Glenn Greenwald Will Speak to a Koch-Funded Event

[Blue_Tires]

Last edited Wed Feb 11, 2015, 11:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Glenn Greenwald Will Speak to a Koch-Funded Event Named After a Pro-Lynching Racist Dixiecrat Congressman

Other group headed by Allen West and funded in part by the Koch brothers


“Only a short time ago… their [black] ancestors roamed the jungles of Africa in absolute savagery…[Y]ou do not know where the beast is among them. Somewhere in that black mass of people is the man who would outrage your wife or your child, and every man who lives in the country knows it.”
— Congressman Hatton W. Sumners

Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44314_Glenn_Greenwald_Will_Speak_to_a_Koch-Funded_Event_Named_After_a_Pro-Lynching_Racist_Dixiecrat_Congressman#tSkUVSWTWVPueAOi.99


http://www.ncpa.org/events/glenn-greenwald


Read more at http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44314_Glenn_Greenwald_Will_Speak_to_a_Koch-Funded_Event_Named_After_a_Pro-Lynching_Racist_Dixiecrat_Congressman#tSkUVSWTWVPueAOi.99


EDIT: I've got to grudgingly admit I'm at least a little impressed...(no snark) I can't think of any other political figure who gets invited to speak by the far left, the far right, the socialists, free market libertarians, the moderates, foreign governments, the tech community, the hacking community, the one-percenters, the Alex Jones black helicopter fringe crowd, etc...

[Fred Sanders]

1. And then........?? Greenwald is a liberal hero, do your best.....

[Blue_Tires]

74. Just making sure DUers know where their "Liberal Hero" is...

Maybe some of you will want to fly to DFW and attend the event...

[Cali_Democrat]

2. This is not surprising. Let's not forget what Greenwald said about immigrants:

And yet few problems are more pressing. 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.

SNIP......


But one of the most disturbing and destructive aspects of illegal immigration is that it is illegal. Indeed, that is the precise attribute which separates good immigration from bad immigration. Why should Republicans, or anyone, shy away from pointing out that illegal immigration, among its many evils, is “illegal”? That is just absurd. Moreover, it is precisely the fact that illegal immigrants enter the country illegally that spawns justifiable resentment, not only among large clusters of middle-of-the-road voters, but also among the very legal immigrant population about which Sanchez is so concerned. Emphasizing the "illegal" part of this problem is what Republicans need to do more of, not less.

SNIP..

The real irony here is that the problem of illegal immigration is actually one of the very few of the ever-dwindling number of issues that has the opportunity to forge common ground among factions of voters which are, these days, engaged in a ceaseless war with each other. Being worried, and outraged, about illegal immigration is not confined to the extreme precincts of conservatism. Middle-class suburban voters whose primary concerns are local and pragmatic, rather than ideological, know the danger which illegal immigration poses to their communities and to their states, and they want something done about it.


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

Oh...did you know he also defended a white supremacist?

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[Fred Sanders]

6. Not surprising, you mistakenly left out Greenwald's retraction....."nothing to do with what I believe now"

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

Try again, without "snips"?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. So now he no longer believes that immigration is an evil which....

"wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally".

But now he's gonna speak at a Koch-funded event named after a pro-lynching Dixiecrat?

The more things change.....

BTW...his retraction was how many years later?

And in the retraction he attacks "Obama Cultists"

[Fred Sanders]

8. Whatever, you left out the retraction.....why should I engage with you?

..snip....

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Actually I find that retraction fascinating....

when did he update that blog post?

[Fred Sanders]

10. Why did you leave out the retraction? It is your link.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. My post was about his xenophobic comments that he made in 2005. The retraction is there.....

for all to see.

Clearly he updated his blog post MANY years after posting it because he was getting shit for it. So he updates his post years after the fact because he knows it makes him look like a xenophobic, racist asshole. Then he lashes out at "Obama cultists" for bringing it up.

Too funny.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Yeah, presenting then hiding contrary outdated information to attack a liberal icon is worthy of hilarity. Emoticon worthy

[Andy823]

18. Really?

A "liberal" icon? How many other "liberal" icons would be speaking at a Koch brothers event? Really this is all you got Fred?

[Jamaal510]

25. There's also this piece of his from 2010 after the CU ruling:

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/

[Andy823]

27. Yep,

A "real" libera Icon!

[stevenleser]

35. The question isn't whether a Liberal would speak there, the question is what would a Liberal say if

they did. Just being fair.

Because, IMHO, speaking to conservative or Libertarian audiences is potentially a great opportunity to give a fact filled speech about why right wing economics don't work. Just the opportunity to change some minds is worth it's weight in gold.

The problem is that Greenwald isn't going there to further any kind of Liberal agenda. He is going there to further cement opposition to the Democratic President and Democratic Party.

The only outcome here from what Greenwald is likely to say is a strengthening of the Koch brothers agenda.

[joshcryer]

43. He'll pepper liberal ideas here or there.

But they'll be related to NSA spying and such, which are equally Libertarian. He won't ruffle feathers, that's for damn sure.

If I was asked to speak at an event like this? I'd accept, gladly. Then afterward I'd write a damn book about what trash they are. And I'd still extend an offer to go any time they asked me to go. I'd write another book and do the talking head circuit for free telling them what shitbags they are.

That's one thing I really like about Chomsky, at least younger Chomsky, he gladly accepted any requests by right wingers to be in their magazines or whatever, but he called them out every time he did it. It's actually ironic because he acknowledges that Libertarians were one of his biggest "supporters" and that it was much easier for him to get in their magazines than others. Even if they had fundamental and irreconcilable differences.

[wilt the stilt]

32. I've seen naive but you take the cake

I wasn't paying attention to politics. Please give me a break. he is a fully grown man.People form their opinions on life by the time they are in their twenties. this greenwald guy is a huckster.

[joshcryer]

45. I like your attitude.

Haven't seen your nick before but you've been here awhile and seem to call it like you see it.

[leftynyc]

47. Liberal icon?

NO THANKS. He's a slug who will obviously whore himself out to anyone. This story is the proof of that. I can't believe even whoring himself out for the koch brothers has his sycophants slobbering all over him.

[MADem]

64. He is not a liberal icon--he's a LIBERTARIAN icon, speaking at a Koch think tank ...

Who praises that outfit? Well, Newt Gingrich and John Stossel...for starters.

Our Mission

Our motto, "Ideas Changing the World," reflects the belief that ideas have enormous power to change the course of human events. The NCPA seeks to unleash the power of ideas for positive change by identifying, encouraging and aggressively marketing the best scholarly research.

“The NCPA generates more analysis per dollar than any think tank in the country. It does an amazingly good job of going out and finding the right things and talking about them in intelligent ways.”

-- Newt Gingrich,
Former Speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives



“We know what works. It's what the NCPA talks about: limited government, economic freedom; things like health savings accounts. These things work, allowing people choices. We've seen how these concepts
created America.”

-- John Stossel,
Host of "Stossel" on Fox Business

What are they proudest of? Their work drowning the government in a bathtub, a la Norquist.

Take a look at their "about" page--it's an eye-opener. They don't like Obamacare, they hate social security, they're just a bunch of "I've got mine, screw you!" tools. There's no way you can call anyone who would show their face at this dump a liberal--no way:

http://www.ncpa.org/about/

[brush]

22. Spot on.

When Greenwald made the anti-immigrant remarks he was a grown man, a mid-career adult.

How do you change your world view so radically in a few short years?

I'm not buying it. He's no liberal, let's try libertarian at best, maybe?

I'm still a leftist progressive like I was in the mid-2000s. I haven't switched to being a right wing teabagger so how has the conservative Greenwald become a liberal icon?

He hasn't IMO or he would absolutely not be speaking to a Koch-funded group as those people are who we are fighting against. Why would he help them?

I'm thinking speaking fee. To me Greenwald has shown he's about the money. He parlayed/used the Snowden connection into a well-funded media empire while the hapless Snowden is stuck in Russia.

Greenwald looks out for Greenwald's wallet.

During the 2012 campaigh I registered voters regularly for the Obama campaign at a DMV office in Vegas. A new couple showed up to registers voters one day and I didn't recognize them so I asked who they worked for.

It was Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-funded group. I knew immediately that I would never work for the Kochs and that these people were our philisophical enemy.

How does Greenwald not know that?

[joshcryer]

44. "Greenwald looks out for Greenwald's wallet."

That about sums it up. I think he's more Libertarian and perhaps a wee bit left-libertarian, but that doesn't sell so well so he takes the right-libertarian tack. Don't ruffle corporatist feathers (Intercept was literally a billionaire oligarch asking him to make a media outlet to shovel calculated views; that's why Matt Tabbi quit).

I'd be shocked if he ruffled feathers. If he did he might earn back an iota of respect from me. But this is Greenwald we're talking about. Ruffling feathers of corporatist oligarchs is not his thing.

[MrMickeysMom]

51. That about sums up all you can sum up about Greenwald...

I find this extraction out of Greenwald context response typical of those who refuse to see what body of work came out of him. It's like taking a scriptural phrase, "an eye for an eye" out of the bible and using that argument what what that book stands for.

In the face of what Greenwald has written about, corrected himself about, and continues to say long term, I find some of the "picking gnat shit out of a haystack" remarks here another excuse for having read his content.

What a distraction is created...

[Bohunk68]

52. RIGHT ON!!!!!!!! MMM

Some folks seem to think that once you hit a certain age (whatever they choose at the moment), your thoughts are carved in stone. That just doesn't ring true for a lot of us. People do have epiphanies and that brings changes to their thought patterns. I mean, Jeez, I voted for Goldwater in '64 and had my epiphany way back when. Oh, but then like someone upthread said, I was in my 20's and my mind was already set in stone. Ignorance is not just a RW thing.

[Fumesucker]

53. Unlike Hillary who left the White House "dead broke"

And whose economic advisory team is even at this moment trying to craft a message that sounds populist but doesn't ruffle the feathers of the corporatist oligarchs.

[joshcryer]

56. Stupid statement.

But Ken Starr spent $70 million trying to prosecute them. They were in the negative. They had resources that Clinton failed to realize (no President returns to poverty), Bill Clinton did dozens and dozens of $250k speeches. They both had million dollar book deals.

But the moment they left office? None of that was realized. A Republican just stole the Presidency. The Grand Right Wing Conspiracy was (and is) real. I don't fault Hillary Clinton for saying that, even if it was obviously out of touch.

It could've gone a whole different way.

[uponit7771]

65. ... and Obama thinks there's 57 states? Come on, these statements made in the whole of their thinkin

... don't reflect these people....

But Greenwald wrote that immigration bullshit down ...

that's different imho

[Fumesucker]

69. Are you claiming that Hillary didn't know her and her husbands financial status on Jan 20, 2001?

And I read about her economic team trying to craft a message that wouldn't hurt the overly sensitive fee fees of the big donors just a few days ago.

http://politicalwire.com/2015/02/08/clinton-still-trying-craft-economic-message/

“With advice from more than 200 policy experts, Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to answer what has emerged as a central question of her early presidential campaign strategy: how to address the anger about income inequality without overly vilifying the wealthy,” the New York Times reports.

[uponit7771]

71. Of course not, just those statements her and Obama made are off the cuff and don't reflect

... their whole general thinking... Obama on 57 states and Hillary on how "broke" she really was.

Hillary making a tone deaf relative statement and Obama a simple gaffe...

Greenwald didn't make a off the cuff non thought through statement though

[Fumesucker]

72. I know why Obama said what he said, it really doesn't fall into the same realm..

Hillary was angling for sympathy.

That aside she certainly is trying hard to find some way not to alienate the big money boys and I'm sure she will find it.

[uponit7771]

63. +1 He excused his thinking as "long ago" (sic) as if he was some kid... he wasn't he knew better

... to be so xenophobic

[SidDithers]

3. Well, there's a surprise...

DU rec.

Sid

[randome]

5. And get this.

The same DUers who regularly excoriate stevenLeser for occasionally appearing on Fox News to argue progressive points will now say there is nothing wrong with Greenwald appearing at a Koch event.

Wait for it. It's coming.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fred Sanders]

11. Into the lion's den, Greenwald is not afraid to confront the fascists. Wait for it.

If anyone thinks Greenwald is a fan of the Koch's that one has little idea who the man is.

[randome]

14. So he's only helping Conservatives be better Conservatives?

Such altruism is hard to fathom.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Fred Sanders]

15. As unfathomable as not knowing Greenwald's contributions to the world's understanding of government lies.

[randome]

16. So he speaks before the biggest liars on the face of the planet...

...funded by the biggest liars on the face of the planet, and this helps the world how? Well, it doesn't, that much is clear. Whatever his motives are, whatever past heroics you see in him, this appearance only helps the Kochs and their Conservative minions.

He is not there to argue Progressive principles. He is there to help Conservatives understand what they are doing wrong.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Andy823]

23. Well it could explain

The fact that he seems to always go after the president and democrats, but seems to stay clear of blaming republicans for "anything" that they have done to prevent this country from actually moving ahead, but instead have done everything they can think of since president Obama took office to stop him from fixing things.

[leftynyc]

48. That wouldn't be so out loud

laughable if he weren't getting paid by the slug koch brothers.

[Andy823]

59. All know is

I am still waiting for those "ground breaking" bits of information he was promising, and most of all I am still waiting for the list of all those who were "spied" on, you "everyone" in the country! Seems he wasn't really very forthcoming with all the BS he as spewing, or maybe you could provide a link to that list?

[randome]

60. I guess you simply weren't paying attention, Andy. It was awesome!

Obama was forced to resign, the Conservatives were in further disarray and Rand Paul stepped up to the plate to declare himself Minister Of Truth and to mandate the destruction of all forms of vaccine. And then Glen woke up.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

17. Oh god, he's going to get paid.

It's that simple. He's going to make connections. That's all there is to it. It's not some sort of liberal fighter type of thing...

[Andy823]

19. So

If he is not a fan, the why speak at a Koch brothers event? Maybe it's jut that the Koch brothers pay well for "liberal" icons to speak at events they sponsor?

[MADem]

66. Who funds the CATO Institute, where Greenwald made his home for years? Answer--the Koch Brothers.

If Greenwald is going into the lion's den, it's because he's a LION--and that's WHERE HE LIVES. He's not "confronting" anyone--he's roaring "Honey, I'm HOME!!" and looking for his pipe and slippers!

Good grief, make the connection! Apparently, it's news to just you.

[zappaman]

21. Of course.

Some peoples hypocrisy knows no bounds...

[stevenleser]

36. The hypocrisy really is priceless.

I said above that there is nothing wrong with appearing on rw media or speaking at conservative events. The fact that you are there speaking is not the issue.

What you say with that opportunity IS the issue. Greenwald isn't going there to further Liberalism or Democratic candidates. The net result of Greenwald speaking there will be a strengthening of the Koch brothers' hand. He is going to attack Obama and Democrats and make Koch brother supporters more sure that they are in the right camp.

But I am taking note of who defends Greenwald here because it is exactly as you say. Wherever I have appeared on TV or radio, I support the Democratic party and its agenda. I attempt to move the needle, to convince folks who are not currently on our side. What is really poisonous is to go to a conservative event or conservative media and help convince the folks seeing or hearing you that conservatism or Libertarianism is the right philosophy.

[joshcryer]

46. And I've backed you up on that.

I know I called you a "potential" media whore before but that's because I just hate all talking heads, it doesn't mean I don't appreciate what you do, and I hope you know that when I said it before. Talking heads are a paradigm we live with and we just gotta deal with it and hope some others out there do it too (I'd say Paul Begala and James Carville are other notable center-left guys in that vein; at least they were years ago, haven't seen them much these days, but don't watch cable TV).

This event is a bit more low key than talking heads, though, as you note indirectly. It'll probably be a private affair and if there's a public recording somewhere no one is going to watch it (much different from cable news which gets millions of daily viewers). Greenwald will throw out mostly anti-Democrat crap, in relation to NSA spying, and get applause, because the Kochs are really Libertarians who use the political system to their advantage.

You do a good job Steven, especially on LGBT rights, even if I think the whole cable talk show TV thing is an absolute farce. If someone doesn't do it, who will... glad you found your calling. And don't let lesser people get you down because they can't get out there and face the right wing trolls face on.

[whatchamacallit]

61. Kind of like being a Fox News Darling

The hypocrisy really IS priceless!

[Number23]

39. That is a hell of a point though to be honest, not one of the people that regularly excoriate steve

for going on Fox News to debate conservatives have reputations here for being lucid, consistent or thoughtful anyway so I doubt anyone will notice the hypocrisy.

[MADem]

68. But...but ... but!!!!

There's gotta be some of that "argle bargle garble" stuff in there, too.

Logic is not a strong suit when it comes to Greenwald--they'll defend him no matter how far to the right he drifts. It's the oddest thing.

[MohRokTah]

20. Why would this surprise anybody?

[RiverLover]

54. I'm surprised, and a little bit horrified.

Just read the OP link on Koch's free market think tank National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

I hope we get a video or transcript of what Greenwald will have to say to them in April that they will pay to hear.

???

[corkhead]

24. You're lifting quotations from LGF. I didn't even know that is allowed on DU

LGF does little to help the credibility of this post imho

[stevenleser]

37. The only two items at question is whether Greenwald is appearing and is it a Koch event. Are you

disputing either of those points?

[MADem]

62. Given that he's been on the CATO payroll for years, there's probably no question at all. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Gee, I've seen people call you our for your regluar recurring role on Fox News and you always claim

that it is very righteous to be on FoxNews. Of course you do not deny that Fox is a Murdoch owned right wing propaganda outfit and that you appear on it. But apparently the rules for 'them' are not the same as the rules for 'me'.

[stevenleser]

73. Two separate issues. Let's not conflate them.

#1 - the person to whom I was responding questioned whether a website has the facts right. The two facts are in question were as I responded and I asked whether the person disputes those.

#2 - I posted above in two separate posts including the one titled "the hipocrisy is priceless" my opinion about appearing on what is considered conservative media or conservative forums. I think excoriating someone for the appearance itself is ridiculous. Liberals and Progressives should go out and defend those principles everywhere. But if they go to such events and such media and hurt the party, it's candidates or elected officials and/or oppose our values, then they/we should be criticized.

That I think is 100% fair and on that basis, Greenwald should be criticized. He's going there to attack the President and the party and help whip up the hate of conservatives and libertarians against them.

And Greenwald is an asshole for doing that among many other things.

[JaneyVee]

38. How is LGF not reputable? The founder...

Was a hardcore rightwinger who saw the light and spends 24/7 denouncing now the radical right. That's more than Greenwald has done for Liberals.

[Cali_Democrat]

40. Let's look at some of the headlines at LGF, shall we?

Post attacking Scott Walker: Scott Walker in London: Q: Do You Believe in Evolution? A: I’m Going to Punt

Post attacking Tennessee Republicans: Tennessee Republican Wants Bible to Be the State Book

Post praising Jon Stewart: Video: Jon Stewart on Brian Williams: All Hail the Guardians of the Veracity

Posting praising John Oliver: Video: John Oliver Skewers Big Pharma

Post attacking right wing blogger: Another Massive Fail From Chuck C. Johnson: Attacks Lester Holt, Says Holt Was ‘Lying’ - He Wasn’t

Post attacking right wing blogs: Right Wing Bloggers Pathetically Over-Reaching to Smear Brian Williams

Another post attacking right winger Jim Hoft: The Mind-Numbing Hypocrisy of the Stupidest Man on the Internet


----------------------------------------

Are you trying to say LGF is some sort of horrible right wing blog that should be blocked from DU?

[MADem]

41. Didn't LGF "flip" from right to, if not left, center-ish (?) a few years ago?

I don't read it unless I get a link (like in this instance) but this is what wikipedia, such as they are, say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Green_Footballs

Parting ways with the Right[edit]
On November 30, 2009, Johnson blogged that he was disassociating himself with "the right", claiming that "The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff. I won’t be going over the cliff with them." He has been heavily critical of conservatives and libertarians since then.[31]
Alteration and Deletion of Posts[edit]
In early September, 2010, it was discovered that Johnson had begun altering some posts and deleting others which expressed sentiments which were substantively similar to the ones he had recently been condemning others for. In one example, Johnson had been condemning opponents of the Park51 project as "bigots", though he had expressed similar opposition to the proposed Flight 93 memorial, which he described as an "Islamic Shrine". Johnson was discovered to have deleted these posts without acknowledging their deletion.[32] Johnson had also described the lead figure in the Park51 project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, as an "Islamic Supremacist," but later revised that description from the post without acknowledging the change[33]

I remember him being the source for the photoshopped Iranian missle story, and I also remember that this site and others were involved in the Dan Rather story, many years ago (before he disavowed the right wing).

This wouldn't be my first choice as a citation, but there are no hard and fast rules here anymore about what sources are used. I guess we're supposed to just "consider the source" when we evaluate how valid a citation is.

[leftynyc]

49. What's your beef with LGF?

Charles Johnson saw the light - just like liberal hero David Brock.

[randome]

55. Like Elizabeth Warren.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[struggle4progress]

26. What? The same GG who has close ties to the Cato Institute? The same GG

who the day after the 2010 election was cheering the Ds' loss of seats and hoping Ds got hit even harder in 2012? The same GG who was pushing Gary Johnson as President?

He's now found to be taking money from the Kochs?

Um ... well ... duh!

[Andy823]

30. Yep the one and only

But then he is a "liberal" Icon, according to some that is!

[still_one]

28. No surprise from me. Just like when Ralph Nader was funded by republicans in his presidential bid.

Anything to accelerate disunity and fighting among the Democrats, and the Koch brothers know perfectly well that Greenwald is no fan of Obama, so this plays right into their hands.

[riqster]

29. Once a libertarian....

[Dawson Leery]

31. He deserves no respect.

Greenwald is one of those I got mine so screw you when it comes to economics.

He should join the FReeps.

[think]

33. Sigh.... /nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. So many pigeon holes to try to fit this guy in.

Maybe, like with most humans, it's a bit more complicated.

But continue with the jousting.

[joshcryer]

42. +1

Not really a fan, but he's going for whatever reason, it doesn't make him a shill, nor does it make him a fighter for liberal causes. It's just an event he's going to. Whatever motivations exist.

Let's just call it what it is. Easy money. Bill Clinton literally did dozens and dozens of $250k speeches (to the point of exacerbating coronary artery disease and almost dying from a heart attack). Why the heck not, man? Get to talk, tell your ideas, and get easy money.

[hobbit709]

50. and Clinton speaks to Wall Street. they speak to whomever pays them to.

[NCTraveler]

57. Not the biggest fan of Greenwald but he could do some good at an event like this.

Many conservatives and democrats are strongly against the unconstitutional seizure of mass amounts of information of American Citizens. It is an area many on both sides can rally around. I would be interested to hear what he says. There truly is a good message that can be delivered that would be respected by libertarians, conservatives, and progressives alike. The more people we can get to oppose Obama and the power brokers in the republican party with respect to abuses of the constitution the better off we all are.

I would also recommend some of you go watch clips of Steven Lesser on Neil Cavutos show on Fox. Because someone speaks at a certain venue means very little. Steven has gotten the progressive view out on a conservative network in a way that can resonate. We need more of that, not less.

If those taking part in this current rift continue down this path they will be left with no one to support. The ideals needed to support someone are not born out of realistic thought and will leave us with no one qualified for our support.

[MADem]

70. That group wants to kill government, in essence.

Not just the national security end of things, but the bread and butter stuff -- and they want to attack that FIRST. You know, health care, social security, the IRS...drown it all it Grover's tub!

Greenwald has been on the Koch payroll for years, before this think tank, he was most regularly funded by appearances and projects he did for the CATO Institute. One has to wonder if the Snowden well is running dry, since he's back at the Koch trough yet again...?

[librechik]

58. that's the last straw! Now I'm actually offended!

lol--those folks are the ones who need to hear Glenzilla the most!