Ron Paul in Hollis, NH (photo: Gage Skidmore)

There’s something deeply bothersome about the way which Raw Story executive editor Megan Carpentier misquoted Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald in a post published at The Guardian on January 8 that was titled, “Ron Paul’s useful idiots on the left.” What she did was no different than what someone with a news organization like Fox News might do to form the basis for a news story designed to further transform someone into a person that deserves to be hated and ignored.

Carpentier, after listing off a litany of fair reasons why progressives should oppose Paul, wrote:

…There have been calls by progressives, most notably Glenn Greenwald, to ignore all of that and more, and focus instead on Obama’s policy failings to have “an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism”. He went on to argue that there are no policy priorities more imperative than those – certainly not abortion, immigration rights, LGBT equality, racial justice or any other aspect of the US’s extensive foreign policy. (Greenwald, who is gay, was in the relatively privileged position of being able to travel to Brazil to circumvent Doma.) And so people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan.

One does not have to speak for Greenwald and defend him. He responded in the comments section:

The paragraph that purports to describe what I wrote is an absolute, 100% pure fabrication – so reckless and false that it is inexcusable.

Not only did I never argue what is attributed to me, but I repeatedly renounced those ideas – I even put those sentences in bold-face print, at the start of my piece, to prevent these sorts of blatant, sloppy fabrications. Is this really too complex a thought for Carpentier to process? Apparently:

Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.

He noted he had written, “It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else.” And also, “There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole.”

Greenwald also addressed the outrageous statement by Carpentier that he is “privileged” because he is “forced to live outside of my own country in order to be with my same-sex spouse” calling it one of the “dumbest claims ever.”

…The reality is that issues of gay equality affect me personally more than any other single issue. Because I’m not Muslim, I’m unlikely to be put in GITMO, or drone-attacked; because I’m not a racial minority, I’m unlikely to be consigned to a cage for decades because of drug possession. If I were judging based purely on self-interest, I would be a single issue voter – simply asking which candidate is best on gay equality…

Now, you might be saying, what does it matter? Why recount this argument? Why not let it remain another clash between two progressives worth forgetting? And, because it involves GOP candidate Ron Paul, this is a waste of time. Paul is anti-reproductive rights, a gay-demonizer, a candidate opposed to public education and Social Security, a favorite congressman of the John Birch Society and someone with links to the Constitution Party, which promotes Christian Reconstructionism. That is all fair. But, that lets progressives condemning whom they call “useful idiots” off the hook.

Carpentier’s premise for her article is rather dubious in the first place.

If you told a liberal in 2008 that progressives ought to give Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul a chance because he was the most anti-war candidate on the ballot, you would have been laughed out of the room – or, more likely, the bar. But in 2012, some prominent (and white, male) progressives are arguing exactly that. What’s changed? Not Ron Paul, that’s for certain.

No, but then there was a Democratic primary with truly progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. There was absolutely no reason why “progressive voices” like Greenwald would have been drawing attention to how Paul brings attention to what they consider to be vital and important issues like war, national security and civil liberties because actual progressives aside from Obama were in the race challenging someone whom progressives now know was simply pretending to be a progressive and is really more of a pragmatic centrist.

This is why Greenwald wrote the posts on Paul. There are no primary challengers to President Obama’s re-election.

For the record, Dr. Cornel West and Ralph Nader, two individuals regarded by Democrats as egotistical pariahs, tried to organize a slate of primary challengers that would run against Obama. Spiritual progressive Rabbi Michael Lerner appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell just over a year ago and made a case for “primarying” Obama:

…The fact of the matter is, is that on one issue after another, where he has shown no backbone, whether it be in regard to escalating a war in Afghanistan, whether it be in regard to abandoning the public option for health care, whether it be in regard to not prosecuting those who ordered torture during the Bush years, whether it is on gays in the military, on issue after issue after issue, has shown no backbone whatsoever.

But as one of the commentators in the introduction to this program said, where does anybody have to go? If all we are going to do is sit on talk shows and complain, that`s not going to have any impact.

If you want to move Obama in anyway, there has to be a serious political alternative and we can`t allow the Republicans to win. The only way to have a serious political alternative is to run a serious campaign in the Democratic primaries…

With no primary challengers (which is likely the result of intimidation from the White House and Democratic Party operatives), progressives face this uncomfortable truth: there is no incentive or reason for President Obama to address numerous issues of war, national security and civil liberties during the 2012 Election, especially if Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP’s nominee.

Debates between Obama and Romney can be expected to avoid issues of indefinite detention, torture and Guantanamo. They can be expected to avoid discussion of American empire and whether the US should have 1000 military bases all over the world. The moderators from establishment media outlets have no reason to ask them about ending the war on drugs or repealing the PATRIOT Act because they mostly agree. There may be some debate on wars in the Middle East and striking Iran but those debates won’t be about the illegality or immorality of the wars. Rather, the discussion will be focused on managerial aspects like how one would do a better job than the other of handling threats properly. There would be no debate over the weak case for continuing to engage in nation building in Afghanistan or lack of evidence to support planning a strike against Iran that would likely devastate Iran and plunge America into another war.

How sad is it that President Barack Obama will not raise these issues during the 2012 Election?

Why is it so difficult for progressives to concede the basic point that Ron Paul’s presence in the race, the fact that he is polling second in many states and has been a part of primetime debates, means many Americans are exposed to talk about war, civil liberties (excluding reproductive rights and marriage equality) and national security and this raises their awareness and understanding of these issues?

Why does this point immediately become construed as anything more than this basic point, one where there should be no argument? Here’s why.

Progressives refuse to concede that Obama is that poor on these issues or that Paul is in fact genuinely antiwar or for individual liberty. Somehow, as Ben Adler of The Nation argues, his views against reproductive rights make the views he expresses on all other civil liberties issues insignificant. And, somehow, that he would in a perfect world abolish the United Nations renders what he has to say about foreign policy inconsequential as well. [Also, progressives widely agree he cannot win so why care about how he is promoting much needed awareness and discussion on key issues?]

Carpentier suggested on Twitter yesterday that Paul isn’t really antiwar because he voted for the Afghanistan War. Progressives are to ignore Paul when he talks about how he didn’t want to be drafted to go off and kill people in Vietnam and they are supposed to pretend he isn’t serious when he wholly condemns what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan because he voted for the Afghanistan War. This is a pretty purist stance to take against Paul, one that if held toward progressive Democrats would disqualify most from having “genuine” or “relevant” antiwar views (except for Rep. Barbara Lee who voted against the Afghanistan War).

Now, author, lawyer and civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer (who is not a heterosexual white male) writes for The Atlantic:

…liberal support for Paul is quite weak, and telling: it reflects the dangerous, anti-libertarian drift of today’s liberals and progressives. With some exceptions, liberals tend to focus on Paul’s alleged bigotry, his newsletters, and his opposition to anti-discrimination laws, while ignoring his lonely support for fundamental liberties.

You don’t have to overlook or make excuses for Paul’s weaknesses on civil rights or his apparent courting of virulent right-wing extremists to appreciate and applaud his support for liberty, where it arguably matters most. After all, Paul poses no threat to racial and religious tolerance, civil rights, or entitlements; he has virtually no chance of becoming president and his own alleged intolerance is, to say the least, unpopular. (It demonstrates the declining respectability of overt bigotry.) But he has an opportunity to organize and perhaps empower voters who oppose the Bush/Obama security state. If only that were a priority, for Democrats and Republicans alike…

Progressives should also stop and consider what it is like for people around the world to have their rights and civil liberties subverted and undermined by American efforts to “police the world” and make it “more safe” through wars and nation-building (all basically a cover for expanding empire to maintain and solidify control as the number one superpower in the world). Paul rejects the idea of waging empire and meddling in other country’s affairs. Given America’s track record under Bush and Obama, America has lost a lot of moral authority. Progressives worry a Paul presidency would mean America was not engaged in diplomatic “peacekeeping” efforts. For much of the world’s population, after reading documents released by WikiLeaks, this might not be that much of a problem. They might be more than happy if America would just focus on America’s national defense at home and stop trying to “help” them “build democracy” and tell them how to “address” human rights issues.

In conclusion, the back-and-forth on Paul exposes how presidential elections are a complete sideshow for the 1% or the powerful lobbies in Washington. The election industrial-complex limits voices and choices. It renders candidates, like Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson, “unpeople” the moment it looks like they no longer have momentum, the instant they look like they have no chance of winning. They do this immediately to people constantly spouting off views that seemingly threaten the establishment. They will even do it to someone like Paul who has actually gone up in the polls in New Hampshire (see this report from CBS’ “The Early Show”).

Therefore, when progressives write about Paul’s presence in the election, they aren’t writing to help him build support to win primaries. They are writing because they know the confines of elections well and are impressed with how Paul continues to maintain momentum even as he boldly challenges them. And they appreciate how he might animate voters to confront both the GOP nominee and President Obama by questioning them in 2012.

8:36 PM David Corn reports Santorum aides have covered up windows with campaign signs to block view of Occupiers who are protesting outside.

8:25 PM Obscure but sober comment from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on OWS in interview by Power Index:

…Shouldn’t necessarily say that they are a great and hopeful sign…If you saw someone’s leg off they will scream and that’s what’s happening to a number of populations. They are acting against the pressure that is being applied to them…When you look at Occupy Wall Street we shouldn’t think that this is merely the result of politically educated youth, educated as a result of the internet, or as a result of mobile phone calls or WikiLeaks or YouTube, all these things are factors…It is also a back reaction to the degree of wealth inequality and oppression that is occurring

Also he pointed out “crowd control techniques and weapons have leapt forward over the past year but so had the ability of people to ‘see the abuses that are occurring.’”

8:15 PM Ron Paul supporters and Occupy protesters show up to protest at a Newt Gingrich campaign event. He cancels for “security reasons.” Both Ron Paul’s supporters and occupiers are really making these GOP candidates’ campaigns a living hell. It’s great, right?

6:30 PM New music: “All Day, All Week” from The Rebellions

6:04 PM NYCLU letter against the continued presence of barricades at Zuccotti Park:

Since November 15, 2011, metal barricades have encircled the perimeter of Liberty Plaza. In addition, members of the public are subject to ad hoc, arbitrary and inconsistent rules and conditions restricting their use of the park. These practices have substantially modified LibertyPlaza, making it a wholly inhospitable space for the public. Putting aside for the moment theserious constitutional concerns raised by these practices, it is abundantly clear that suchrestrictions are in direct conflict with zoning laws, Brookfield’s legal obligations under a 1968 special zoning permit, and longstanding City policy.

5:57 PM Police investigating whether a staffer for Newt Gingrich assaulted an Occupy protester

5:54 PM January 16, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, the Occupy movement will “Occupy the Dream.”

5:49 PM Occupy New Hampshire’s die-in outside of Obama’s New Hampshire headquarters

5:47 PM Obama’s new chief-of-staff, Jacob Lew, like other member of his administration, worked for a Big Bank. He worked as CEO of Citibank’s alternate investment unit from 2006-2009.

5:20 PM More on the homeless Occupy Oakland activist who faces possible life in prison.

3:25 PM Veterans of earlier movements offer Chicago occupiers advice.

2:35 PM Fifteen year-old boy is shot dead in Kano, Nigeria, where “Occupy Nigeria” protests have been taking place. Police opened fire and killed the boy with live ammunition. This happened after tear gas had been fired off to stop the protesters from trying to get into the Government House.

2:30 PM Newt Gingrich’s attack ad against Romney hits him for his role in Bain Capital’s downsizing and essentially is along the lines of what Occupy Wall Street has been saying about the financial system for months: “You have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?” Of course, Gingrich probably is just desperately trying to poll better than third or fourth place.

Anyways, conservative writer Michelle Malkin thinks Gingrich (and Perry) are transforming into Occupy Wall Street zealots because of what they are saying on the campaign trail. One might ask Malkin if she think Gingrich is planting OWS hecklers at campaign events to get attention.

12:03 pM New website – Future of Occupy – setup to promote conversation on what Occupy stands for and where it should be headed.

11:55 AM Occupy Anthem Blue Cross: Healthcare Now! to march in LA late in the morning

11:51 AM A retiring congressman on the “1%” that think Congress is doing an “excellent” job.

11:50 AM Both Occupy London and UK Uncut were listed on seven business community updates on terrorism and extremism from the City of London police. The peaceful protest groups were listed alongside al Qaeda and the FARC in Colombia. Rizwaan Sabir, for The Independent, did some investigation into their listing on the updates. And, he concludes:

…City of London Police must issue a full and unconditional apology to Occupy LSX and all other peaceful organisations included in communiqués featuring violent groups. Occupy LSX are not domestic extremists or terrorists, so City Police should have no problem understanding why Occupy LSX and its supporters, such as myself, are deeply offended by their repeated attempts to insinuate such sinister connections…

Original Post

Reuters has a report up on what they think the Occupy movement is doing to keep the media and public’s attention. Noting that occupations have been surviving the cold winter and even perhaps “protest fatigue,” the report concisely shows how Occupy is confronting the 2012 Election, the economy and housing, how they are organizing in cyberspace and what they have done to transform culture. It is a good primer on the impact Occupy has had thus far and what Occupy is doing now in the way of organizing.

Here are some comments on the report—

Like most establishment media, Reuters suggests ”the lack of a coherent set of demands has made it difficult for the young movement to affect policy or otherwise score victories that might keep recruits coming.” The absence of demands has greatly bothered establishment media from the beginning. Few outlets have bothered to explore whether offering demands would go anywhere given the abysmal record Congress has when it comes to advancing legislation the American population wants it to pass. Usually, Congress only has time for the White House and the top 1%’s agenda.

The 99% have to really make a ruckus. For example, health “reform” was not taken up until years after it became a top issue among Americans. Those who watched Michael Moore’s Sicko know Hillary Clinton tried to reform health care in the 1990s and was stopped by powerful special interests like the health insurance industry. The movement could have immediately offered policy solutions or demands for addressing economic problems and those proposed solutions or demands could have led the media to dismiss them. Progressive groups had been offering solutions and demands for years. They had gone nowhere or enjoyed very limited success. And so, it should be clear that the tactic of occupying and having a 24/7 protest (i.e. the physical presence of a camp) was what made Occupy a top news story, not its prospective ability to actually push Congress to act on economic issues.

Firedoglake earns recognition in the section “Occupy Real Space.” As ”signature” occupations were shut down in New York, Oakland, Portland and Boston, etc, the establishment media began to assume Occupy was no longer trying to have encampments in cities because the more prominent camps had been shut down. FDL counted the camps that we had been tracking and came up with more than 60 camps that were still going. This proved it was false to suggest or imply there were no more Occupy camps.

In the fourth month of the movement, that there are still about 60 camps is impressive.  The success of these camps and the struggles Occupy groups have endured after they have been shut down indicate that having a permanent presence remains critical.

Finally, to Reuters credit, it gets something right that most US media has refused to admit. Occupy is not a left-wing Tea Party.

Occupy has been likened to the conservative Tea Party movement, which emerged in 2009 and helped elect dozens of Republicans. But many in the Occupy movement specifically reject electoral politics, which they see as hopelessly tainted by money.

Firedoglake’s premier live blog on Occupy Wall Street & all things “Occupy” continues. All times are EST. Updates will appear at the top of the post. Email kevin.gosztola@firedoglake.com with any news tips, questions or updates.

Firedoglake’s premier live blog on Occupy Wall Street & all things “Occupy” continues. All times are EST. Email kevin.gosztola@firedoglake.com with any news tips, questions or updates.

10:24 PM Gov. Chris Christie does what most politicians haven’t the temerity or guts to do when Occupy “mic checks” or heckles them: he uses the moment to make an underhanded point about Obama that is guaranteed to resonate with the GOP base.

10:22 PM

7:51 PM And days after it began, the news wire AP notices “Occupy Nigeria” is ongoing and publishes this report.

6:00 PM Reuters: Occupy Oakland had six arrested last night. One of the arrests was for carrying what police call a “quarter stick of dynamite.” The occupation had called for an “anti-police” rally. (Actually, that’s sanitizing it: they wanted a “Fuck the Police” rally to condemn the abuse they have had to endure from Oakland police.)

5:50 PM The cost of the occupation for Occupy London

2:10 PM Occupy Tucson to march on Tuesday to save ethnic studies

1:11 PM A Nigerian rap song with video from the “Occupy Nigeria” protests. (This could probably use some audio editing but for the most part a nicely produced music video.)

1:05 PM At Occupy New Hampshire, a performance of an excerpt from Mark Twain’s “Politics”

12:47 PM Not too much more going on with Occupy today outside of the New Hampshire primary protests and Occupy Oakland videos of Oakland police repression. CNN has this report on “Occupy the Primaries” and the camp that is home base for the movement’s activities. Occupiers have tried to persuade Republican supporters of the candidates that “Occupy” is not affiliated with the Democratic Party.

12:00 PM Another video on the photographer “Geekeasy” who was targeted by Oakland police. This one has footage from prior to the arrest of officer videotaping him (perhaps in preparation for a future arrest).

10:33 AM Indiana occupiers join with unions to fight state push for “right to work” law

9:47 AM In Oakland, police seemingly terrorize a group of Occupy Oakland protesters and go after a woman with a bicycle, who isn’t really doing anything at all. She is punched. Some of the incident caught on video here.

Saturday

11:10 PM Walkupy arrives in Charlotte. Two are arrested in front of Bank of America headquarters. Here’s video shot by Walkupy. Action begins around the 7:00 mark.

11:00 PM Like what’s said in this tweet:

10:55 PM This happened earlier this morning. Police finally came to move out Occupy Bloomington.

8:54 PM Occupy Tulsa joined in an antiwar protest to call for the US to get out of Afghanistan

8:50 PM Occupy Las Vegas targets home foreclosures and would like to camp out in front of some of these homes that face foreclosure.

8:47 PM On the occupiers who have fallen in love and found romance at Occupy DC

7:05 PM Matthew Filipowicz (@mattfilipowicz) is at the rally outside the GOP debate. He says the scene is kind of crazy and suggests there actually might be more “occupiers” than people there who support the GOP candidates.

Filipowicz tweets this photo:

6:20 PM Occupy the Primaries rallies outside of the GOP debate in New Hampshire

5:15 PM The Bay Area News Group (BANG) has sent the Occupied Oakland Tribune a “cease and desist” letter. Occupy Oakland has posted a press release indicating Occupied Oakland Tribune is not about to bow down to this intimidation.

In their cease and desist letter, BANG declared that the Occupied Oakland Tribune’s use of “the Oakland Tribune’s trademarks tarnishes and diminishes the value of these famous names.” But these arguments will hold no water in a court of law, much less in the court of public opinion.

There is no possibility of consumer confusion between the Occupied Oakland Tribune (OOT) and the Oakland Tribune (OT). The OOT uses a different format, graphics, font and layout than the OT. The banner of the OOT clearly distinguishes itself as “Occupied,” referencing Occupy Oakland and the 99%. The OOT is not sold in the same locations that the OT is sold because it is not, in fact, sold at all, but given away for free at protests and events organized by Occupy Oakland. Oakland readers are sophisticated enough to tell the difference between these two extremely different publications. Additionally, since the OOT is not sold, trademark law does not apply.

The OOT is a commentary on the OT and mainstream media in general. It has social and cultural value and the name “Occupied Oakland Tribune” in this instance falls under fair use. BANG’s cease and desist letter is an absurd attack on First Amendment rights against the protected political speech of the OOT.

Is this news group really about to make a mistake here that even the Wall Street Journal hasn’t made? Because there is an Occupied Wall Street Journal and the management or owners of this newspaper have not done much in response to being “occupied.”

5:00 PM Occupy MN (Minnesota) calls for massive action against suppression of the Occupy movement

4:50 PM ICYMI: National Nurses United’s “Nightmare on Wall Street”

3:24 PM This is video of the NYPD arresting two individuals at the OWS NDAA protest at Grand Central station earlier in the week.

3:13 PM Al Jazeera English’s “Inside Story” on the problem of money in politics and the 2012 Election.

3:11 PM Chris Faraone (@Fara1) is covering Occupy the Primaries in New Hampshire for the Boston Phoenix. There are members of Occupy Boston present. He reports that hundreds are out marching. There is an LGBT contingent. The LGBT contingent has chanted, “RuPaul, not Ron Paul!”

Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change (@LukeRudkowski) is also on the scene. In fact, this morning he was at a Romney event and got to ask Romney a question and then was kicked out. He also watched several occupiers interrupt Romney and then get forced out of the event by security.

He has now confronted Santorum and Gingrich plus there’s a debate tonight that he will be covering.

Here’s a photo of Santorum that Rudkowski took just before he was “mic checked” by occupiers.

3:08 PM “PunkBoyinSF” is livestreaming from a Bank of America branch in San Francisco. They are protesting foreclosures and evictions.

3:07 PM Occupy Wall Street is holding a Bill of Rights funeral at Liberty Square.

3:00 PM Academy Park, where Occupy Albany was at for months until they were evicted in December, will be “symbolically” re-occupied.

2:10 PM Raw video of the Occupy Oakland teepee raid that happened on Wednesday, which shows the OPD targeting “Chris” for arrest.

1:07 PM The five most important Occupy posts of the week (The American Prospect)

12:49 PM The city has done everything to get the occupiers off of the courthouse lawn, but Occupy Missoula in Montana continues to “occupy” with tents. They have been told by the city the tents need to go but a letter given to the occupation does not indicate when the city would begin enforcing the order to remove tents.

11:36 AM Occupy Des Moines is told by the city be out of Stewart Square, which they have been occupying for months, by January 31.

11:34 AM Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has released a report on the arrests of individuals loosely affiliated with Occupy Chapel Hill, who were in a vacant business building in November. A tactical police team had been used to raid the building and make arrests. The report is largely supportive of the police action.

9:48 AM Occupy Wall Street has officially taken up the issue of a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and declare corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

2:00 AM As with the Iowa Caucuses, the Occupy movement is scheduling many actions/protests ahead of the upcoming New Hampshire primary.

1:55 AM Occupied Oakland Tribune is trying to print two more editions

1:45 AM Occupy Wall Street Twitter account is going after a Shorty Award

1:30 AM Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a report on the arguments Occupy Pittsburgh intends to use in court to show they have the right to remain in Mellon Park, a private park owned by the bank BNY Mellon.

…Attorneys for the group said in their first response filed in court that they believe BNY Mellon gave protesters a license to stay on the first day of their occupation. On that day, Oct. 15, a Pittsburgh police lieutenant told protesters BNY Mellon said they could stay “as long as you don’t damage the property,” according to court documents…

1:20 AM The city of Portland, Maine, is in court arguing it has the right to evict Occupy Maine. The city has asked the judge to look at situations in five other cities. However, the occupation’s lawyer, John Branson, suggests there are some key differences between what has happened in other cities. For example, Occupy Boston never sought a city permit to remain in Dewey Square.

1:15 AM Is time really running out for Occupy Rochester?

1:10 AM Occupy Austin has been going for three months now.