Well, Kucinich has moved his position from anti-choice to hands-off-(very mild)-pro-choice since 2000, presumably as a result of criticism received during his presidential runs. Convenient revelation for him.

I just don't understand how people with half a brain and any experience in the real world believes that a microscopic fertilized egg has any rights or interests or any place in any discussion. I can see concerns about late-term abortions, but how can anyone take seriously anyone who equates all abortions with murder ... or anything of ethical and/or political consequence?

Imagine that. Ezra finds people who care about issues he does, and who don't care about issues he does, bizarre.

But that's all that's going on here. If you don't really care about the issues on which Ron Paul has made his more conservative stances, then you have no reason to weigh them against the multitude of stances that you do like. ON the other hand, if you don't particularly care about constitutional issues (as Ezra doesn't seem to, it's never been the thrust of his blog) but you are economically and socially opposed to his views, the fact that he agrees with you on 50% of the issues doesn't matter. That 50% is comprised of issues you just don't really care about.

Isn't Greenwald just another conservative radicalized by Bush? His criticisms of the Bush administration are very cogent, but I've always counted them more so because he has sympathy for the conservative position. I've never considered him an ally on anything more than bedrock constitutional principles, the kind that a functional Republican party would advocate.

"Imagine that. Ezra finds people who care about issues he does, and who don't care about issues he does, bizarre."

I guess soullite isn't a woman, isn't married, doesn't have a girlfriend, or is celibate, and not gay because as we all know ending abortion means also ending birth control and ensuring the government will be looking into your bedroom at every opportunity to ensure no sodomy is taking place. The writing is on the wall from the religious right, they demand to know what you are doing with your genitals.

I find it somewhat amusing that Ron Paul talks so much about 'liberty' and the 'Constitution', but then wants to make sure that individual states have the power to limit your liberties and to peer into your bedroom and force you to give birth.

Ricky, Ron Paul has a lot of troubling supporters and a lot of troubling stances on issues, but if you're trying to make the case that he's a pro-spying religious right candidate... well, I predict nobody is going to take you seriously. None of us want Ron Paul to win, but we like the issues he brings into the debate.

IF you think, in the era of indefinite detentions and the national surveillance state, that abortion laws are the gravest threat to liberty, then you need to pull your head out of your ass and realize that this isn't 1994 anymore. To me, you sound as clueless about freedom and liberty as Ron Paul does.

Ezra,

I'm a pro-choice libertarian (like most libertarians are) and I respectfully and totally disagree with Paul on abortion. However, I am, in a way, almost curious to see the hoopla that would arise from a repeal of Roe V Wade.

If that happened, most states would keep it legal at a state level but, more importantly, it would start a state by state war that the pro-life crowd could never win and it would be their doom.

Granted, I'd rather just leave Roe V Wade alone but I do understand Paul's constitutional position.

But again, in a way, my attitude is almost "BRING IT ON" to the pro-life crowd should Roe V Wade be repealed. Their joy would be short lived. I guarantee it.

You would see more states holding onto the death penalty than states banning abortion.

Well, I guess I don't need to write much now because soullite's 2nd paragraph pretty much did it for me. Though, I also want to mention that I have no use for overblown slippery slope arguments, e.g., no Constitutional protection for abortion will lead to a ban on birth control, etc. I love Ezra and I love Glenn, but I'm with Glenn on this one. Abortion is not the end all and be all of political issues.

ON the other hand, if you don't particularly care about constitutional issues (as Ezra doesn't seem to, it's never been the thrust of his blog) but you are economically and socially opposed to his views, the fact that he agrees with you on 50% of the issues doesn't matter. That 50% is comprised of issues you just don't really care about.

And when I say 'thoroughly appalling', let me give examples: he wants to abolish the minimum wage, Social Security, and public education; he wants to prohibit the use of Federal courts for civil rights cases; he consistently opposes environmental regulation; he is, of course, fully signed on to the crazy nativist scumbag cause; and yes, he has sponsored a constitutional amendment that would declare blastocysts persons.

Any Democrat who supports Ron Paul is too stupid to live.

The problem with your 2:03 Tom is that Grover Norquist subscribes to all those nutty theories too. Except that Norquist controls a $2 billion slush fund and an army of primary-wreckers and all the leading Republican politicians swear fealty to him. His acolytes are now seeded throughout Congress and of course the W Administration. It is just that they are quieter and more clever in what the are about. So we /already have/ the situation you describe(*) except on the sly and with no chance to debate it.

Cranky

(*) With the possible exception of the anti-rights amendment which theory says the Radicals dangle out in front of the religious right endlessly to maintain their support. But that could change quite quickly with the Huckabee situation.

Just keep banging that drum. Never mind that it's completely false to claim that women are going to be forced to have children under any regime. God forbid anyone force someone to live with the consequences of their actions. When Ron Paul starts advocating breeding factories, let's talk about forcing women to use their bodies. Until then, Ezra, you're just an idiot.

Tom, and some people don't agree with you on those issues. Others do, but don't give those issues the weight you do. People have a right to vote for who they vote for. They have the right to vote based on whatever misguided criteria they want to vote on as well. That's just how it works.

Reposted from comments in DG's blogpost on tapped.

Ron Paul has:
1. Given a speech on the floor of the house against the Civil Rights Act
2. Voted against the Civil Rights Act
3. Voted not to renew the Civil Rights Act
4. Said the Civil War was unnecessary
5. Had a racist newsletter
6. Does not disavow white supremacist supporters
7. Accepts money from white supremacist supporters
8. Has criticized Brown v. Board of Education

But hey, only white(males) people get individual rights.

bbeans,
Your list of 2:38: those are all fairly common attributes of mainstream Republican politicians in my purple state.

Cranky

Oh I understand Cranky.
I wouldn't blame RP if thats what he ran on. Lets call a spade a spade.

I like how all the "reproductive rights don't matter!" talk comes from people whose handles indicate that they lack uteruses, and thus, are safely exempt from worries about ever having to prove that their miscarriage wasn't brought on intentionally (just one example of what a true anti-abortion state would bring about). The only way to enforce anti-abortion law consistently is to place women under constant surveillance--otherwise, they'll sneak off and get abortions under the mistaken impression that they should get to decide whether to allow a fetus to grow in their own wombs. Many women will indeed risk death, and find it, rather than have a child they cannot support or that it might injure them to bear. Which also makes me a little bristly with men who chortle "hey, let's just get rid of Roe and see what happens!" like it's some sort of experiment. What happens is that women die. Apparently, that's just not important to some people.

RP also runs on creationism, but we don't talk about that. Got to pander to the base to get elected to Congress ya know.

Tom, and some people don't agree with you on those issues.

True enough...but most of those people are Republicans. If you're a Republican, and you agree with Ron Paul's batshit crazy wingnut positions, then by all means vote for Ron Paul.

If you're a Democrat, though--if you agree broadly with what the Democratic Party stands for (which includes, by the way, giving a fair amount of weight to the issues I mentioned)--then you would have to be deeply stupid to support Ron Paul.

What are Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama positions of the war on drugs? Nothing short of a complete end to war on drugs will get my vote.

Damn. Anonymous there (at 3:37) was me.

Ezra, I think you and Greenwald are both right and wrong.

On one level, you are making the argument that while Paul is right about some issues his ideology is anathema to progressives, subscribing to a host of horrible ideas and policies. Any progressive that considers voting for Paul because of Paul’s stance on the war should look at his legislative record. It becomes clear that Paul is, not only not a progressive, but ideological opposed to progressivism.

Furthermore, it is not a zero sum game between civil liberties and reproductive freedoms. Progressives do not have to sacrifice one for the other, and such a choice is an erroneous frame in any case. If we sacrifice reproductive freedoms, we are sacrificing our civil liberties. If a woman’s right to choose goes, the rest of our liberties will soon follow.

In addition, Greenwald’s objection to judging Paul on his ideology as well as liberal’s “hypocrisy” on accusing Paul of being opposed to liberty while embracing Harry Reid is specious. You are quite right about that.

However, in one very important sense, I think you are misreading Greenwald’s argument. Greenwald has never stated his agreement with any of Paul’s regressive, paleo-conservative beliefs. In fact, we have no idea what Greenwald’s beliefs are about abortion, race, or any of the other numerous objectionable stances Paul has taken. Greenwald has argued frequently that simply because one agrees with a candidate about one issue does not necessitate agreement with a candidate about every issue.

As a result, I see Greenwald selectively focusing praise and approbation based upon the issues that are important to Greenwald. Paul’s foreign policy views are close enough to Greenwald’s that Greenwald praises them without in any way suggesting that he agrees with Paul’s other positions. If Greenwald were to establish a principle that he would support no candidate that did not perfectly fit his ideological principles, he would never support anyone.

Lastly, and most importantly, Greenwald sees Paul as a crucial element to widening and opposing the radical neo-conservative, imperialistic ideology that has gripped the Republican Party and the conservative movement for the past 7 years. Greenwald is not advocating support for Paul because he thinks Paul would make a good president (he may also think Paul is a good candidate but we have no way of knowing one way or the other), he is advocating support for Paul because of his rhetorical usefulness.

> I like how all the
> reproductive rights don't
> matter!" talk comes from
> people whose handles
> indicate that they lack
> uteruses, and thus, are
> safely exempt from worries
> about ever having to prove
> that their miscarriage
> wasn't brought on
> intentionally (just one
> example of what a true
> anti-abortion state would
> bring about). The only way
> to enforce anti-abortion law
> consistently is to place
> women under constant
> surveillance--o

The situation being that the surveillance state necessary to do that is being put in place under Cheney/Addington's destruction of the Constitution/civil rights program. When the telcos are spying on your every phone call, you have no access to the courts, and dissent from the government results in Argentinian-style disappearance neither men nor women will have reproductive rights.

Ron Paul isn't going to win anything so this discussion is a bit academic, but to me it is plain as a shotgun blast to the face that general civil rights is the first priority.

Cranky

Tom, I've seen NARAL and the abortion rights crowd support too many business friendly, corrupt corporate democrats to really give your argument some weight. IF you 'Abortion is everything' people really don't want to back up the other parts of your coalition, we don't want to hear you whine when we don't automatically kneel to your interests.

If that happened, most states would keep it legal at a state level but, more importantly, it would start a state by state war that the pro-life crowd could never win and it would be their doom. - John V.

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it.

Politically the anti-choice movement doesn't benefit from actually making abortion illegal (after all, the consequences of actually enforcing anti-abortion laws are pretty frightening, which is why, IMHO, the anti-abortion movement tends to avoid even talking about such things). However, they do benefit from the "fight" to make abortion illegal.

By fighting the battle in 50 states instead of 1 federal government, they make their war-cry up to 50x more cogent to their base, which is good for them, ain't it?

Pretty sure I know what Paul's allure is. .. I saw it but shied away from it pretty soon thereafter.

Anyone who has access to it.. go and watch him when he was on David Letterman a few monthes ago.

All the points he made were classic american ones.. sticking to the consitution, self reliance, freedom for all. During the whole interview he was reasonable, and avoided all these topics on which he has outlandish views.

Of course soon thereafter I looked and saw these other things that he promotes, and now I know hes a freak. ..but if all I had was the big media version of Paul.. hed look like the golden child of old school americanism.

Keep promoting this Ezra, people shouldnt be able to hide the things they truly believe, cloak themselves in the constitution and then rip it out from under us.

The only way to enforce anti-abortion law consistently is to place women under constant surveillance

Exac-a-ti-cally!

That is why even if you believe feti are teh cutest little baybeez ever, abortion is a huge invasion of privacy. Indeed, one could (and perhaps Roe v. Wade should have been written -- but note to the pro-lifers: I'm not saying it was a bad decision and even if I were, I'm not disagreeing with the verdict!) argue that there is a fundamental 4th ammendment issue.

See, when a baby is born, there is a birth certificate and everything -- and all this is done with relatively minimal intrusiveness into people's lives.

But how do you monitor when people are pregnant? Do you force women to take pregnancy tests once a month? How do you know when to start investigating a suspicious fetal death? Etc? Etc?

How can you claim you are in favor of a non-intrusive government and be anti-choice?

This is what is called in Poker a "tell".

BTW -- I'm too lazy to blogwhore, but I know I've blogged before about my fear of the resurgence of Paleo-Conservatism. The popularity of Paul does feed into my fears.

I think others have done a good job in trying to explain to soullite why reproductive rights matter in the larger scheme. I am far from a single issue voter and as a man in a stable situation I have little actual skin in the abortion debate, but to me it such a fundamental block in our rights to privacy that once it is pulled the damn breaks and my own rights erode quickly.

Ron Paul is a Christian Constitutionalist. He might talk a good game about the separation of church and state on the federal level, but he is not so broad in his thinking on the state level. Paul wants Texas and other Southern states to go back to the past. He'll talk about the 'good ole days' and that will sound good to some, but read your history books and think about what a Pandora's box it opens.

IF you 'Abortion is everything' people really don't want to back up the other parts of your coalition, we don't want to hear you whine when we don't automatically kneel to your interests.

And as far as the broad range of issues goes, let me make it very clear: with the exception of Iraq and docmestic surveillance, Ron Paul is dead wrong on every single issue that matters. And when I say 'dead wrong', I mean not just that he opposes a progressive policy on those issues but that his policy is the exact opposite of a progressive policy on those issues. Every single one.

Now, maybe for you Iraq and/or domestic surveillance outweigh every single other issue that matters. If so, then by all means support Ron Paul...but be aware that in doing so you engage in exactly the kind of brain-dead single-issue behavior you (correctly) deride in NARAL.

Tome Hilton, thats your mistake. You don't realize that a lot of people are so angry that there is only one issues, the immeasurable corruption of both the Democratic and Republican establishments. It doesn't even matter, on most levels, what Ron Paul stands for. He is not a creature of those establishments and he is clearly hated by them.

NAFTA, a growing police state, the tasering of every person who so much as looks at a cop dirty, the Washington Consensus, and 30 years of stagnant wages. It's not hard to understand that anger. That by far outweighs Ideology for a great many people.

Soullite, anyone for whom anger outweighs careful consideration of the issues is simply too stupid to live.

--Knock on wood-- but I am completely shocked this comment thread hasn't been taken over by Paul-acolytes like Dana Goldstein's post was at TAPPED. Maybe google updates for "ron paul" are offline or something.

Tom, somehow I'd imagine your own economic position is responsible for your opinions. If you were a construction worker, or a service industry worker, I doubt you'd be sitting their and saying that stagnant wages and a slipping standard of living weren't issues. They are REAL issues that impact a LOT of people directly. I'd wager a lot more people than abortion does.

Also, soullite: you can take your dumbass false equivalency (between the Democrats and the Republicans) and shove it up your ass. That's the same goddamn line the Nadertards were selling in 2000, and anyone can see where that got us.

Maybe I missed something, but I didn't read GG as endorsing all of Paul's positions or even endorsing him as a candidate. I think he appreciate Paul being in the race because Paul articulates objections to our quasi-imperialist foreign policy and its consequences ("blowback") and the slow undoing of our liberties at home that no one else empasizes to such a degree. On those two issues, I'd have to agree with GG that no one in either party is as openly defying our cowardly consensus as Paul is.

Am I going to vote for Paul? Um, hell to the no, because (as explained by Dave Neiwert and Dana Goldstein) Paul is an anti-choice dude who plays footsie with racist whackos. But I'd have to agree that it's useful to have at least someone in this race who wonders out loud, gee maybe if we go around like raging assholes in the world maybe that'll come back to haunt us. Or those liberties that the Founders gave us still seem pretty cool to me, maybe we shouldn't vote for the Patriot Act, FISA "Plus" with new, brighter telecom immunity, and the death of habeas corpus. On that narrow point I agree with GG and wonder why Ezra is so pissed at him.

Tom, If you can't see the massive corruption of the Democratic establishment, I don't know what to tell you.

FISA telecom Immunity
The Bankruptcy bill
Endless extensions of copy rights
Endless support for media consolidation

Gee, no corruption there.

Tom, oh noes! don't conjure the spirit of anti-naderism to smite me!!!

... gee, no lightning strikes from heaven! This democratic leadership doesn't exactly have the kind of support needed for a trick like that to work. I doubt 1 in 10 would disagree when I say the democratic leadership is weak, corrupt, and pathetic.

Ezra can of course stand up for himself, but I'll say this anyway: I have an enormous regard for Ezra and anyone who calls him an idiot is an idiot.

If you were a construction worker, or a service industry worker, I doubt you'd be sitting their and saying that stagnant wages and a slipping standard of living weren't issues. They are REAL issues that impact a LOT of people directly. I'd wager a lot more people than abortion does.

Unless, of course, you happen to think low-wage workers can benefit from abolishing the minimum wage. Or unless you think lower- and middle-class people will benefit from Ron Paul's knee-jerk hostility to unions, to any legal protections for workers, and to any and all social spending. If you do believe all that, then by all means vote for Ron Paul...but if you genuinely believe that, then you really are too stupid to live.

Well, first of all, if you think I am a Ron Paul supporter, you clearly didn't actually read most of my posts. He has views I won't ever accept in a candidate. I just want him in the race because he brings some issues I view as vital into the debate. I stated that previously. I support Edwards.

I'm trying to explain his appeal. And that is his entire appeal: He is not part of the existing power structures. People do not trust those Power structures.

You don't understand because you don't want to understand. I'd imagine your own place in this society is predicated on not understanding it.

Arguing that Ron Paul is an imperfect messenger isn't likely to work. That has never actually worked. People want to damage these power structures because they think that's the only way to effect change. IT doesn't matter what form that destruction takes.

"Maybe I missed something, but I didn't read GG as endorsing all of Paul's positions or even endorsing him as a candidate. I think he appreciate Paul being in the race because Paul articulates objections to our quasi-imperialist foreign policy and its consequences ("blowback") and the slow undoing of our liberties at home that no one else empasizes to such a degree. On those two issues, I'd have to agree with GG that no one in either party is as openly defying our cowardly consensus as Paul is."

Thank you, Scott. I read Ezra's post with bafflement. To me, it doesn't seem remotely pertinent to Glenn's argument. As far as I can see, GG wasn't 'defending' Paul's arguments on reproductive right, but rather explaining Paul's appeal despite his views on reproductive rights.

I also don't see where Glenn suggests anyone has to choose between civil rights and choice, nor where he's 'sneering' at either Dana or Ezra.

The only sneering that I can detect is coming from Ezra's post, which seems to be a deliberately obtuse reading of Glenn.

I vote with these guys

IF you think, in the era of indefinite detentions and the national surveillance state, that abortion laws are the gravest threat to liberty, then you need to pull your head out of your ass... Posted by: soullite I love Ezra and I love Glenn, but I'm with Glenn on this one. Abortion is not the end all and be all of political issues. Posted by: Steve

Ron Paul is a dangerous lunatic. Affording him any credibility just because he is "right" on a few issues - and even on those issues, he's arrived at the right positions for very twisted reasons - runs the risk of legitimizing everything else he stands for.

It doesn't help the anti-war cause to have a buffoon like Ron Paul as its standard bearer.

"Isn't Greenwald just another conservative radicalized by Bush? "

I get this impression as well.

He doesn't impress me as someone particularly moved by issues that don't affect him directly.

"Ron Paul is a dangerous lunatic."

I agree, except for the "dangerous" part. You've always got people like RP. They make a little noise but ultimately they get no traction because the vast majority of Americans aren't willing to go back to the dark ages. Americans love their Social Security and once we pass universal healthcare, they'll love that as well.

We've got a lot to look forward to as liberals.

Greenwald is a Paul supporter, of course he was going to defend him.

Paul is a right-winger for sure, but your shallow attacks on him show your lack of understanding of his positions.

Paul will lose, he is a nut. So stop making yourself look like a fool in trying to attack him. I would encourage you to think carefully about Paul's positions before you attack. They are easily assailed but you have done an exceedingly poor job at it, Ezra.

Greenwald was also snookered by Mukasey, and for roughly similar reasons -- he liked one thing about him and let that overwhelm his global judgment. There's a moralistic strain to Greenwald's own thinking, which tends to project concern for principle into the thinking of others. This is abundantly evident in his "Tragic Legacy" book, which reads the supremely cynical Bush group as principled Manicheans. In both the Mukasey and Paul cases, Greenwald seems to have been seduced by the appearance of principle, to the point where he discounts the context in which it appears.

Glenn's response to this article is right on the money. A disappointing effort by Ezra, who I normally have a teensy little man-crush on.

Put it this way: Sure Paul is pro-life, but the fact that any particular politician is pro-life doesn't actually change the political debate, unless and until they get elected. There is no chance Paul will be elected. There is, however, a chance that he will be listened to on the issues where he has a unique contribution to make to the debate, and that he will change the dynamics of the race.

So I say thank God Ron Paul is in the race. I would never in a zillion years vote for Paul, and I am glad he has no chance to win, but I'm delighted he's out there.

It doesn't help the anti-war cause to have a buffoon like Ron Paul as its standard bearer.

LMAO, yeah, because the anti-war cause has gone SOOOO well under the control of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid...

amazing how Glenn Greenwald was a great source of truth up until the point he disagreed with you. Then he's a dirty republican in Democratic clothing.

"amazing how Glenn Greenwald was a great source of truth up until the point he disagreed with you. Then he's a dirty republican in Democratic clothing."

Well he does have an article in the newest issue of the American Conservative, a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan.

I like Greenwald and think he runs an excellent blog that actually goes fairly in depth into some very important privacy and legal issues. But don't fall into the trap of assuming that just because you agree with someone that the Bush administration has been horrible, that you'll necessarily agree with him on everything else.

I'm seriously sick of this shit. right now the poor are being purged fron New Orleans. Those that protest are being tasered and pepper sprayed with no legal justification. Yet you fucking hypocrites sit there and type self righteously away at your keyboards about what a dangerous place this country will be without abortion.

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You people never give a fuck about anyone who is not like yourself. So please, save your fucking lectures about the importance of abortion to civil rights. You could fucking care less about civil rights. You just want to make sure that privileged white people like you get access to abortion.

Get some fucking perspective and stop thinking this world is all about you.

and that goes double to the anonymous coward that points out that I'm not female.

"privileged white people like you get access to abortion."

Now that's a perfect example of Supremely Not Getting It. Privileged white people will always have access to abortions; the pro-choice position is to guarantee everyone that same access.

Glenn responds. And squashes little Ezra.

You could fucking care less about civil rights. You just want to make sure that privileged white people like you get access to abortion.

Yes, poor non-whites never get abortions.

And who cares about a woman's reproductive freedom if she's white and has a good income, anyway? Those women should be forced into childbirth because, um, poor people are getting screwed too. So why should she have it any better?

Douchebag.

Glenn responds. And squashes little Ezra.

Not quite. Greenwald is seriously outgunned here, and I suggest he back away quietly and maybe no one will notice what a lightweight he really is.

Jason, you're not here because of anyone but privieleged white women,. It doesn't matter if poor people get abortions too. THATS not why you defend the right to an abortion. If it were, you'd be defending the OTHER rights of poor people too.

No, the only right you defend is Abortion. that's because people like you will make use of it someday too. You know you'll never use public housing, so you could care less. You know the police won't likely treat you like shit, so who cares about the people killed by tasers or thuggish police tactics.

Time and time again in this forum I argued about all sorts of rights. The only think anyone EVER came back with was abortion. NOTHING else. So like I said, stop being such god damned hypocrites and pretending abortion is about civil rights with you all. It's not. It's about your own privilege.

tens of millions of women will be forced to use their bodies to bear children against their will.

Are you serious? This statement implies that tens of millions of women will be forcibly raped and have a pregnancy occur because of said rape. I think some women play a part in unwanted pregnancies. Not all women are victims.

"Outgunned", Jason?

I am curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Can you describe this to us with supporting evidence? Because from what I've read, it's rather obvious that Klein either misunderstood or blatantly obfuscated Glenn's points on Paul, to which Glenn deconstructs and discusses in detail.

So could you point out where you think he's being "outgunned" for us?

i find klein's suggestion that greenwald was defending paul's anti-abortion record deeply bizarre. nah, i don't. i just find klein to be a thoroughly dishonest fuck.

Not quite. Greenwald is seriously outgunned here, and I suggest he back away quietly and maybe no one will notice what a lightweight he really is.

Hilarious. I doubt you even read Greenwald's response. Was it too long for you?

The last thing the right wants is to win this issue. They'd much rather be able to point and yell "baby killer."

Abortion is their favorite wedge issue. A guaranteed percentage of the robotic left will throw fits-a-plenty every time Roe v. Wade is mentioned in insufficiently reverent tones.

A president has nothing to say on abortion. Also, given Paul's other positions, it's doubtful that he'd be appointing Roberts-Thomas-Scalito type judges.

This is a non-issue, but when a dancing bear hears the music, he wants to dance.

Ezra, your lede sentence is genuinely bizarre. It's also a fraud. Greenwald NEVER defended Ron Paul's "ant-abortion" position. Instead, he compared the double standard applied to Harry Reid. Deep-six the nose-stretchers, especially from your first sentence, it's embarrassing and clueless.

Wow, until reading Greenwald's piece, I had no idea Harry Reid was so anti-choice. Yet another reason to throw another piece of garbage to the trash heap. Obviously, the Dems rest easily with this plank as their Majority Senate Leader. So, I guess, unlike the deeply dishonest Ezra Klein, that Greenwald is right to ask about the double-standard and hypocrisy. What I find truly bizarre is Ezra Klein's endorsing Reid's anti-choice position.

"I'm less than pleased that my civil liberties are being abrogated, but*..."

*The point where I stopped taking this argument seriously.

stop being such god damned hypocrites and pretending abortion is about civil rights with you all. It's not. It's about your own privilege.

Well, this kind of begs the whole question doesn't it - is abortion just a "privilege" in your mind? If so, then I could see why you'd accord it less importance.

I believe reproductive freedom is absolutely fundamental to the very autonomy of half the population. If you don't agree, fine - but then your complaint with Ezra, Dana, and others isn't that abortion shouldn't "matter," but that Ron Paul's position on abortion isn't all that fucked up anyway.

I'd also note that this isn't just about abortion; Ron Paul is a down-the-line right-wing lunatic on all but a handful of issues. So Glenn et al. are propping up someone who is politically obscene in just about every way. His twisted ideology happens to come out at the right place on a few matters, for the wrong reasons. So I don't take it lightly when someone like Ron Paul, who should be simply beyond the pale, is treated with such regard.

I'm honestly not trying to play the Jonah Goldberg game, but I sincerely wonder: what would all of you say if David Duke ran for president on an anti-war platform? He is in fact against the war. Suppose he were raising millions of dollars like Paul is. Would Greenwald devote whole articles to praising him? I doubt it.

I am NOT saying that Ron Paul is as bad as David Duke. I don't mean to tar Paul supporters with the racism brush, I really don't. But all the arguments used in Paul's defense could also be used in defense of somebody like David Duke. I just wonder how Paul defenders would distinguish these cases.

Also, I apologize for using the word "douchebag." It was unnecessary and unkind to resort to petty insults. I'm sorry for that.

WHAT AN ASTONISHING AMOUNT OF DISHONESTY.

I must say that I have never read in one page so many outright lies about what Glenn is saying now and has said in the past. But, that doesn't even compare to the amount of bullshit being spread on this page about Ron Paul. Anyone who has made it this far down the page, I ask that you go research for yourself all this talk about Glenn being right wing or Ron being a racist. Just finding out the truth on those two points should clue you in that there are a bunch of people here (including Ezra) who a spouting off crap about subjects they simply don't understand.

I would also like to take this time to repeat a very important point: If you think that warrant less wiretaps, throwing habeas corpus in the shitter, starting several wars only to enrich warmongers, endless corruption (IN BOTH PARTIES, don't even try that crap about dems are less corrupt that repubs) are all somehow side issues to abortion rights, you reallyh need to pull your head out of your ass and wipe all that shit that is covering your eyes and ears. What fucking difference is R v. W going to make when the next rebuplican president simply detains any abortion doctor in a new off shore prison, no charges, no lawyer, no release? Let's see how much you people are whining about R v. W then, idiots.

WOW! What an amazing load of rightwing, straw-man, bullshit! Greenwald does a piece about the flagrant hypocrisy of ignoring Harry "I Heart Bush" Reid's anti-choice views that never get mentioned by the darling MSM-approved leftwing ( such as Ezra Klein), and suddenly Glenn Greenwald is a supporter of Ron Paul!

Ezra, if you're looking to get more invites to DC cocktail parties, and too shmoze with Andrea Mitchell and Karl Rove, keep making up shit that feeds into the media's rightwing narrative. But if you want to be taken seriously by people who see through the MSM nonsense, stop attributing bullshit positions to people like Greenwald. Otherwise, in 10 years you'll be replacing Matthews on Hardball. But maybe that's your goal.

Lots of Greenwald fans out today. How many of you are really Glen, sorry, I mean other people who live with Glen, defending your boy?

Greenwald has described himself as neither liberal nor conservative. He is a smarter version of Sullivan without the visceral hatred toward his foes/opponents/critics. (except for Ezra of course)

Unclaimed Territory was a great blog and his work on warrantless surveillance is unsurpassed but I have never looked to Greenwald for his take on politics in general.

I can't believe even I have been sucked into a contrived controversy about fucking Ron Paul.

What's your story, Tory? You begin by accusing GG of using aliases to defend himself against Klein's defective analysis. Then you give him several compliments before ending with the mildest of caveats: that you don't "look" for his "take" on issues. Finally you sign off with an ID that, I presume, is supposed to be an insult to Glenn. (His name has two "N"s.) Weren't the Tories characterized by strong monarchist tendencies, support of the Church of England, and hostility to reform? That's not the Glenn I know.

and that goes double to the anonymous coward that points out that I'm not female.

You're not? I just assumed because you're such a pussy.

There's a simple solution: Look at Green Party candidates, and even vote Green. And, no, it's not a protest vote. If you want BOTH domestic civil liberties AND an end to American imperialism in foreign policy, it's the smart and principled choice.

Oh, and Jake the Snake, Paul IS a racist, from the few comments that are publicly available that show that. And, isn't this part of why he refuses to make public all his old Ron Paul newsletters?