General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan you be part of the left if you supported Bush, the Iraq war, and the Citizens United decision?
| 12 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes | |
1 (8%) |
|
| No | |
11 (92%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)Glenn Greenwald.
He supported the first two in his first book, and supported Citizens United in a blog for Salon.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The title of the book is "How Would A Patriot Act?: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok"
His preface to the book revealed his general apathy towards politics and his naive trust in the system.
Here is the link to the preface: http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812
Book summary:
Glenn Greenwald was not a political man. Not liberal, not conservative. Politicians were all the same and it didn’t matter which party was in power. Extremists on both ends canceled each other out, and the United States would essentially remain forever centrist. Or so he thought.
Then came September 11, 2001. Greenwald’s disinterest in politics was replaced by patriotism, and he supported the war in Afghanistan. He also gave President Bush the benefit of the doubt over his decision to invade Iraq. But, as he saw Americans and others being disappeared, jailed and tortured, without charges or legal representation, he began to worry. And when he learned his president had seized the power to spy on American citizens on American soil, without the oversight required by law, he could stand no more. At the heart of these actions, Greenwald saw unprecedented and extremist theories of presidential power, theories that flout the Constitution and make President Bush accountable to no one, and no law.
How Would a Patriot Act? is one man’s story of being galvanized into action to defend America’s founding principles, and a reasoned argument for what must be done. Greenwald’s penetrating words should inspire a nation to defend the Constitution from a president who secretly bestowed upon himself the powers of a monarch. If we are to remain a constitutional republic, Greenwald writes, we cannot abide radical theories of executive power, which are transforming the very core of our national character, and moving us from democracy toward despotism. This is not hyperbole. This is the crisis all Americans—liberals and conservatives--now face.
In the spirit of the colonists who once mustered the strength to denounce a king, Greenwald invites us to consider: How would a patriot act today?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts) 
Dr. Strange
(25,927 posts) Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
silverweb
(16,402 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Fuck, no.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Well said.
struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I might get slammed for this but immediately after 9/11 the world changed for many people.
I was young at the time, and it is formative years. Before that time, I was not as much in to politics.
So, it was a different time for me. After 9/11 I felt that we should support the leadership for the nonce, till we find stability and bounce back. Unfortunately, I found myself bamboozled. He used that goodwill to promote a crazy war agenda, cut taxes, increase privatization and many other atrocities.
A year later, they heavily pressed on the media to sell the war in Iraq. Sure, there were reservations, but given the flawed intelligence and the usage of Colin Powell, the Iraq War went through. This, much to the dismay of many, the reasons were false. As for me, I didn't want it, and thought it was ill advised, but I didn't feel too strongly about it if it were to happen. In that, it was a tepid acquiescence. Not actual support, but I thought it understandable at the time. I was wrong, especially when more information came out.
Needless to say, I felt betrayed. By 2003, most of these were already well known. I supported Kerry enthusiastically, and went from the Kerry boards to cgcs, which was hosted by some of the admins from there.
I can never support the Citizens United Decision however, as that is some crazy idiotic sh..
So yeah, I don't think absolutist measures in regards to what is "Left" and "Right" really helps. It just divides us, and I think 2014 is very important.
Some of us were young and impressionable. I don't think there is anyone who was young for all THREE of the events, though. Citizens united is also an arcane point that only the very wonky will have an opinion about.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)...
"Any rule that requires the government to determine what political speech is legitimate and how much political speech is appropriate is difficult to reconcile with the First Amendment. Our system of free expression is built on the premise that the people get to decide what speech they want to hear; it is not the role of the government to make that decision for them.
"It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.
"Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-and-citizens-united
Xyzse
(8,217 posts)I still don't like it, the way the message has been corrupted by big money.
They are welcome to say whatever they want to say, but overtly political groups that go for that 501c4, I don't think they should have tax exempt status.
At the very least they should show who donated to them.
msongs
(67,465 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)administration. Vote for Iraq War, for Bush, love Citizens Untied, oppose choice, speak hatefully of gay people repeatedly and be an actual registered Republican and all of that adds up to big power and checks from the people under Obama.
So what was your point? That Hagel is not on the left? Of course not silly.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023134060
And, I'm still waiting for Greenwald realize that the demagogue he keeps hyping, Ron Paul, isn't anti-war.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023205539#post6
Glenn Greenwald: What the Supreme Court got right (Flashback)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100293141
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)"if you supported" and not "if you still do support" those things.
Unless one believes people are perfect and cannot make mistakes in the past.....
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)might be different than some. I think of left in an objective, worldwide fashion. Vladimir Lenin is left. Leon Trotsky is left. Joe Stalin is a centrist. All American politicians are objectively right, except for a few who are centrists, like Bernie Sanders. That probably includes Greenwald, as well as Obama.
That doesn't mean that I can't agree with a centrist or even the occasional right winger on individual issues. Once again, IT DEPENDS ON THE ISSUES, NOT THE PERSONALITIES.
