In response to a criticism of inconsistency on his criticism of McCain's active support (which he is right to note is key) of an anti-Catholic (and other things) bigot, GG responds:
As I made repeatedly clear, I never supported, endorsed or "championed" Ron Paul, but rather, pointed out that he was the only presidential candidate consistently forcing into our political discourse two issues that urgently require attention -- the rotted and destructive premises of America's growing imperialism and the fundamental abandonment of our constitutional framework.
A few things can be said about this. First, since I think he did have a blindspot of sorts for Ron Paul, this underlines that no one is 100% right. Selective outrage is cheap when we pick the few weak spots of an otherwise on the whole on the money person to tar all that s/he says or think. In fact, it is a bad thing when we ignore the accuracy even on the whole very wrong individuals because we simply don't like them. Fair conduct involves a certain amount of respect even for those we rightly find distasteful. Overall, the "inconsistency" criticism often is pretty lame, since we often can find something inconsistent about people. It is a human trait. We must look at the argument being made.
[Thus, it should be underlined that I'm not missing the forest for the trees here ... the post on the whole, as are his blog posts generally, is on the money. McCain is actively supporting a bigot. It is wrong to blame someone for everyone that says good things about them -- though yeah at times in aggregate it might be suspicious -- but active support is quite another. The more his phoniness as someone we are supposed to respect comes out so that the regular voter knows about it, the better. Let me expand on this below*]
Second, GG probably should let this go. He "pointed" out in a few extended columns how Ron Paul was the "only" candidate that did things that is the focus of his blog. It is not a stretch to suggest this in some way "championed" the guy. As to "endorse," honestly, it is not really unreasonable given the selective extended focus on the guy that he supported him ... especially since GG is known to have libertarian leanings (some which more liberal readers probably would oppose on some level). The time spent focusing on the guy arguably spoke volumes, more than a simple "I endorse this guy" would. Surely, if you were a registered Republican, who would GG have you vote for?!
Finally, and this led to some of the outrage from bloggers he criticized in a rather petty way, "fundamental abandonment of our constitutional framework" doesn't quite work. Ron Paul has something of a one track mind -- he is concerned with federal power, including when it involves the leader of his own party (namely, the President) and foreign adventures resulting from its overuse. This is important and GG was right to focus upon it, though again, didn't Dennis Kucinich also talk about this? In fact, Chris Dodd did as well (one the executive power front), and GG in fact talked about him too. In real effect, did Paul really influence the debate more? Like it or not, he received very little coverage, and unlike Dodd, isn't really even seen as a respectable senior veteran of his party.
However, "our constitutional framework" involves more than concern with federal power, and that is the rub. Ron Paul in various cases (including involving abortion and homosexuals, the latter of some relevance to GG in particular) did not give proper respect to that aspect of federal. We were told in 1894 that "it cannot be too often repeated,-that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of the government and its employees of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of his life" ... the fact that states did the invading does not suddenly make it all better. Likewise, sometimes, it is totally proper for things to be of national concern in the domestic arena, including Social Security. This too is part of "our constitutional framework," and Paul was a lot weaker there as well.
The discussion today focuses on the problems with McCain, even if many might respect him for various reasons, some that actually are worthy of respect. The criticism holds even if GG might very well have a blindspot himself. But, if he does have something of a blindspot (or supplies an appearance of one by selective focus), it does provide a chance to make a broader point -- look at the person as a whole, especially when the job being sought warrants more than a narrow focus.
Such is why I would rather vote for Hillary Clinton is 2012 than in November 2008.
---
* I have grown tired of Thom Hartman and don't like Randy Rhodes, so when listening to afternoon radio, focus on sports and music. The hosts now and again reference political issues, and one guy mentioned he liked McCain. He is surely socially liberal/libertarian on many issues, though has knee-jerk tough on crime views and might just agree with McCain on Iraq (who knows?). It also reminds me of a radio goofball sort in '00 that mentioned Bush was someone he would like to have a beer with. Again, the fact Bush WOULDN'T was totally ignored. Grr.
I know that politics is not the point of these shows, but when the sports guys on the WFAN raise non-sports topics, as they do sometimes, they really have an obligation to take them seriously. Some caller sneered at Bruce Springsteen, one of the hosts a big fan, referencing his "41 shots" song. Shut up and sing (really said that). The host was uncomfortable with the song. Many who listen probably are not liberal, though I reckon there are sports fans like myself that are. One might clue them in the song was about an innocent guy who was blow away with what looked like excessive force. I wonder -- if the victim was white, would the caller be so outraged if a song referenced the fact?
Also, the hosts were annoyed when musicians made political comments, though one did note that many songs have a political component. Again, I know the show is not meant to be political, but if you raise the issue, you should do so correctly. And, this sort of thing is a good window into the regular voter, roughly speaking. Why should it be a problem that musicians have a certain "brand" that is not just seen in their songs, but also in their comments? This can be taken too far, but Bruce does have a political side, and not just his working men New Jersey perspective.
And, to be fair, the other host did note that fans often have a fair warning of what sort of person/group they are going to see. Likewise, they were right to say that musicians should not be given some special license -- their views are on the same level as everyone else's. A bit naive though, since -- like it or not -- celebrities both have a bigger megaphone and a certain additional cachet in our culture.
Still, this doesn't really make it right.