"I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy"
...you're buying into his spin, and claiming:
"I don't agree with everything Greenwald says in this article, but his view on the Pauls is far more nuanced than you are making it out to be. "
Greenwald stated:
But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative — for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party. How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa? Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates — despite being a twice-elected popular governor — highlights the same dynamic.
It is true, as Booman convincingly argues, that “the bigfoot reporters move like a herd” and “put fingers on the scales in elections all the time.” But sometimes that’s done for petty reasons (such as their 2000 swooning for George Bush’s personality and contempt for Al Gore’s); in this case, it is being done (with the effect if not intent) to maintain simplistic partisan storylines and exclude important views from the discourse.
However much progressives find Paul’s anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Paul’s domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldn’t progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it. GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.
The nuance there is Greenwald basically saying: Yeah, sure progressives find Paul's "anti-choice views to be disqualifying" and while his "policies are anathema to liberals" they give Reid and Obama a pass on equivalent or worse views.
I mean, why are Democrats "cheering for a "war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior" when they could be "cheering" the genuine Ron Paul?
Greenwald is delusional, and your spin doesn't work. He holds Democrats in contempt and spends a lot of ink defending Ron and Rand Paul against criticism from Democrats.
Glenn Greenwald defend Rand Paul against "Democratic myths"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022485711
You want Greenwald to have his cake and eat it too by claiming that he isn't “'endorsing' or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy." He's just saying Ron Paul is the best, "genuine," on every issue, yet instead of cheering Paul, Democrats are "cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior."
Why can't Democrats see what Greenwald sees in Paul?
That's the nuance. Greenwald is delusional.
= new reply since forum marked as read
rofl 
