back on the market.
One time, he accidently left a worker in a town 200 mi from where he picked him up. Realized it half way back, but did not turn back.
That’s brutal exploitation. It’s destructive to all but the profit makers. I don’t see how calling it so (unless personally attacking humanity of those who passed illegally) is a problem.
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: Putting aside your weird inability to separate your ego from Glenn Greenwald’s, what you’re saying is: People are being mean to you and misrepresenting what you say, then refusing to engage in polite and reasoned conversation about it?
Hmm, now you have an inkling of what it feels like to be President Obama. If you were Obama, or maybe even Portman, that might change how you act in the future.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
And one way is to link to an interview in which Obama describes his conversion story. And his conversion story is similar to Portman’s story. Both men thought one way on gay marriage. Both men changed their thoughts on gay marriage based on personal experiences with people they knew.
This is similar by definition. Is it not? In no way do I think Greenwald was using a rhetorical technique to say the two were the same.
In a way it is tragic that Obama, as a constitutional lawyer, did not ‘convert’ years ago based on his understanding of the Constitution, but had to wait until influenced by those in his sphere of influence. And that is what is so very tragic about Republicans like Portman: they only see the light when effected very personally.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@El Tiburon:
Keep on truckin’ with those goal posts!
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Because firebagging is hard?
Omnes Omnibus
@El Tiburon: Almost every thread on this blog mutates as it goes on. It is part of the blog’s charm.
Ben Franklin
@El Tiburon:
Don’t let them up. Remember, ‘That which is weakest, is found at the thickest portion’
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@El Tiburon: If I’m reading you correctly, what you’re saying at core is that you expect more from Obama than you do from Portman. I think that’s entirely reasonable. Obsessing over how long it takes someone to complete a journey after he’s arrived at the destination seems like a waste of energy, but that’s just me. Can we all get on with our lives now?
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: well, a drone is similar to a helicopter, too, but that doesn’t seem to preclude a whole lot of people from making fine and meaningful distinctions between the two when that’s the subject du jour, does it?
Mnemosyne
@El Tiburon:
Hey, here’s a thought — why don’t you actually read ABL’s post, which includes Greenwald’s actual words clarifying his original tweet and see if you still agree with him? Or are you enjoying parsing what the meaning of what “is” is too much to read what Greenwald said?
She even bolded the parts she thought were significant if that makes it easier. Note his fascinating “if/then” argument where he claims that everyone who changed their mind about gay marriage based on contact with friends and colleagues who are gay are definitionally selfish and narcissistic. It’s the same old Greenwald trick of “If A is true, then B is automatically true, and I’m going to hand-wave past anyone who tries to point out that my basic premise is wrong.”
Ben Franklin
@Mnemosyne:
He’s just messin with you.
Mnemosyne
@El Tiburon:
No? Let’s look at his clarification:
So what’s your new argument now that Greenwald has contradicted you?
Mnemosyne
@Ben Franklin:
Yeah, probably. But I have to leave shortly to eat corned beef and drink hard cider anyway, so I’m just killing time.
YAFB
@El Tiburon:
Bleedin ‘ell.
Some of us spent a good part of our Saturday afternoons addressing the original tweet on the last thread, then actually bothered to go over to Greenwald’s Twitter stream to see what was going on with him rather than indulging in pointless speculation, then found the Twitlonger (and would have quoted it in full with a link if it hadn’t been consigned to eternal moderation, dammit) and linked it to show you that you’d gotten the wrong end of the stick, and that beyond the gratuitous barb in the first paragraph (which is just GG being GG and was based on some stuff that pundits I hadn’t even read were saying), he’d resorted (or backtracked, I don’t GAF) to using it to illustrate how many people end up “evolving” on social issues and can’t we just get along? which a number of us had already been saying upthread, but which you wouldn’t accept from us because apparently we’re none of us GG.
You’re just embarrassing yourself now with this belated attempted ass-covering. Well, you’re boring me, maybe you’re unembarrassable. Or maybe this is just performance art and I’m meant to be laughing.
FlipYrWhig
@Mnemosyne: this is a variant on that trick (which I agree is his stock in trade). This is more like “If you’re going to say that A is true, and A is obviously the same as B, then why won’t you say B is true? Because you’re a starry-eyed Obama-bot who can’t think straight, that’s why! Greenwald out.”
Self-Righteous Little White Guy
@YAFB: You must admit, the double-dare was a nice touch.
Ben Franklin
So with said fire, starved of the essential air it needs, dies with a whimper. Embers burn for longer than you would think.
Kent
I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit.
How is gay marriage different from all the other culture war social issues that GOP politicians like to pander to and that tip the right into a frenzy? Such as abortion, birth control, charter schools, prayer in schools, the drug war, creationism, and so on?
It’s simple. The wealthy and elite can buy their way out of ever needing to face any of the other culture war issues they foist on us except for gay marriage. If you are a millionaire in Mississippi and your daughter needs an abortion? A quick flight to a more civilized northern state will do the trick. Insurance doesn’t pay for your wife’s birth control? Just put it on the tax-deductible HSA account. The fundamentalists have made a mess of the local public schools? There are plenty of private college prep schools happy to take your tuition check.
But even if you are a Senator, Vice President, or CEO you can’t just write a check to make the gay marriage ban go away for your offspring. Your son or daughter won’t be able to avoid the estate tax if her partner dies. Your wealth won’t necessarily stay in the family for subsequent generations without legalized gay marriage. Your grand kids won’t necessarily be “legitimate” or even legally your grandkids. And unlike every other culture war issue, there simply isn’t any way for the wealthy to write a check to avoid it.
lojasmo
In before (I peruse) the shitstorm.
different-church-lady
@FlipYrWhig: What you did there done been seen.
Yutsano
@Kent: You would think that alone would make more conservatives at least okay with gay marriage. But part of the conservative coalition is the Jeebus uber alles freaks, and they refuse to be ignored on any issue they think is sinful. So opposition to anything involving GLBT issues for the money guys came from that (plus a bit of the ick factor) and since it got their side votes they could afford to be at least apathetic. But now that the coalition is fraying, most of the money guys aren’t caring. GLBT folks also ten to have a lot of disposable income, so passing up that sweet sweet cash isn’t paying off for them either.
boss bitch
To EL Tiburon: I haven’t read all the articles you referenced but I did read Chait’s yesterdat and you misrepresent what he said. He did not agree with Greenwald and in fact spoke mainly on the selfishness of Portman NOT Obama. His article was RT’d on twitter because it made the point that NO, Portman’s and Obama’s decisions are NOT the same.
boss bitch
Oh and EL Tiburon I’d avoid calling anyone cultish considering you’ve spent considerable time in this thread defending Greenwald.
YAFB
@Yutsano:
It also used to be a handy wedge issue, and old habits die hard. If you’ve spent decades warning people in gory detail that gay marriage will destroy society and the family, it looks a bit lame to suddenly say, “Nope, it’s fine now, no biggie.”
Chris Andersen
Greenwald’s middle name is Projection.
His first book was an analysis of the manichean tendencies of the Bush administration. What is Greenwald but a classic manichean himself.
cocktailhag
@Keith G: Thanks for the sanity. Did you walk into the wrong bar? If so, let’s see if there’s a place across the street.
scav
@boss bitch: His BJ LALALALALA comment was rather entirely a chortle this far down.
LongHairedWeirdo
@Zandar: I’m sorry you don’t understand the difference between discussing a *concept* – like holding a politico’s feet to the fire – and discussing a particular *person* who may or may not be performing the action suggested by that concept. However, I won’t take the blame for your lack of imagination and/or experience.
I did not say that Greenwald was correct, or justified. I said that even a good President deserves some bashing, and that accepting that bashing is part of the job. Can Greenwald be described as doing that? Don’t know; don’t
caregive a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut. But – if you decided that, yeah, maybe he could be, then maybe you shouldn’t blast him for doing so. If you decided that, no, he’s just being an asshole, that’s cool too.YAFB
@LongHairedWeirdo:
Why doesn’t Greenwald (indeed, why don’t you) hold Portman’s feet to the fire?
As a senator the guy does have a role in government in terms of shaping legislation, which Obama can’t do directly, and some pretty deep inconsistencies and uncertainties in his position on LGBT rights at the moment.
kay
I just think it’s amusing that Greenwald wrote his “prescient” immigration analysis one year before there were massive rallies (300k in Chicago, 500k in LA) in support of immigration reform, and in opposition to the GOP immigration platform at the time, which was immigrant-bashing, trying to fire up their base because they knew they were going to get creamed in the midterms.
It was pretty much conventional wisdom at the time that there was this “silent majority” anti-immigrant vote out there, Republicans were counting on it, but they counted wrong :)
By 2006 pro- reform activists were putting a million people in the street and here we are today, with Republicans desperately courting Latinos.
He’s the opposite of prescient on that. He had no clue what was happening.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Because his self-assumed moral superiority to us plebes is the most important thing in the world to him. Its the essence of Firebaggery.
@YAFB: Portman gets a pass because he can’t alienate any potential party support for Rand 2016.
Ben Franklin
@YAFB:
Jesus H. The other party doesn’t want our input. Obama’s input lexicon is a state secret.
So we got that, going for us…
YAFB
@Ben Franklin:
See, this is probably one of those divided-by-the-same-language culture gap things.
Crap as our political system is in the UK nowadays, I was brought up with the traditional idea that you shaft and berate the opposition while pissing and moaning about your own leaders (when I had leaders, the Labour Party’s been dead to me for 15 years or so and I’ve been a floating/strategic voter ever since). I can’t expect it of Greenwald, I suppose, because he’s above such things and basting Portman probably wouldn’t get him much attention or gratification. I’m mystified that the more vociferous Democrats don’t do it, though.
kay
Also, FWIW, I heard that Romney didn’t pick Portman because Portman still had vestiges of the Bush-stink on him, as a national candidate. I personally believe it had nothing to do w/the son or any calculation thereof.
I don’t think they wanted to talk about Bush’s budget prowess and legendary fiscal management. Not that he’s a True Conservative, Mr. Bush. No one who fucks up can BE a True Conservative, obviously.
Suffern ACE
One day, we’re going to get everything we wanted. And that will be the saddest day of our life. We’ll probably be so angry about that victory that we’ll burn down our houses in protest.
Are we done with this pressing issue?
CorbinDallasMultipass
I’m just curious – who were these people before Glen Greenwald posted his tweet that were saying he lacked empathy? Where was this argument made? He never actually hyperlinked or pointed to them. Just kept saying “people”. And then people showed up to make the argument, but I didn’t see where this was occurring.
CorbinDallasMultipass
Early in the day, Greenwald originally posted this tweet:
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/312664329642205186
which linked to this article:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/15/other-peoples-children/?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto
Which links to a Yglesias’ column about Portman’s position and what it says about his ability to have empathy. I actually think Krugman reads Yglesias’ column incorrectly.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/15/rob_portman_and_the_politics_of_narcissism.html
I think the important points here from Yglesias’ column are:
Yglesias links to this article by Mark Schmitt at the top, which lays out a syndrome he calls “Miss America Conservatives” and sets the context for his post. Yglesias mentions Sarah Palin’s problems regarding her pet cause of Down Syndrome, making her a “Miss Amercian Conservative” http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2005/03/miss_america_co.html
It’s clear here that the argument Schmitt and Yglesias were making (which is made narrow by Krugman) has more to do with the idea that beyond the initial policy positions, conservatives have a trend of lacking empathy, but staking out a claim to have one pet policy area. Democrats, in general, have more empathetic positions on things like healthcare, wage equality, and other progressive issues. Are Democrats perfect? Of course not (and the liberties of people we kill in drone attacks abroad are one group of people that don’t have “direct access to the corridors of power” that they could start with). But they’re still a hell of a lot better on many other issues.
Anyway, this, along with the context of things I mentioned above: https://balloon-juice.com/2013/03/16/glenn-greenwalds-portmanobama-comparison-on-marriage-equality-is-crap/#comment-4290244 and his lack of mentioning the concept of empathy trends within parties makes me feel like he’s setting up everyone up, and as Mistermix claimed, it was mostly a giant troll discussion.
NobodySpecial
@kay: He admits to being not the sharpest knife in the drawer on Iraq, too. At least Greenwald had enough balls to admit it in his first book and his blog, and he hasn’t tried to flush it down the memory hole.
Tim I
For the sake of brevity and precision, let we re-tittle this post as “Glen Greewald is Crap”!!!!
The world has seldom seen a scumbag this big. He and his followers are a curse on this planet.
Russell M
Y’all have some dedicated trolls here. reminds me why i don’t really read BJ threads.
and GG does really have his head up his ass on this one. more than his usual “Obama is just a closet republican” line of stupidity.
El Tiburon
@boss bitch:
Never said anyone agreed with Greenwald. Never. My point with those articles is that the authors chose, when speaking of Portman and his conversion, also used Obama’s conversion.
This is not about agreeing with Greenwald per se. Fuck if I care if anyone disagrees. But I certainly can’t understand the argument that so many make here which is this: there is nothing in common with the Portman and Obama conversion story.
To me (and to Greenwald, Chait, Dude at Esquire, DBag Cilliza, DBag Fonzi of Freedom and NPR there is enough similarity to make comment.
El Tiburon
@Mnemosyne:
I read that quote completely differently than you do.
The ‘same’ Greenwald is referring to is the claim by some that to make this shift is ‘selfish’ and ‘narcisistic’.
That is different than claiming the actual conversion stories are the same. But, hey, I know you found the word the “same” and you got tingly.
So, let’s examine this for a minute. Is it a fair argument to make the claim that Portman and Obama exhibit some elements of being selfishness or narcissism? Is it fair? That one would change their worldview on a group of people on how it affects them personally? I don’t know.
Do we accept that claim for Portman? I mean he goes his entire life basically screwing the gay community. Then, just like that, his son is gay and now he changes his tune. Does that fit the definition of being selfish?
We can certainly accept and understand the dynami of going to whatever means to protect our children, right? Is Portman being selfish? Or just a protective parent? Is he a narcisist or someone who has to overcome a lifetime of a certain ideology that was probably instilled in him since he was a child?
I don’t know. Neither does Greenwald. He didn’t make the claim. He just agreed with it.
El Tiburon
@Mnemosyne:
You are delusional.
First, Greenwald writes this:
Then he writes this:
This is far from you claim. Greenwald certainly made no such claim in absolute terms as you have presented them. Amd you selected your words very carefully (as did Greenwald) to ascribe something to Greenwald that is false. And you know what you did.
YAFB
@El Tiburon:
Nice try. From Greenwald’s opening paragraph, which you conveniently omitted (with added bold, I’d make it flash if I had the HTML chops):
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon: If it is true that you are a pedantic bore, then you have spilled a lot of digital ink trying to inflict upon us the brilliant, original thought that politicians are alike in some ways and different in others, and done so for no really good reason than to prop up a guy who posted some bullshit on the internet.
I, of course, make no such claims in absolute terms, nosiree.
El Tiburon
@YAFB:
You people really are incredible.
He also write this
I guess you see what you want to see. So it is written: Greenald claims that every single person who ‘evolves’ due to personal relationships on gay issues is by definition selfish and a narcisist.
Add to the other BJ truthisms: Greenwald is a staunch libertarian and HUGE Ron Paul supporter.
Some people claim Obama is a terrible President. And I certainly don’t disagree – when it comes to certain issues like civil liberties, transparency, drone warfare, etc.
Did I just claim President Obama is a terrible President? Not at all. I pulled the lever for the man twice and accept that he will go down (probably) as one of the best President’s in our history.
CorbinDallasMultipass
@El Tiburon:
1. Greenwald thinks that Portman is selfish and narcissistic for switching his gay marriage view because Portman realizes the effect discrimination will have on his gay son. He agrees with the characterization and accepts it as true.
2. Greenwald makes the claim that if it is true for Portman, than it must be true for others who attributed their switch based on the realization of effects of discrimination to gay friends/family. By others, we can reasonably say everyone who attribute their switch based on the realization of effects of discrimination to gay friends/family are selfish and narcissistic.
3. Greenwald makes the claim (with evidence in the Roberts interview) that Obama made a switch for that reason.
Mnesonyme said, and you chose this quote:
You said:
I must be delusional also…
YAFB
@El Tiburon:
Yes. Yes, you did. “I certainly don’t disagree” = “I agree.” The wriggling after it makes no difference to that, incoherent as it is, including the fact you nevertheless chose to vote for him.
Look, it’s not my job to teach you logic, English language and grammar. I get enough of that in the day job. Seek professional help.
rikyrah
thank you ABL
Rex Everything
I have to admit GG fucked up a bit this time.
rikyrah
@Nicole:
BWA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA
rikyrah
@Todd:
Oddly enough, neither do Log Cabin Republicans or wealthy glibertarian gay males
Tell the truth, why don’t you?
Rex Everything
I do think it bears mentioning, though, that GG’s point was clearly NOT “Obama’s as bad as a Republican,” but rather: “Portman — in this instance, on this issue — is not that bad, and this is in fact how change happens.”
YAFB
@Rex Everything:
Well, yes. Which means, as we’ve been discussing for the best part of 24 hours over two threads, that GG is giving Portman a big fat pass since there’s no evidence to date that Portman’s significantly changed his behavior as a senator as a result of his son coming out.
So now let’s talk about Glenn Greenwald the Portman Cultist?
Rex Everything
@YAFB:
Why not just talk about what he’s obviously doing: urging us not to look a gift horse in the mouth? I.e., to accept Portman’s conversion in good faith, to admit that most such conversions are effected the same way?
Why not, instead of obsessing over the millionth implied criticism of Obama, just realize (what is blatantly obvious from any cool-headed reading of GG’s piece) that he invokes Obama here only as someone who did an obviously good thing? that he compares Portman to Obama to say, not that Obama behaved badly, but that Portman behaved well?
And the only “evidence” that Portman will change his behavior as a result of recent events in his life is that millions of people have changed their behavior due to similar circumstances. We haven’t rejected their goodwill because it had a selfish root, and we shouldn’t reject Portman’s.
I think this is a reasonable point, and I don’t consider myself a Portman cultist or an Obama hater for thinking so.
YAFB
@Rex Everything:
Listen: Fair’s fair. GG gets to throw the “cultist” crap around whenever it suits him, and have it echoed by his acolytes, because people cut slack in exactly the way you’re suggesting, but heaven forbid anyone ever point out GG’s own blind spots and inconsistencies without somebody like you leaping kneejerk to his defense and promoting a double standard. Sauce for the goose and all that.
I think it’s totally disingenuous to suggest that all GG was doing was “urging us not to look a gift horse in the mouth” and to yap about “the millionth implied criticism of Obama.” GG could have urged that without the baggage if that’s all he wanted to convey — as a number of us, if you bother to peruse the comments in the two threads rather than blowing in late to the day and making unwarranted assumptions — did before we even read his Twitlonger.
For all the blather about holding politicians’ feet to the fire, it’s incredibly selective, isn’t it?
Screw the double standard and nonsense about whether it’s “selfish” or “narcissistic,” we’re talking about hypocrisy here.
Words are cheap. Portman as of a week or so was still promoting an anti-LBGT agenda in the Senate. While making encouraging noises at a public declaration, it’s humbug of the highest order to ignore that. Wouldn’t it be more consistent to let him actually do something to indicate his good faith before praising him?
different-church-lady
@Rex Everything: It would have been entirely possible to make the point about Portman without bringing Obama into it at all, or only bringing him into it tangentally.
Instead Greenwald decided to (a) focus attention on a direct comparison via his initial tweet and (b) then single out Obama by name for comparsion “among others” in his more lengthy treatise.
I think you’re being overly charitable in your evaluation of his intent. This is a common trick of Greenwald’s shtick — his structure is neutral, but his verbiage is unmistakeably agressive. The cues are all there, but whenever people react to them negatively he (and his defenders) fall back to the safe cover of the structure. Sorry, but I just cannot forgive that deliberate slight of hand.
Rex Everything
@ YAFB and different-church-lady: Yes, it was somewhat indelicate of GG to bring Obama into it. I agree. It’s fully reasonable to “point out his blind spots and inconsistencies.”
But is that what you feel has been done here? Starting with ABL, continuing through hundreds of posts, you feel people have just been “pointing out Greenwald’s blind spots and inconsistencies”? Because I don’t. I think it’s been an absolute shitstorm of projection and wounded dignity, expressed with a degree of rancor completely out of proportion to the faults on display in the Greenwald column.
I mean, statements like “Screw the double standard and nonsense about whether itâs ‘selfish’ or ‘narcissistic,’ weâre talking about hypocrisy here” make you sound like an absolute lunatic.
YAFB
@Rex Everything:
The unwonted rancor in your “lunatic” jibe (which I’ll come back to in a moment, but makes you sound rather easily unhinged yourself, which is fun) leads me to suggest you re-read the threads in question if you’ve gained the impression that “itâs been an absolute shitstorm of projection and wounded dignity,” as you seem to be having trouble locating the stick, let alone identifying the correct end of it. To say “starting with ABL” is also nonsense, as this started with a mammoth thread resulting from a post by mistermix, and many felt for some unfathomable reason that they coudn’t be bothered repeating the arguments they’d already made.
In among the usual Balloon Juice digressions, we managed to do at least a couple of things that were somewhat constructive over the course of both threads.
We, at some length, unraveled the context behind an opportunistic accusation by Loviatar based on an old favorite smear that Obama had “admitted” to being a 1980s Republican, and was therefore indeed no better than a Republican. Without GG’s “somewhat indelicate” insertion of Obama into the matter, that comparison might not have arisen, but some people respond well to dogwhistles.
We had also engaged with El Tiburon, at great and tiresome length, to unravel what GG might have been driving at, hunting out subsequent tweets by GG and then his Twitlonger (which ABL subsequently featured in her post), which purported to give some context to his original statement, and revealing that El Tiburon (among others, it has to be said, though he was most vocal) was projecting onto GG things that GG apparently did not intend to convey. I had already concluded that beyond the initial paragraph, which you now seem to agree was “indelicate,” thereby putting you in good company in disagreeing with El Tiburon et al., I found the rest of GG’s screed unexceptionable.
In among this, before being aware of Greenwald’s assertion that he was apparently driven to comment by accusations of “selfishness and “narcissism” aimed at Portman, a few of us had agreed that hypocrisy was the issue, not those elements, since they were unhelpful characterizations of how many people come to terms with LGBT rights issues etc., which you, very belatedly, have said youself.
And now you blow in here full of self-righteousness when the threads have been exhausted, along with almost all of the commenters, to initially offer a lukewarm defense of Portman, and diversify into an arguably over-charitable defense of GG all over again, while blatantly misrepresenting what a number of us have spent a good deal of time poring over and debating in good faith.
In that context, “Screw the double standard and nonsense about whether itâs âselfishâ or ânarcissistic,â weâre talking about hypocrisy here,” is an entirely appropriate reaction.
Rex Everything
@YAFB: Oh yeah, that sounds like the very definition of sanity.
YAFB
@Rex Everything:
Thank you. I’m glad we’ve found agreement.