David Brock: I Was Wrong About Donald Trump

[demmiblue]

Like most Democrats, I initially underestimated Donald Trump. In 2015, I founded a super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton. Through all the ups and downs of the campaign, I didn’t once imagine that Americans would vote Mr. Trump in.

He was an obvious pig (see the “Access Hollywood” tapes), a fraud (multiple failed businesses and bankruptcies) and a cheat (stiffing mom-and-pop vendors). Not to mention the blatant racism and misogyny. About the outcome, I was spectacularly wrong.

Once he was in office, I misread Mr. Trump again. Having worked inside the conservative movement for many years, I found his policies familiar: same judges, same tax policy, same deregulation of big business, same pandering to the religious right, same denial of science. Of course, there were the loopy tweets, but still I regarded Mr. Trump as only a difference of degree from what I had seen from prior Republican presidents and candidates, not a difference of kind.

When a raft of books and articles appeared warning that the United States was headed toward autocracy, I dismissed them as hyperbolic. I just didn’t see it. Under Mr. Trump, the sky didn’t fall.

My view of Mr. Trump began to shift soon after the November election, when he falsely claimed the election was rigged and refused to concede. In doing so, Mr. Trump showed himself willing to undermine confidence in the democratic process, and in time he managed to convince nearly three-quarters of his supporters that the loser was actually the winner.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/opinion/donald-trump.html

Hunh, it was pretty obvious well before the November election.

[lagomorph777]

1. How does somebody so clueless get embedded into Dem higher echelons?

[Paladin]

2. Damn good question. (nt)

[flor-de-jasmim]

3. Good question!

[JT45242]

5. 3.1 billion dollars -- money talks

David Brock net worth and salary: David Brock is a Journalist who has a net worth of $3.1 Billion. David Brock was born in in November 2, 1962. Founder of a watchdog organization called Media Matters for America. Also a journalist and writer, he published a controversial, bestselling 1993 book entitled The Real Anita Hill.

[JHB]

15. What's the source for the $3.1 billion number? That kind of money never came up...

...in the 90's, and journalism doesn't bring in that kind of scratch. And it's a big difference from some other "net worth" estimates.

Actual sources, please, not websites that don't say how they came to that number.

[Celerity]

16. it's a fake number, they just went to first site (a bullshit one) that google yields

[JHB]

19. Yeah, what I figured.

If he had 3B the wingnuts would be screaming his name along with Soros.

[malaise]

8. You own the thread

THIS

[Hortensis]

21. He is NOT in our "higher echelons," never has been. He was CONSERVATIVE

but gay. He tried to win acceptance as a hit man for the right, failed, eventually resentfully flipped to offer himself as a hit man for the left against those he felt mistreated him, but Democrats wouldn't have him.

He used his notoriety to write articles and books and become a guest time filler for always needy 24/7/365 media. Since he was not accepted by Democratic political circles (of course!), he went into business for himself with Media Matters for America. People who presumably had scant regard for ethics or need to be able to trust information sources started reading it, and he became affluent and too powerful to just kick aside.

But he's not one of ours and never has been. He's on my own permanent hit list, and I'm hardly the only one.

[lagomorph777]

22. Thanks - that makes more sense.

I guess the fact he raised funds doesn't mean he was part of the inner circle. Anybody can raise funds.

[Hortensis]

23. Yes, anyone can. And since he was an extremely nasty and effective hit man,

nationally famous from media appearances and vicious articles like "The Real Anita Hill" and "Troopergate,"some on our side were happy for the opportunity to help him turn his poison against the Republicans. Not to be mistaken for adopting him.

[librechik]

4. Poor David. Lots of excuses, but still cherry-picking that silly GOP agenda.

Late to the party, Never Trumper? Stand over in the corner with Liz Cheney and Manchin, where they are discussing the word "entitlement."

[ColinC]

6. He's been a democrat for a couple decades now, I believe

[librechik]

10. I'm aware. That's why I find it silly n/t

[ColinC]

11. Yeah

He is

[2naSalit]

7. Well congratulations on figuring that one out...

There David. Took you long enough.

[msfiddlestix]

9. Seriously Mr Brock? You didn't see TFG refusing to concede coming?

Are you attempting to rehabilitate your credibility?

If so, it isn't working. Strongly advise to pack it in. go retire in the Cayman's

[hlthe2b]

12. Of all people to be so clueless, Brock surprises me. n/t

[JHB]

13. Actually, Dave, I think you were more right with the "degree, not kind" view...

...but your error was mis-evaluating what the kind was.

If they weren't closer to Trump's kind than you thought, they wouldn't be acting the way they are now.

If you don't think they're the "bowl over 'norms' and seize what they want" kind, ask yourself where the Rockefeller Republicans are today. Or take a good look at Florida 2000.

Study history, Dave, particularly succession wars. People often show their true face when they see their big chance to grab all the marbles.

[andym]

14. It comes down to being difficult to take a clown like Trump seriously

But, Trump really is a difference in kind, threatening the US political system itself. A narcissistic would-be authoritarian who lies continually no matter the damage it may do to the USA.

It goes beyond politics-- that's why even right-wing conservatives like Liz Cheney are now against him and everything he stands for as a leader.

Remember Even President Obama did not take Donald Trump seriously before Trump's election:

[Boomerproud]

17. Look at most of the people at Its table.

Scared to death of him. What is about that pos that frightens people?

[GoCubsGo]

18. I could see him having this attitude back in 2016.

It continues to boggle my mind, as well, that ANYONE would consider Trump fit to occupy ANY public office, let alone the highest office in the land. Yet, here we are. Anyone who paid even the least bit of attention during the subsequent four years could see what was happening. Brock must have been in a coma or stoned out of his mind the whole time. Or, still getting his information from the same right-wing bullshit sources he did back in the days when he was harassing Bill Clinton. He sounds just as clueless as the consumers of various propaganda TV networks, Breitbart, the shit that is promulgated on Farcebook and Twitter, etc.

[BeckyDem]

20. Con artist, Brock. From 2002:

The hopeful liberal narrative about David Brock, peddled by Hertzberg, Rich, Tomasky, and Brock himself, is that the conservative movement made Brock a distorter and a liar, and that the distortions and lies were all in the service of that movement. But Blinded by the Right offers plenty of evidence that for Brock, lying has been a lifelong habit.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/03/david-brock-liar.html