2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-i-were-campaigning-for-president/2011/12/30/gIQAP1oERP_story.html

Palin's turn is worth it for the very carefully placed "whatever" and "gripin'."

https://motherjones.com/files/images/santorum_burrito.jpg

That Santorum family picture just kills me every time it comes back around.

It looks like a still picture out of Arrested Development.

Mom- "this is just not going to fly"
Daughter 1- "dad is so lame"
Son - "man I am so high"
Daughter 2- "please lord destroy this world"

guy in balcony running sound "wtf did he really say that?"

his wife's mouth is an overlooked treasure in that photo that i've lately come to appreciate

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/ron-pauls-abortion-problem.html

But in signing the pledge, Paul may have ended up doing himself nearly as much harm as good. Alone among the signatories, Paul appended a “clarifying statement” in which he reiterates his opposition to banning abortion on the federal level.

who says he's not prepared to be president? he's already issuing signing statements

remember how I once said I didn't know many Ron Paul supporters irl amongst my friends?

i was wrong :(.

i'm a little tired of hearing the whole debate 'if we didn't have to pay taxes, we'd be able to afford health care"

Greenwald on progressives' Paul/Obama "evil evil evil" fallacy:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

Ron Paul's abortion position:

...he supports federal action to define life as beginning at conception, but doesn’t want to ban abortion at the federal level, saying that it should be left to the states.

This position is just weird. His fealty to state's rights borders could more accurately be termed fellatio.

the idea that abortion should be a state decision is fucking horseshit. shouldn't be anybody's decision.

just will make the current conditions where it's hard to get em in the midwest even more difficult when huge pockets of territory ban it

i gave this one a good go, but Greenwald is so fucking asinine. how many times does he have to repeat his premise that you can support an individual candidate's stance w/out endorsing the candidate? he has no evidence that you cannot do so, so he's really tilting at windmills here.

check it out: i agree w/ ron paul's policy of ending the war on drugs

i do not endorse ron paul for president.

holy shit, someone call up Greenwald and tell him!

yeah for fuck's sake I agree with a lot of his platforms (and disagree with a lot of others)...wow mindblowing greenwald!

so, no diff from Bam

youre oversimplifying his central point.

or misidentifying it really. (He's just pointing out that others have SAID he has endorsed Huntsman or Paul when he has not)

hes just pointing out that people are holding him to the same standard he always holds them to, the crazy enraged ninny

imagine glenn greenwald not understanding really simple things http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

cool that Katrina vanden Heuvel supports ron paul's race war platform

that's actually an excellent essay by gg there, if you can deal with his breathless style, which I can't always. it's in some ways an expansion of that yglesias post i linked yesterday: that a paul nomination might actually be the best scenario for liberals because it'll both push Obama (presumably) to the left on these issues and all but ensure his re-election in a general

greenwald was caught up in an idiotic twitter beef yesterday, which tangentially involved a poster here too. his coldness and seeming aversion to social norms is one of he reasons i vastly prefer him when he's writing about law/policy rather than "politics", but still he's spot on in that essay

to clarify it was gg who was being idiotic, not the beef itself

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position?

He needs to stop making assertions that are clearly based on his own anecdotal evidence (or worse, just shit he imagined). Ron Paul has more liberal support than any other Republican candidate, and any cap on that support is due to the very distinctions GG is spelling out. Dude who supports going back to the gold standard is never going to get wide cross-party support no matter how great he may be on other issues.

yeah i also hate his meta columns: the audience for columns like this are like the twelve fellow journos he beefs with on twitter

I thought Greenwald would kick it on New Year's Day, lying on the grass in sandals with his boyfriend.

that photograph still haunts my dreams

http://www.out.com/sites/out.com/files/GlennGreenwald1.jpg

aw

The dog on the left is "Addington," his boo's is "Russert."

cool cargo shorts

the very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry

Oh yes, who cold forget Kerrymania? Everyone was putting JK pictures in their trapper keepers, women were pissing their pants when he spoke at the Iowa County Fair. It was a crazy time for sure.

spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney’s wealth as proof of his insularity

Yes, democrats kept a laser-like focus on this one issue for all of 2008.

That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted upon in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008, and vice-versa.

lol this totally did not happen.

I think the main slogan for Kerry's campaign might as well have been "You should see the OTHER guy"...

I kinda feel like gg's columns become much better when you imagine him saying, "or whatever you know what I mean," after every assertion.

lol he likes ron paul lol

I am sure this has been discussed before but wow his bf should be out of his league no?

esp considering gg's personality

but but he is famous blogger!

I caught the last 10 minutes of Gingrich's press conference today--New Year's or no New Year's, attention must be paid to the gossipy horserace--and it was encouraging for anyone still living the train-wreck dream. He's not going to win, but it does appear ready to go down in flames. There was a great moment where his inner Nixon got the better of him: acknowledging that Romney's ad-barrage had driven him down to low double-digits, he fairly hissed that "If I'd spent three-and-half million dollars going after Romney, he'd be down to 3%."

it = he

I am sure this has been discussed before but wow his bf should be out of his league no?

esp considering gg's personality

I know, right? Otoh, this picture should give all single people hope because if GG can pull a hot piece like that, theoretically anyone can.

Given the concerns I have for some of the Republican field’s focus thus far, I must implore the candidates to do something that sounds self-promoting, but whatever. Candidates, please turn to Chapter Three of “Going Rogue” and read what it takes for our country to step toward energy independence. Note the lesson I share in the same chapter about taking on the “elite,” the crony capitalists and the permanent political establishment to get a job done.

The "but whatever" is the touch that spins this straw into gold.

I am sure this has been discussed before but wow his bf should be out of his league no?

thatsracist.gif

gonna miss you on ilx gman