-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Yes, I know, you’re thinking “that’s silly” (or, possibly, “who?”). But even though this nefarious plot is apparently news, the Washington Post also reports that this is a direct outcome of the White House “call to arms” to do just this, that does happen to be the very same White House’s argument as to what Brock’s sinister, democracy-threatening, secretive, shilling, corrupting, foreign-unless-you-open-your-books-to- prove-otherwise-and-let-us-intimidate…and every other adjective the Left has just worn itself out invoking ….activities represent (if not precisely how it was viewed what it signified in 2008, mercy, or, well, a couple of weeks ago).
And not just spinmeisters like David Axelrod. But way inside the White House, proper. All the way.
How about running in 2012 on “Consistency!”? I kid. But those vacuous, facially absurd, somehow persuasive (to some) days of chanting “change!”, “post-partisan” (remember “post-racial”? Sigh) seem so quaint and far away with each petal falling from the Obama rose.
View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Chris Horner
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/11/david-brock-to-threaten-democr
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Eric Cartman| 11.11.10 @ 5:12PM
David Brock? Isn't he the guy who's a little slutty and a little nutty? An Obama slut? A Soros Nut?
SoCon| 11.11.10 @ 5:53PM
Yes and yes, Eric. And the Soros stooge used to work for The American Spectator!
Eric Cartman| 11.12.10 @ 11:20AM
I thought he sounded familiar ;-)
explosion proof light | 11.13.10 @ 12:38AM
Anything that reduces the deficit is okay
jomo2009| 11.12.10 @ 9:58AM
He's also the guy whose lack of love from his daddy made him what he is today.
Eric Cartman| 11.12.10 @ 11:22AM
Well, there goes my heebies, but I still have the jeebies. Eeesh.
Jenny| 11.11.10 @ 9:16PM
It's true, that David Brock was a neo-con, but the plain truth is, neo-cons are Marxists, perhaps you could say of the Trotskyite variety, but that doesn't change the fact that they are indeed Marxists, and no different from the left, when you get right down to it. It's the reason David Frum kisses Obama's backside every so often. The simple fact of life is, that neo-cons formed out of a desire to infect the republican party, weaken and undermine it from within. If republicans hadn't kept them out of their administrations, the party would have remained strong. Imagine what might have been, had Nixon not appointed Kissinger. If Gingrich hadn't brought in a tide of the likes of David Brock, we wouldn't have, I don't believe, so many corrupt establishment types, who bend over backwards to fling our borders open wide and sell our sovreignty and independence, and I include our manufacturing base in that. We will only become weaker, without a strong manufacturing base, with US citizens working those jobs, not the cheap foreign labor, who also do not love the US, and are being imported by those who wish to displace citizens, with cheap, malleable foreigners.
Hear Me Meow| 11.11.10 @ 10:38PM
I used to be an AmSpec loyalist back in the day of the tabloid format. What a sad sight to see the level of commentary these days... Neocons get better treatment at Stormfront.
Hear Me Meow| 11.11.10 @ 10:47PM
Would the author of this post care to disavow the comment by "Jenny"?
Sean| 11.12.10 @ 10:38AM
What in her post is false? Neocons don't like to be exposed for what they are. Ever here of the McCain- Lieberman ticket possibility. Who do you think was pushing that idea? A damn liberal on the Republican ticket was a possibility!! And I am not talking about the McCain either.
Mike W| 11.12.10 @ 1:00PM
I believe another poster pegged it when he stated that David Brock was being mistaken for David Brooks.
However, your point about McCain wanting to pick Lieberman for his VP was spot on. Lieberman, with something like a 90 percent ADA rating (especially if you toss out his foreign policy votes) is pure unadulterated liberal and our Republican nominee wanted to put the jerk on the ticket. I gave up on McCain at that time. Neo cons will sell out the party to anyone who supported the Iraq war.
Don't forget how the Republican Party refused to support the Republican in the general election in Connetticut in 2006. They had their little pet neo con war lover and they tossed party loyalty out the window.
These kinds of actions by the Republican are indicative of a dying party. The recent elections were anti-Obama rather than pro Republican.
Booger| 11.12.10 @ 1:35AM
Jenny's comments need no disavowal. They speak for themselves. I think it would be better to simply buy Jenny a good-quality dictionary to look up the definitions of the words she uses.
JP| 11.12.10 @ 7:30AM
I think you people are a little confused. David Brock is a former TSA reporter who built a career uncovering the shinanigans of Hillary and Bill while they ran Arkansas. But, by the mid 1990s her got religion, wrote a mea cupla of sorts, came out of the closet, and began trashing Republicans in general and conservatives in particular. About 5 or 6 years ago Soros offered him a job heading up Media Matters.
Brock was never a Neocon. He was too young to be a Cold Warrior. He was never an up front Republican operator; however, it appears he has a knack for picking trends -especially if those trends help his career. His biography of Hillary, his nasty tome Blinded by the Right, and his cushy position at Media Matters uncover a personailty that has no loyalties other than to himself.
I think many of you confuse David Brooks and David Brock.
Fannie Mae| 11.13.10 @ 2:15AM
Brock works for Soros at Media Matters now and used to write for TAS--we know exactly who the moron is.
Danny| 11.15.10 @ 12:48PM
Exactly right on all points. He's quite a fluid one in his loyalties and it's all about him.
tonypal| 11.12.10 @ 9:14AM
David Brock is less manly version of Arianna Huffington, another one with a "knack for picking trends." Recall that Huffington would routinely appear on tv to unload on the Clintons. Like Brock, she wrote a book about all the Clinton nonsense, albeit a humorous one. Then she suddenly turned on a dime to become the Queen of the Progressives.
Brock has claimed that he was mistreated, etc., by TAS types. But what the hell does that have to do with one's personal beliefs.? Personally, I've been treated well by some liberals and not so well by a few ideological soulmate, with no apparent effect on my conservatism.
nobama2010| 11.12.10 @ 11:59AM
What's he going to do? Burn all his dresses infront of the white house
CopyKatnj| 11.12.10 @ 9:19PM
"On September 18, 2009 the Washington D.C Federal Appeals Court ruled that these groups have a First Amendment right to raise and spend freely to influence elections so long as they do not coordinate their activities with a candidate or a party."
When will some one investigate these groups?