Posted at 6:09 AM on Thursday, December 02, 2004 by David Horowitz
Not unexpectedly, there is no correcting David Brock when he and his minions set out on a smear campaign. It all began with my attempt to chasten Al Franken for publishing a casual, unsubstantiated smear. He had referred to me as a "guest racist" on the Hannity & Colmes show. To Franken's credit, if it can be so described, he made no effort to provide evidence for the smear, because in fact there is none. This restraint in character assassination has proven to be something of a gold standard for judging just how low the Brock operation at Media Matters is.
In response to my article on Franken, the Brock crowd at Media Matters set out to "prove" that I was in fact a racist. They did so by dredging up two old smears the left had thrown my way, proving in the process how endemic character assassination is to the left, something I had pointed out in my piece. I exposed the lies that Brock rehashed. A racist article I was alleged to have written appeared in (and was defended against similar charges by) Salon.com, a left-wing magazine whose editors obviously have far more scruples than Brock. A racist statement I was alleged to have made was actually a statement manufactured by the individuals -- Jack White and Julian Bond -- who were accusing me of making it.
Brock responded to this too: by ignoring the correction entirely and adding new slanders. I'm not going to continue this fruitless chase by attempting to reply to this set of charges, which follow the Franken model: take an opinion difference and call it a "lie." However, their m.o. does reveal how contemptuous they are of the intellectual process itself. Their interest is solely in finding a sentence, remark, idea uttered by a conservative they can distort and deploy as a smear and then move on to another. Media Matters is a misnomer. What matters to them is tar and feathers.
There is one caveat I will make however, and one concession. In my description of Brock as having been funded by "Soros & Co.," I constructed my sentence a little carelessly (but only a little). Media Matters makes a big deal of this as a new Horowitz "lie" because Soros himself has not directly provided it funds. ("Even Horowitz's December 1 FrontPageMag.com column, in which he leveled his accusation, opened with an outright falsehood: Horowitz asserted that Media Matters has received funding from billionaire philanthropist George Soros. 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."
My original intention, in fact, was to refer to the "Soros crew" because I was aware that 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. Moreover, Brock's operation is a self-conceived adjunct of Soros' agendas in the Democratic Party. But the construction I chose in my response -- "Soros & Co." -- implied that Soros himself directly funded Brock's operation. What I meant to indicate by "Soros & Co." is that 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 fact, Brock's funders do see his operation as a leg of Soros' Shadow Party. An article by Byron York that appeared in the June 14, 2004 National Review describes Media Matters' funders, one of whom is Leo Hindery Jr., former CEO of scandal-ridden Global Crossing, who contributes to Democratic causes. "[Hindery] says he sees Media Matters as part of a coordinated action on the left. 'I thought this was a piece of the puzzle,' Hindery says. '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's initiative.' " 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.
In addition to Hindery and Bing, Brock is funded by MoveOn.org, which is a Soros beneficiary and a key player in the Shadow Party cabal, which is a left-wing juggernaut that seized control of the Democrat Party's presidential campaign in the last election and threatens to become the Party's dominant force. Another supporter of Brock is the Tides Center, which receives money from Soros and is itself the nerve center of the political left.
The comments of yet another funder, Susie Tompkins Buell, show how the left's thinking about conservatives is a matter of psychological projection. Buell, the co-founder of fashion giant Esprit, met Brock at a Hillary Clinton party. In York's account, "Buell listened as Brock, now a defector to 'progressive' causes, presented plans for Media Matters for America, his new Internet-based project to monitor and criticize conservative media. In a short time, she was sold. 'It just made so much sense to me,' Buell recalls. 'All this garbage that's coming out of the Right is like the worst contamination of this country. ...'"
Garbage and contamination, yes. But it's not coming from the right.
BTW: The infamous article "Guns Don't Kill Black People, Black People Do," from which a paragraph is ripped out of context and distorted by Brock, was approved for publication (and published) in Salon.com, whose editors are politically correct leftists on matters of race. FrontPage published it under the title "The "Devil Made Me Do It" (I'm having that changed so people who don't have a subscription to Salon can get it. It's also a chapter in my book The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits.) Here's the last sentence, which gives an idea of the perspective of this piece, which is a defense of the black community against its exploitation by the friends of David Brock: "The continued suffering of disadvantaged black communities and the continued under-par performance of black school children is a price the well-heeled civil rights establishment is apparently still willing to pay to keep their hope alive of continuing guilt tributes from their all too accommodating white 'oppressors.'”
NY Times Accomplice to Terror
Dealing with the unsavory Mr. Brock eats up valuable space on this site. A headline in the NY Times today reads "Prisoner Enters Palestinian Race for New Leader." The reference is to Marwan Barghouti, a man serving five life sentences for murder. This is the Times' not-so-subtle way of supporting terrorists. Somewhat parallel to the Times' outrageous inflation of the Abu Ghraib episode into an even bigger propaganda victory for the enemy than anything concocted by Al-Jazeera TV.
We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by