Site Search: WWW DTN

Friday, March 04, 2005

Horowitz Exposes David Brock as Paid Hatchet Man for Soros

Newsroom shills for the left tend to fare badly in confrontations with bloggers, as former New York Times executive editor Howell Raines, former CBS anchorman Dan Rather and former CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan learned the hard way. Now another leftwing journalist hangs on the ropes, bruised and bloodied from an ill-advised brawl with yet another indignant and fatally well-informed weblogger.

This time the recipient of the beating is David Brock – founder and CEO of MediaMatters.org, a self-styled media "watchdog" group more accurately described as a smear site targeting conservative journalists. The blogger is author, journalist and conservative activist David Horowitz.

"Nobody can utter a word about [George] Soros without [Brock] pounding on him," Horowitz told Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) this week. He charged that Brock's MediaMatters.org is "a hit site that is set up to attack all the enemies of the Soros network. There is a shadow party that has taken control of the Democratic Party and David Brock is their rapid response team."

Horowitz first fingered Brock as a Soros plant in a blog entry of December 1, 2004, published on Horowitz’s news and commentary site FrontPageMagazine.com. Brock’s organization responded with a blanket denial the same day, stating, "To date, neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated."

The Shadow Party

Brock was using weasel words. It is quite likely that he never cashed a check bearing Soros’s signature. Yet, without Soros funding, Media Matters would not exist.

In a three-part series posted to FrontPage in October 2004, David Horowitz and I exposed the inner workings of Soros’ political machine, which we called "the Shadow Party." We followed the money trail and demonstrated that the network of supposedly "independent" 527 committees and other non-profit groups which played such a key role in funding John Kerry’s campaign were not "independent" at all. On the contrary, Soros had created and organized the network from the top down, controlling it through a highly centralized, corporate-style command structure.

In our series, "The Shadow Party," we identified seven non-profit groups – dubbing them the "Seven Sisters" – through which Soros administered his Shadow Party’s far-flung operations. In alphabetical order, the Seven Sisters are: America Coming Together; America Votes; Center for American Progress; Joint Victory Campaign 2004; The Media Fund; MoveOn.org and the Thunder Road Group.

As Horowitz explained in a blog entry of December 2, 2004, Brock’s "watchdog" organization Media Matters depends for its lifeblood on the Shadow Party. Horowitz wrote:

"Peter Lewis, a billionaire who is a Soros crony and has funded one of Soros' 527 operations to the tune of $7 million, is a funder of Brock and Media Matters. … the Brock operation is viewed by its funders as part of the leftist Shadow Party that Soros has constructed and that includes such organizations as Harold Ickes' Media Fund and John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta, who was Bill Clinton's chief of staff and whose Center is a Soros-funded operation, seems to have been Brock's patron in finding funders, according to the NY Times. The same source indicates that Brock also consulted Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Al Gore. … In addition to Hindery and [Stephen] Bing, Brock is funded by MoveOn.org, which is a Soros beneficiary and a key player in the Shadow Party cabal…"
Horowitz went on to cite a National Review article of June 14, 2004, in which Byron York identified Leo Hindery Jr. as a major funder of Media Matters. In addition to being former CEO of the scandal-plagued Global Crossing, Hindery is a Democrat strategist and moneyman who recently made an unsuccessful bid to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

York’s article quotes Hindery explaining Brock’s role in the Shadow Party machine: "There are people like Mike Lux [a Democratic consultant who runs an important ad agency], who are into the strategy point of view, there’s Podesta, who’s into the think tank/intellectual side, and I think the third part of the triangle is David [Brock]’s initiative."

To this, Horowitz deadpanned, "If so, the IRS should take another look at Brock's operation which has filed as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, which is barred by law from being the third part of a political operation."

Raines, Rather, Jordan… Brock?

Despite the damning evidence Horowitz brought to bear on his blog, his charges of a hidden alliance between Brock and Soros went unnoticed for three months. Then came vindication.

On Thursday, March 3, Cybercast News Service ran a story that not only corroborated Horowitz’s charges, but forced Media Matters to back down from its previous blanket denial of a Soros connection. In a piece headlined, "David Brock Group Backpedals on Soros Funding," CNS correspondent Marc Morano writes:
"After initially claiming on Dec. 1, 2004 that `neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated,' the group is no longer disavowing any connection with groups `affiliated' with Soros. … Media Matters for America (MMA) spokeswoman Sally Aman responded to Cybercast News Service's questions with an e-mail. `In response to your query regarding donor funding Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros,' Aman stated, no longer denying any relationship with organizations affiliated with Soros.’"
And so it begins. Howell Raines, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan… will David Brock fall next?


23 Comments:

horowitzisawesome said...

Huh. So does that make his website less accurate? He's just taking quotes. Would you like him to stop quoting the right? I don't understand what part of monitoring is being objected to? The fact-checking? Where have they made mistakes?

Fri Mar 04, 04:48:48 PM  
Richard Poe said...

horowitzisawesome asks: "So does that make his website less accurate? He's just taking quotes. Would you like him to stop quoting the right?…Where have they made mistakes?"I gather that you are unfamiliar with Mr. Brock's methods. Sadly, I cannot share your innocence, having personally been the target of Mr. Brock's smears on more than one occasion.

Fri Mar 04, 05:24:51 PM  
beakerkin said...

Was he this unstable when he was a conservative. I remembered an articulate bright guy when he was interviewed on talk Radio. He seems to have lost iy.

Fri Mar 04, 06:14:01 PM  
Chris Clarke said...

Interesting that an architect of this site would complain about smears.

Sat Mar 05, 02:25:19 AM  
Richard Poe said...

Why is that "interesting," Mr. Clarke? Are you suggesting that DTN has "smeared" anyone? If so, please be specific. Our stated policy here is that we will correct any information we have published which turns out, upon investigation, to have been erroneous.

Sat Mar 05, 04:43:26 AM  
EightGun said...

The problem with David Brock is that he doesn't just "take quotes." He distorts things. David Brock is a genuinely bad human being because, having once been a conservative, he knows that he misrepresents the right. He has been misrepresenting himself, too--hiding the sources of his funding. The fact that he has been reluctant to admit the Soros funding suggests the possibility that he is little more than a Soros tool--but we all knew he was some kind of tool, right?

Sat Mar 05, 11:02:12 AM  
Chris Clarke said...

So you'll be retracting the allegation that the US left is broadly suppportive of right-wing Islamic fundamentalists, then?

Sat Mar 05, 02:34:14 PM  
Chris Clarke said...

Oh, and as long as I'm here - and I am being completely sincere about this - I'd like to thank David for writing The Free World Colossus. I realize he doesn't stand by what he wrote therein, which is a shame... but it is a fine and well-written book, and one that I have found quite valuable to recommend to young people who want a relatively accurate treatment of US foreign policy in the mid-Twentieth century.

Sat Mar 05, 02:36:29 PM  
Bob Meyer said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Sat Mar 05, 07:13:29 PM  
Bob Meyer said...

This post has been removed by the author.

Sat Mar 05, 07:17:16 PM  
Bob Meyer said...

"And so it begins. Howell Raines, Dan Rather, Eason Jordan… will David Brock fall next?"

How can one fall from the gutter?

Sat Mar 05, 07:21:53 PM  
Rightminded said...

Chris Clarke asks of Mr. Poe, "So you'll be retracting the allegation that the US left is broadly suppportive (s) of right-wing Islamic fundamentalists, then?"

First of all, let me correct you with respect to your inability to properly classify "islamo-fascist." They are like all other fascist ideologies, dyed in the wool leftist.

Secondly, yet foremost, the American left has tried it all to sabotage every effort that "W" has made in this war with islamo-fascist terror.

Who or what one chooses to fight, and who or what one chooses to support, speaks volumes!

Sun Mar 06, 02:28:14 AM  
horowitzisawesome said...

It's weird. I just checked out that mediamatters.org site to check up on Poe's claim that he's been personally smeared and I failed to find any evidence of that. He takes your quotes, in context, and that points out that you may have made several factual errors. It doesn't appear to smear you. It just points out that you're really not the world's most thorough fact-checker.

Mon Mar 07, 02:40:29 PM  
i can do jr. high humour too said...

The problem with David Brock is that he doesn't just "take quotes." He distorts things.The above commenter was right-- mediamatters just quotes people and fact checks. You gotta love it when somebody just tries to prove something by assertion. There's no proof that Brock has distorted anything. I guess if you live in a world where things are true just because you say them without providing evidence, that is good enough.

"First of all, let me correct you with respect to your inability to properly classify "islamo-fascist." They are like all other fascist ideologies, dyed in the wool leftist."Bwa ha ha ha-- this site is pure hilarity! Fascism is what is on the far right side of the spectrum. Hitler was a fascist, and was an extreme right-winger. Just as the Islamic religious fundamentalists who blog people up are on the far right.

This site is 100% pure projection.

Tue Mar 08, 05:26:00 PM  
Rightminded said...

Obviously, i can do jr. high humour too, you Sir, have never picked up a real, in-depth history book.

The terms left-wing, and right- wing were coined to describe the warring, rival factions of different socialist movements, just before the outbreak of WWII.

THE RIGHTMINDED OF THIS WORLD HAVE NOTHING, WHATSOEVER, TO DO WITH THE FASCIST, RIGHT-WING, MURDERING, ISLAMO-Nazis-FASCIST-SOCIALISTS.

Turn off MTV, and crack those books!

Tue Mar 08, 07:36:42 PM  
Alex said...

You know, I may just be a simple "neo-Bolshevist" (while we're on the subject of smears), but I'm starting to get a little confused about history...

Communists are leftists.
Democrats are leftists.
Now, apparently, fascists are leftists.

It just seems like the fascists shouldn't have killed so many of their communist and socialist bretheren, and those darn American leftists like Johnson and Truman should've realized that they were on the same side as their fellow leftists in Moscow.

I mean, it looks a little like you're intentionally stripping the term "left" of any specific meaning for use as an all-purpose slur, but then again, we are the Big Tent Party.

Tue Mar 08, 09:29:54 PM  
Chris Clarke said...

Heh. Ha ha! HA HA HA!

Oh, sorry. Rude of me to laugh.

The terms left-wing, and right- wing were coined to describe the warring, rival factions of different socialist movements, just before the outbreak of WWII..


...for values of "just before WWII" that would include theFrench Revolution, that is.

Heh.

Tue Mar 08, 09:52:03 PM  
Rightminded said...

Chris Clarke writes:

"Heh. Ha ha! HA HA HA!

Oh, sorry. Rude of me to laugh.

The terms left-wing, and right- wing were coined to describe the warring, rival factions of different socialist movements, just before the outbreak of WWII..


...for values of "just before WWII" that would include theFrench Revolution, that is.

Heh."

Some people actually fall for this kind of childish nonsense, with the obligatory Alinsky giggles, to boot.

Rightminded points out when the terms left-WING, and right-WING were coined. Then Chris Clarke, either out of ignorance or an attempt to obfuscate, points out what I have already pointed out on another thread, that the cancerous left started in France, and I will now add, has metastasized into the Democratic party of today--Remember, Howard Dean is your leader.

You rookies are showing your purposeful stupidity. These matters were covered years ago. The similarities between the National Socialist, and Islamo-Fascist-Socialist are overwhelming, replete with the suicide bombers.

Tue Mar 08, 11:40:58 PM  
Rightminded said...

Hey Alex, maybe this will help you, and your ilk, work out your confusion.

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/gov_philosophy/socialist_origins_of_neonazism.htm

Wed Mar 09, 12:39:25 AM  
Rightminded said...

Here are some left-wing-"islamo-fascists."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/pflp.html

Who would have thunk it! I am in no way even remotely associated with this evil, but Chris, Alex, and the rest of you lefties ARE!

IT IS IN YOUR ROOTS!

Wed Mar 09, 01:04:59 AM  
Chris Clarke said...

You people really are beyond the pale. You're what leftists like me would put together as examples of the worst sort of unfair stereotypes of conservatives.

Are you sure you're not all working for the DNC? You're missing a paycheck if you aren't.

Wed Mar 09, 02:59:18 AM  
Rightminded said...

Whatever gets you through the night, there, Chris Clarke?

As far as I am concerned, you Sir, are mated!

Actually, you were wise to put your tail between your legs, and admit to defeat, by using the stock Victi-crat ploy of--boo whoo! boo whoo! (:-::::::: you are not fair.

I was prepared to give you the name of the Italian Marxist that created fascism, and why. I was also prepared to enlighten you with how the term right-wing was "MISTAKENLY" given to the left-wing ideology of fascism, JUST BEFORE WWII.

It's for the best, however, since you southpaws only believe what the DNC wants you to believe.

HEY ALEX! PASS THE KOOL-AID TO CHRIS, PLEASE.

Wed Mar 09, 10:32:10 PM  
David said...

I guess you can sit and play all night with who is "left" and who is "right" - or, you can select philosophies and ideologies to support.

For example, classic "leftist" philosophies foster bigger governments, more government control, and the ironic claims of "diversity". Just as college campuses sponser "diversity" by silencing dissenting opinions, Naziism tried the same tactics against race, and Socialism tried against class.

Without specifying which is better, it is clear that Socialism is a left-wing philosophy. The clear governmental controls on business put Socialism into the left. Since Naziism is a form "national fascism", you can see its relationship as well. Islamo-fascists base their philosophy on religious cleansing, whereas naziism seemed to target "national" origins. Any philosophy which is based on eradicating large populations should be judged as such, and those who protect those who seek to kill indiscriminately carry the culpability as well.

If the left thinks that the desire to kill thousands or millions of Americans is bad, they should not defend those who embrace this desire.

In life, we are often judged by the company that we keep.

I choose not to befriend anyone who cheers the destruction of my nation. Even when they want to kill certain members of the society.

Sat Apr 23, 11:13:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Copyright 2003-2005 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org