Once the scourge of Democrats, Media Matters for America founder plays tough for Hillary Clinton

[wyldwolf]

It’s a case of poacher turned game-keeper. US Democrats, reeling from losses in the midterm elections, are turning to a former Republican media hitman to boost their chances of taking the White House in 2016.

David Brock is the name; his trademark, a silver pompadour and Trotsky-style wire-rimmed glasses; his political ethos, to beat Republicans by using an apparatus of quick-response law, ethics groups and journalism groups, a strategy pioneered, naturally, by the Republicans.

“I know from experience that, over a 30-year arc, rightwing conservatives came to dominate American political discourse in the media, and it needs to be countered,” Brock told the Observer last week. “And I know how something like it would work on the progressive side.”

Everyone loves a sinner redeemed, and Brock is no exception. What he offers is not an ideological or political solution but a willingness to counteract a Republican political machine calibrated to find and exploiting Democrat weaknesses.

In 2004, Brock founded Media Matters for America, a liberal watchdog that helped to bring down Glenn Beck, a Fox News host given to hysterical outbursts, and later helped to publicise comments about “legitimate rape” made to a Missouri TV station by Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin.

He then established American Bridge, a political action committee that has raised $12m from donors including George Soros over the past two years. With more than 80 staff, a key part of its mission is to assign people called “trackers” to tail Republicans, looking for “gotcha” moments that could derail their political ambitions.

Brock’s war on the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, coupled with rigorous defence of Hillary Clinton, has earned him growing influence in progressive circles.

Brock acknowledges only that his mission is to counter rightwing attacks, though the focus of those attacks – and thus the rapid-response resources of American Bridge – are clearly centred on preventing opponents from defining Clinton during her candidacy-in-waiting. The left-leaning publication the Nation recently described Brock’s political apparatus as designed “to put Hillary in the White House”.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/david-brock-former-republican-hitman-hillary-clinton

[brooklynite]

1. I gotten to know David, and we're big supporters of American Bridge

They don't play favorites on the Democratic side; their focus is on research and tracking of the prospective Republican candidates.

[wyldwolf]

2. oh, the Guardian is lying

[brooklynite]

6. No, the Guardian is mis-interpreting...

I read the article as Brock assuming Clinton is the likely nominee, and is building a firewall against attacks from the Republicans (nb - whatever you think, American Bridge collects factual information, they don't make stuff up).

[wyldwolf]

7. So this is a misinterpretation?

In addition to his other groups, Brock serves as an adviser to the grassroots outreach programme Ready for Hillary, and is on the board of Priorities USA, a fundraising operation devoted to a Clinton candidacy.

And MotherJones - they're misinterpreting it, too?

Brock says he first conceived of Correct the Record last summer. "Having left the State Department," Brock told me, "Clinton didn't have the kind of robust operation that one would have if one was holding public office. That's where I saw the need." He wrote a memo predicting "an uptick in political attacks" against Clinton and proposed a rapid-response group to defend her. As it happened, the very next day America Rising, an opposition research outfit founded by former Mitt Romney and Republican National Committee staff, announced a "Stop Hillary 2016" initiative.

Correct the Record's staff (18 and counting) is crammed into a newsroom-style bullpen in the back corner of the offices of American Bridge 21st Century, Brock's super-PAC. "They're always there; they're working around the clock," former Clinton White House adviser Paul Begala says of the crew. "I always tease David that he finds all of these nerd virgins and locks them away in a vault where they never see sunlight or have a drink or get laid. But God bless them!"

The team has been building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton's career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents. With Clinton's own press team largely silent, Correct the Record has become the go-to source for reporters seeking pro-Clinton quotes in response to Republican attacks.

Correct the Record is part of a larger shadow campaign that's gearing up for 2016. It includes Ready for Hillary, which is collecting voter data, and Priorities USA, which is raising big money. "For the first time in my adult life, the left has their shit together," says Begala, who relies on Correct the Record for talking points when he prepares for cable spots as a Hillary surrogate.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record

And slate?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html

And NY Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/us/politics/once-intent-on-bringing-down-a-clinton-now-raising-up-another.html

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

3. I suppose anything is possible as to this story; what I know is thank god for Media Matters

Thank god for their calling out the rightwing liars and thieves on a daily basis.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Are those two roles inconsistent?

[Rex]

14. Politico was and still is a RWing cesspool, but the Third Way types here love it.

They quote it a lot. Same can be said for any group these corporate pirates support.

[wyldwolf]

17. Seems like the only one mentioning it in this thread is you.

[Rex]

20. It's called a comparison, not that you would ever figure it out.

[wyldwolf]

21. It's called 'irrelevant.'

And is it your contention only '3rd way' types quote politico?

[Rex]

23. Oh look it is adversarial again.

How cute.

[wyldwolf]

24. So you make an irrelevant reply, try to spin it away, say only 3rd Wayers quote Politico...

... then won't even own it.

[Rex]

26. Oh look it is adversarial again.

How cute.

[wyldwolf]

27. Oh look it's irrelevant again

How sad.

[Rex]

28. Thanks imitation is the highest form of flattery

And it only took me two tries!

[wyldwolf]

29. Another irrelevant reply

[Rex]

30. Yes you seem to only be able to respond that way.

[wyldwolf]

31. Yet another Rex irrelevant reply

But thanks for bumping my thread

[Denzil_DC]

5. Neat unattributed non-quotes in that there concern-trolling (and near plagiarized) article:

"While there is residual unease among some liberal operatives that Brock’s conversion story fits into a pattern of opportunism ..."

Brock abandoned and was writing very critically about the Republicans by 1996/97. It's now 2014. As opportunism goes, that's a pretty slow burn.

Media Matters needs to be treasured and emulated, and Brock's other initiatives are just about the only effective beatback against the US right wing at the moment. Clinton's far from the only Democrat it defends against the constant propaganda onslaught, as Edward Helmore must be aware.

But then he seems to have lazily cribbed his lede (and practically the headline) from Michelle Goldberg's the Nation article that he refers to at one point (which is by far the more interesting read in terms of his early history and current initiatives, contradicts some of Helmore's vague assertions, fleshes out the backstory, and gives a warts-and-all picture of Brock as an effective activist):

How David Brock Built an Empire to Put Hillary in the White House.

For instance, Helmore claims:

Brock acknowledges only that his mission is to counter rightwing attacks, though the focus of those attacks – and thus the rapid-response resources of American Bridge – are clearly centred on preventing opponents from defining Clinton during her candidacy-in-waiting. The left-leaning publication the Nation recently described Brock’s political apparatus as designed “to put Hillary in the White House”.

That unnerves some party advisers who fear this kind of surveillance can only harm the political process. Candidates will be forced to the centre of political discourse. Surrendering principles for electoral success could turn out to be a hollow victory – or no victory at all, says a former Kennedy adviser, Andrew Karsch. “Democrats need a statesman who can articulate the issues, not someone who holds their finger to the wind on every issue. Instead of arguing something, you just mud-wrestle? That’s not an answer. It’s a complete capitulation.”

Mudwrestling? Is this, from Goldberg's article, evidence of mudwrestling? Because Helmore doesn't explain that accusation:

He has, however, gone after left-wing critics of the Clintons. When Harper’s published the October cover story “Stop Hillary!” by Doug Henwood, a Nation contributing editor, Correct the Record [another Brock initiative] responded with a point-by-point rebuttal of over 9,000 words. Some of it was convincing, some of it—particularly an earnest defense of Clinton’s record on welfare reform—less so. Whatever you make of it, though, it demonstrated that Brock is willing to fight challenges to the Democratic establishment that come from progressives as well as conservatives.

Shocker--a 9,000-word point-by-point rebuttal--TL;DR maybe, perhaps even including the dreaded blue linkies, but "mudwrestling"?

Goldberg cites quite a few sources, and has even interviewed some of them, which is more than Helmore seems to have bothered to do:

When I met with Brock, he suggested that I talk with Howard Dean about the work he’s been doing. Shortly thereafter, Dean e-mailed me to set up the interview. Dean had become chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2005, a year after Brock launched Media Matters, and says he quickly realized that Brock had “the best communications shop on the left. He had an ability to crystallize issues, mobilize people and call out the Republicans—and the Democrats to this day are still floundering over that.”

“It never occurred to me that David Brock needed to be redeemed,” Dean adds. “He redeemed himself.”

...

American Bridge was the natural next step. By means of this group, Brock took the Media Matters method—which involves monitoring virtually every word uttered by the right-wing media—and transferred it to the realm of Republican politicians. “There’s no organization that does the level of tracking and research that we do,” says American Bridge president Brad Woodhouse, who previously served as communications director for the DNC. “The parties don’t do it; the campaigns don’t invest in it. There’s no one that has the ability to pull this type of stuff—video, news archives, our own video archives—as quickly and as cleanly to use in a rapid-response fashion as we do.”

...

Begala, like Dean, is an unabashed Brock fan. He’s quick to emphasize that American Bridge’s value isn’t limited to capturing gotcha moments. As an adviser to Priorities USA Action, a major Democratic Super PAC, Begala says of American Bridge: “They produced for us a 950-page book of every business deal of Mitt Romney’s career. We spent something like $65 million [in the 2012 election], and I believe every single ad was in some ways informed by Brock’s research.”

... Begala says he’s never received a single morsel of personal dirt from American Bridge. The ugliness of Brock’s early career, Begala adds, left him with a “marrow-deep aversion to the politics of personal destruction. It’s definitional with David. I’ve been around him a fair amount ever since then, and I’ve never heard him say, ‘Let’s go after John Doe—he beats his dog!’ Nothing like that.”

[wyldwolf]

8. So your point is the article 'borrows' from others that have said the same thing?

Brock says he first conceived of Correct the Record last summer. "Having left the State Department," Brock told me, "Clinton didn't have the kind of robust operation that one would have if one was holding public office. That's where I saw the need." He wrote a memo predicting "an uptick in political attacks" against Clinton and proposed a rapid-response group to defend her. As it happened, the very next day America Rising, an opposition research outfit founded by former Mitt Romney and Republican National Committee staff, announced a "Stop Hillary 2016" initiative.

Correct the Record's staff (18 and counting) is crammed into a newsroom-style bullpen in the back corner of the offices of American Bridge 21st Century, Brock's super-PAC. "They're always there; they're working around the clock," former Clinton White House adviser Paul Begala says of the crew. "I always tease David that he finds all of these nerd virgins and locks them away in a vault where they never see sunlight or have a drink or get laid. But God bless them!"

The team has been building an exhaustive database of factoids documenting Clinton's career, as well as compiling opposition research on her putative opponents. With Clinton's own press team largely silent, Correct the Record has become the go-to source for reporters seeking pro-Clinton quotes in response to Republican attacks.

Correct the Record is part of a larger shadow campaign that's gearing up for 2016. It includes Ready for Hillary, which is collecting voter data, and Priorities USA, which is raising big money. "For the first time in my adult life, the left has their shit together," says Begala, who relies on Correct the Record for talking points when he prepares for cable spots as a Hillary surrogate.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/09/david-brock-hillary-clinton-correct-the-record

And slate?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/07/david_brock_s_correct_the_record_the_former_right_wing_operative_is_hillary.html

And NY Times?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/26/us/politics/once-intent-on-bringing-down-a-clinton-now-raising-up-another.html

Sounds like some in this thread are grasping out straws to spin this story, even disputing Brocks's own record (oh, sorry, saying the sources are 'misinterpreting' Brock's obvious role in various Pro-Clinton groups.)

[Denzil_DC]

10. Eh? Did that really need posting twice in the same thread? I can scroll, you know.

I'm pointing out what I see as lazy journalism and concern trolling by that journalist. Now, with your "some on this thread," you're in danger of sounding like him!

Unless it's too long for you, try actually reading what I wrote and quoted above, including my mention of a "warts-and-all" profile of Brock by Goldberg.

It's going to be a long two years till the election. If, so far, all that can be leveled against Brock in terms of malfeasance (I can only assume that's what's behind your urgency here, as otherwise I can't understand your reaction) is that he's defending somebody he sees as the Democratic frontrunner, and someone he has a long history of sympathy with (writing his Hillary Clinton book was by all accounts a key part of Brock's turning point away from Republicanism), then that's pretty weak sauce.

I'm no Hillary fan, but if she does eventually throw her hat in the ring, if she can fight the primaries with a less inept and inflammatory team than last time round, I'll be glad to see it. It might even mean the issues get clarified more effectively than in '08, and who knows, an as yet unannounced challenger to the as yet unannounced candidate may even win.

But yeah, let's fall for the media's need to sow division on already fertile ground and chuck David Brock under a bus. That'll help. Let's start having at just about the only effective counter to the Republican noise machine, and spread suspicion.

[wyldwolf]

12. Actually, yes it did

Why? Because I wanted to.

Read every word you wrote. STILL don't know what your point is beyond an opinion the Guardian source was lazy.

[Denzil_DC]

13. "STILL don't know what your point is"

Then I can't help you. I think I've been as clear as I can be.

[wyldwolf]

15. Is David Brock working for several pro-Clinton organizations?

[Denzil_DC]

18. I think, from what I've read, he's even founded organizations that are pro-Clinton!

Is that a crime? I also don't think that's all they do, or are capable of doing, to counter the Republican machine. And it doesn't make him a pariah in my book.

[Gman]

9. Hillary is the next Dem nominee.

The vast majority of Democrats want her. And that's the way it's going to be.

[AtomicKitten]

11. lol

you funny

[Rex]

16. dun Dun DUN!!!

[RiverLover]

19. Hillary Clinton and the Future Failure of Progressive Hope and Change

...Remember “hope and change?” At the time, few thought to ask what exactly we were hoping for and what exactly we were changing to.

And of course, what we got was a great slogan, better speeches, very little change and even less hope.

Here’s what Obama promised:

Shutting down Gitmo;
Ending warrantless wiretapping;
Ending foreign wars;
An end to trickle down economics;
Greater regulation of Wall Street and the financial sector;
A public option for health care;
Protecting social security, Medicaid and Medicare;
Serious action on climate change;
Greater equality in opportunity and more broadly shared prosperity …

Here’s what we got: An administration that set up Goldman Sachs south in the Treasury, doubled down on domestic spying; expanded a drone policy that creates between 40 to 60 new terrorists for every one it kills; health care reform that is better than the status quo, but which rewards corporate insurers as much or more than it does citizens; international trade agreements that favor corporate interests, while eviscerating domestic wages, scuttling environmental performance, and crippling US industrial infrastructure. It’s so bad, they’re trying to negotiate it in secret …

The list goes on and on, and so do the betrayals.

Apologists for the DLC branch of the Democratic Party will say Obama had no choice – he was constrained by Congress. But he practiced a brand of preemptive capitulation that meant we always ended up carrying corporate water, and satisfying military imperialists while ignoring or discounting citizens’ civil rights and welfare.

So now enter Hillary Clinton and the deluded Democrats who jones for her Presidency. Maybe it’s time to ask what, specifically, we will get; what we can hope for, and whether it will usher in changes Americans overwhelmingly want (more about this, in a bit).

And here’s the answer – If we nominate Hillary Clinton we will get another DLC Democrat who mouths progressive values during the campaign, then shifts to the right when (and if) elected. In short, citizens get no real choice.

The problem with this isn’t simply that it’s morally bankrupt; economically bad for 95% of Americans; bad for the economy in general; bad for the environment; bad for US competitiveness; and devastating for our children’s future climate – it’s ultimately bad politics, too.

Here’s the deal – the dirty little secret that plutocrats and corporatists in both Parties don’t want us to know: The vast majority of Americans favor progressive policies. Consider:

— 90% of the citizens support legislation requiring background checks for gun purchase, but Congress can’t pass one.

— 74% of Americans want to end subsidies to big oil – but there’s no chance of it happening;

— The majority of citizens favored allowing tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 to expire, but the best we could do is compromise on $400,000

— 70% of Americans consider climate change to be a high priority issue, yet Congress has taken no action;

— Some 80% of Americans favor shoring up Social Security even if it means higher taxes and a similar number support retaining Medicare as is, but we’ve twice offered cuts to both programs as part of a “grand bargain”;

— Or take this gem … more than 80% of Americans want to clamp down on Wall Street but the best we could get was weak-sister legislation that is being completely eviscerated as it is translated into regulations.

This list could be extended across a broad range of issues. The fact is, the people’s interests aren’t being represented in Washington and they won’t be if Hillary Clinton is elected. Her record is clear. She’s an ardent proponent of trade agreements; she’s consistently supported the interests of Wall Street over Main Street; she’s been hawkish on foreign policy; weak on civil protections; hawkish on the deficit (until very recently) and mum on many other issues that demand a progressive advocate.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/04/17/hillary-clinton-and-future-failure-progressive-hope-and-change

[Rex]

22. Watch out or you will be mercilessly taunted!

[Stellar]

25. LOL...too funny!