David Brock to be on O'Franken today, for those that can listen...

Just as info... :)

Regardless of David Brock's "redemption", I have a great personal distaste for the man. Don't get me wrong, I found "Blinded by the Right" to be a very intriguing and eye-opening confession, and scary eye-opening examination of the Right Wing smear machine, but this guy is a whore of the first class, even if he is OUR whore at this point.

I guess my biggest issue with this guy has to do with his excuse, or self-introspection into what motivated him to be lured into being one of the major cogs of the machine that smeared Anita Hill, and caused such a load of bullshit over the Clinton's for all of those years. His coping with his homosexuality, seeking acceptance, desire to fit in, or whatever (read his book for his personal insights, he talks about re-finding the value of family, talking to his father, etc.) was supposedly a driving factor.

You know what, David, you are full of shit. You are a whore of the first class, a typical social-climbing drama queen enamored with notoriety and celebrity, and loved being part of the power-circle.

Pardon the drawing of generalizations, but the D.C. gay scene is typical in rating people with the answers to the following questions:

1) What's your name?
2) How much money do you make?
3) What do you drive?
4) Name the five most influential people in gay society (or any other social power circle) that you know.

This guy blames his overbearing desire for acceptance on his coping with homosexuality yet he plays the sorority house popularity game that is so predominant in D.C. among the homosexual community, except on a national scale. And in doing so, in embracing the Republican party because of the "power" it gave him in social standing, he turns his back on his own "people".

This is crap. A bad person is a bad person, and a person drunk on power and adulation is still a bad guy. Yeah, people change, but this scum-bag played out his demons on a national, hell an international scale, and that is just reprehensible.

David Brock went through his private hell and emerged a decent human being who brings a lot of clarity to our side. he apologized to those he hurt (Anita Hill, the Clintons).
Everything he wrote proved right. he came out in time to block Ted Olson's appointment (but the senators were to afraid to do it)
Now, what are your credentials and what makes you qualified to sit in judgement of Brock?
P.S. I hope he makes lots and lots of money! ;-)

I find Mr. Brock to be disingenuous. Arianna Huffington went through a redemption and turn-around of political philosophies. Despite her political beliefs, she was not instrumental in actively hurting and destroying people's lives, played out on a national scale.

For him to turn around and say "Sorry about that, I was coping with my homosexuality and acceptance issues, and I realize I was wrong," doesn't give him an automatic pass to forgive his past transgressions so readily. He is sorely lacking in credibility, and I have a real problem with his character.

As for my "credentials" to sit in judgement of David Brock? What credentials do I need to have an opinion? I make a value judgement based on his past behavior, and the devestating consequences that ruined a lot of lives and threw the country into turmoil.

you seem to be missing one element to sit in judgement of Brock--an open mind.

In my "opinion" it looks like you're stalking David to discredit him.

There's a couple Brock threads you missed, why don't you go share your opinion of him there, too? Better yet, there's probably about a hundred freepers dissing him at Free Republic right now. I'm sure they would welcome your input!

Yeah, that's it, I am trying to discredit David Brock, that's it, you found me, I am a Freeper in disguise.

(Rolls Eyes)


Listen, librechik, I have no desire to discredit David Brock or what he is saying, and that's just great that he has come clean, and revealed the vast right wing conspiracy, and much of what he has said has proven to be true.

I have a real problem with his character, open mind or not. I have a problem with the tendency of people to immediately embrace scumbags just because they leave the opposition and start singing our tune.

After the damage this man has done, and the disineguous reasons he offered behind it, I am not so willing to naively embrace him just because he apologized. The work he is doing now is admirable, and the fact that he is on Fraken now is nice, BUT the credibility problem is there.. Given his history, who's to say he isn't shilling for our side because it gives him the same acceptance or power rush? It's less about what side he is on, and more about the nature of his character and what he is willing to do for his political ideology.

Cause she mercilessly whored for her Rethuglican hubby before "seeing the light".

What about Byrd and his KKK past?

It's pretty hard to drive forward by looking in the rear view mirror.

you don't have all the facts. No? It, at the very least, let's you know what one is capable of doing. For instance, I'm highly skeptical of killers who 'find god'.

Exactly my point. David Brock is far from a killer, but I have a real problem trusting his character, based upon his past performance. He did the right-wing thing because it played well, and he enjoyed the attention.

He then gets a conscience, blames his past actions on being a poor homosexual that was just looking for acceptance, and he is suddenly embraced by the left as being reformed, and trusted.


Never mind the utter chaos he caused in the process, not once but over and over and over again.

more successful than me - the prodigal son sibling syndrome?
Brock is embraced proportionally with THE GOOD HE DOES.
Arianna I don't trust. Not so much because her stint at Gingrich's knee, but because of her Nader support/Gore attacks in 2000, Recall support and other opportunistic attitudes.
So far, Brock has not disappointed. If he does, I'll adjust my support accordingly. But he was the first one opening my eyes to the full bias in reporting coup 2000 with his piece on This American Life (it was a Talk Magazine article too). In other words. HE BUILT HIS CREDS with me.

That's funny. I am jealous of David Brock because he makes more money than me?

Silly person. I DON'T KNOW David Brock, I have no desire to KNOW David Brock, and most assuredly don't measure my ample successes and even more ample failures on David Brock.

You completely miss my point. Take David Brock out of the equation, if you will, if you think this is some personal vendetta against a man I don't even know, except for his writings and past behavior in the media.

Why are we so willing to embrace and accept as one of our own someone of questionable character and a demonstrably questionable ethic, with a very public, very visible past to demonstrate repeated lack of character, just because this person comes back with an "I'm sorry" and starts singing our side's tune?

Are you saying he should not speak out now because he did wrong five years ago? You are saying you don't trust him. Fine. How about you leave us to make our decision based on what he says and not on what you imagine he is like. You stated your opinion and that is fine. Don't try and browbeat us with it, okay. We do believe in Critical Thinking here. We aren't alway correct and people are not bashful about letting us know when that occurs but we do try and think about the issue with logic and fact as best as possible.

Ok, let me put it to you this way. OF COURSE I LIKE what he says now because it appeals to what we suspected all along.

But the problem is an issue of credibility and past behavior. And my point is that in choosing our champions we shouldn't fall into the trap of naively accepting one as our own because he NOW says what we want to hear. It is a matter of ethics here.

factor, especially when they hold up the woman from the Roe v Wade court case that "saw the light" and now campaigns (conveniently after she never would have to worry about another abortion) against the very case that she helped set the precedent for.

investor. The Spectator had panned Ruddy's "Clinton killed Foster" book, so Scaiffe pulled the plug on the Spectator and moved closer to the sewer with Newsmax.
Richard Poe - the guy that O'reilly "has no reason to doubt" says Hillary murdered Britt Hume's son.
He'll be on every Wednesday.