Go Home

David Brooks: Health Care Reform is Unpopular

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1115)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1461)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

David Brooks as usual, is wrong on just about almost everything that comes out of his mouth in this segment. Health care reform is popular. This mess that looks like it's going to be a sell out to the insurance industries is losing popularity. Obama's numbers are going down among his base and with independents as this thing plays itself out and it appears that not only was single-payer not on the table, but the public option wasn't either. It's not losing popularity because the President didn't look like he showed enough love to the Grassley's and Blue Dogs of the world.

And the democratic process has not made Chuck Grassley do anything. Chuck Grassley is out to destroy the chances of anything meaningful being done with reforming our current system, and listening to his constituents at town halls has not changed that one way or the other.

From The Newshour with Jim Lehrer Aug. 21, 2009.

JIM LEHRER: What would you add to that or subtract?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I'm not sure it was inevitable.

JIM LEHRER: You don't think it was inevitable?

DAVID BROOKS: No, I mean, he's lost the independents, a group I don't think he had to lose. If he had taken a stimulus package of $400 billion instead of $787 billion, I think he would have held the independents, held a lot of the Republicans.

If he had taken sort of a more moderate version of health care reform, I think he could have held on to -- there's a Wyden-Bennett plan that he, I think, would have held on to some of those independents.

I mean, the major reason he's falling down now -- the secondary reason is the economy is still not -- you know, unemployment. But the major reason is health care reform. His major domestic initiative is unpopular. The majority -- a slight majority of the American people disapprove of it, and there's no sign that that's let up.

And so he really is in a sort of not freefall, but a serious slide. You know, Charlie Cook, who knows more about congressional elections than just about anybody, has a memo out today saying there's as much of a chance the Democrats will lose more than 20 seats in the next House elections than fewer than 20 seats, and that's a pretty serious thing. That's a terrible climate in which to try to enact health care.

JIM LEHRER: But on health care reform specifically, is it the president's failure to sell it, or is it just a bad idea to begin with that he has latched on to?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think it has some serious problems, some of which I've enumerated. To me, the problem I care about is costs. It doesn't control costs. And I think there's an element of the American people that are objecting to that.

There's a very large element, a larger element objecting to the fact that it's government takeover, and that comes -- or at least perceived government takeover on the heels of the takeover of AIG, on the heels of the takeover -- perceived takeover of the auto industry.

JIM LEHRER: Too much government?

DAVID BROOKS: And then the final thing -- and this, I think, the administration is doing the right thing -- is in some of the Medicare cuts and taking benefits away from people. There are a lot of people who say, "I don't want my Medicare cut to pay for universal health coverage." And so they're doing the right thing, but it costs them with seniors.

[.....]

JIM LEHRER: Speaking of the Republicans, Charles Grassley, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, very much involved in the big bipartisan thing with the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus, Montana, now suddenly he's gone away, it seems like, or has he? How do you read that?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, there are two Chuck Grassleys. There's the one who -- he was here in Washington, who's negotiating some deal, but then there's the one who went home. And I gather some of the town hall meetings that are happening in Iowa, and Iowans are good at this sort of thing, are triple the size of normal.

And he goes home and listens, and he gets threatened we're going to defeat you in 2010. He's up in this coming election. And he doesn't want to get defeated.

And that's been, I think, the overall effect of this August, which is a lot of people -- in parts of the country, the health care reform is reasonably popular, but in the Midwest in particular, and some areas of the South and places like Florida, it's quite unpopular.

And so he has to face the fact, do I really want to lose my seat over this? And so I just think it's, in some sense, a democratic process that's creating the other Chuck Grassley.

[.....]

JIM LEHRER: What do you think?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, it should always be said that only in Washington can the word "reconciliation" mean a polarizing ramming through of something without any reconciliation. But that is the phrase we use.

It will be mostly Democratic, but that doesn't solve your problems.

JIM LEHRER: Why not?

DAVID BROOKS: I mean, the public plan -- there are many -- there are many Democrats in the Senate and in the House who hate the idea of a strong public plan. There are many Democrats who love the idea of a strong public plan. So the split has always been within the Democratic Party.

And I really feel -- and when it's unpopular, how do you pass the major Democrat domestic initiative of your administration when the American people don't want it, even if you do have 60 votes? That's just a tough thing to do, especially when you're split six different ways. It's not an easy split.

There are a million different issues floating around here. And for the first time, I've really begun to think it's at best a 50/50 proposition that something passes, something major passes.

Share This Post

Link To This Post


46 Comments
CoIntelPro.PronktasticlyAgainst.SCLM.E-Voting.Incumbents's picture

1 reason why I don't read the NYTwit.


Some stuff you can't make up!

jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s's picture

I'm surprised he wasn't talking about how, under the Obama plan, the government would be executing doctors, mandatory abortions, and substantial tax penalties for anyone who is not gay.

CoIntelPro.PronktasticlyAgainst.SCLM.E-Voting.Incumbents's picture

he went to the salad bar at arby's.

New Poll: 77 Percent Support "Choice" Of Public Option
OUCH!!


Some stuff you can't make up!

Since healthcare reform has now been widely smeared as being the same as shoving people into the ovens at Auschwitz, it's not surprising that there has been a dip in its popularity as an issue.

Floridiot's picture

Brooks has a glass jaw also, he might need his wired shut

theWalrus's picture

1] Lies
2] Distortion
3] Propaganda
4] Entertainment

that put him over the top...

These are the folks who voted for him because of who they THOUGHT he was/is, instead of who his record, history, and outlook proclaimed him.

ctalk's picture

He has the nerve to say "...the American people don't want it.." full well knowing a 70% plus majority do want it. He's referring to those loudmouth ignorant southerners, the so called "real" ones, scared they'll be sent to a "death panel" because Palin, another loudmouth ignoramus, told them.


Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein

CoIntelPro.PronktasticlyAgainst.SCLM.E-Voting.Incumbents's picture

talking points. that's all.


Some stuff you can't make up!

serge's picture

...are these wise men like Brooks not capable of speaking in complete sentences?

"If he had taken sort of a more moderate version of health care reform, I think he could have held on to -- there's a Wyden-Bennett plan that he, I think, would have held on to some of those independents."

Amitola's picture

of listening to all of these know-nothing pundits and so-called 'reporters' spewing nonsense and lies. All they do is criticize, ridicule and tear down.

Same can be said for most of the politicians. The ones who rail so loudly and so often about the how awful the reform plans are, offer no ideas or solutions of their own....just blather. The only reason most of them are against a 'public plan' or universal coverage (Reps and Dens)is that they will no longer be able to stuff millions of health insurance and pharma company bribes into their pockets.

It's only about money and power!!! The poor and the sick can just go die...


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

ron's picture

Quit referring to disinformation as disinformation. Call it lies and tell us who are the liars.

I turn to Bob Herbert and Frank Rich. I won't waste my time on a reich-wing twit like Davy Brooks.

He's wrong, wrong, wrong. Kind of like that Kristol guy. William the Bloody.

BID

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Recent polls report a majority of the country favor anything from major change to the medical system to complete overhaul, but disapproval over Obama's handling of the issue.

It sounds like they want him to take the lead.


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

Radically Moderate ad infinitum's picture
Yep

That's how I see it......time to man-up mr. Prez.
Force a vote through....show who the hypercreeps are, and if it fails try,try, again.


'Talk to the hand'

1) The $787 Billion bailout was put together by the previous administration (another fine gift they left us) and signed into law by Obama. Blaming him for it is disingenuous. The pressure to act was enormous. Could it have been a lot better? Without a doubt. Would we have been better off without it? Who can say.

2) Health care (insurance) reform is so unpopular that only a large majority of Americans support it. Brooks is clearly suffering from an untreated cranial-rectal inversion. Maybe if he had a better health care plan ...

3) Costs. If all the money put into private health care were put into a single payer system, everyone would be covered and the costs would go DOWN.

Just another corporate shill. Why don't progressives or [gasp] liberals get any air time?

ron's picture

you're saying that all the money put into private healthcare were put into a single payer system the costs wwould go down. Geeze, what would people be able spend that extra disposable income on? Would that be good for the economy? I don't know, it make too much sense.

Death Counselor's picture

You claim that if Obama had done a $400 Billion instead of $787 Bill bailout, then the traitors (GOP) would have just said THAT was good. BULL SH|T!!!
Don't you GET IT BROOKS, the GOP DO NOT WANT TO DEAL WITH A BLACK GUY, and they DEINFATELY DO NOT WANT TO CONCEPTUALIZE THE NOTION OF PROVIDING SOMETHING TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.
Did you even stop to think of who the $787 Billion was bailing out you stupid f ucking moron? It was for the GOP cronies in corporations, so of COURSE the GOP was asking for a large nut to give their cronies. They would have pissed and moaned if it was a figure that was deemed less than what the Unconstitutional whorporations were looking to steal.
How stupid can you be?

Oops, Sorry, already answered.

Old Billy's picture

The Republican party has opposed everything Obama has proposed, usually before it is proposed.

To suggest that Republicans would have supported a 400 billion dollar stimulus package - with no evidence, mind you - is entirely false. Let alone, the fact that it would have worked less than the 787 billion dollar deal. By the way, that deal was pared down to appeal to Republicans - guess how many voted for it.

Fuck David Brooks. How many times do we come back to this. You can't get out of a bad situation by continuing to do the things that have gotten us into it. How about we stop listening to douchebags like David Brooks?

Guy Cybershy's picture

I've always found Brooks to be more offensive than the muppets at Fox.

Amitola's picture

for Billie Kristol......so that explains most of his problems. William the Bloody likely bit him in the neck while he was writing for him....


"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy

Timmy the Music Snob's picture

My father, a progressive, likes this guy - but I think that has more to do with his gentleman-like demeanor than his retarded ideas and thoughts.

At least with Faux you know where you stand - you KNOW they're the enemy and must be crushed - Brooks is sly - he's kinda two-faced - he'll smile at you and sound all warm and compassionate and then knife you when you least expect it.

Once again the bottom line is money, not the humanity.
Its free-market capitalism that these people crave and any threat to their pocket book gets them up in arms.
If they really want to cover a story on health care why not start with why Remote Area Medical, who treats 3rd world country's health problems, is now crossing our states helping our citizens. People camp out for medical treatment because they have no other option.

Limp-Dick Blimpaugh's picture

If it's so damn unpopular why do 71% of Americans want it? These asshole Right wing liars just don't get it and I really hope it backfires on the Reslugs big time.

when the Cabloids repeatedly show crowds and throngs of (white) folks protesting against it.

Now, it is true that most of them are mailny pissed at the idea of having to take orders/ideas from an uppity negro.

But that doesn't change the IMAGE of thousands of folks opposing reform...

Timmy the Music Snob's picture

Can you imagine the INJUSTICE it would be to lose Congress back to the neandertal knuckledraggers all because Obama dilly-dally'd and didn't show REAL backbone and leadership?

I think independents and even some Republicans would respect Obama if he just BITCH SLAPPED the United States with health care reform WITH a public option - STOMPING ON 'baggers, birthers and deathers along the way.

I am convinced his numbers are tanking because he is pussy-footing around the misinformers and giving them some faux credibility while doing so.

SOME BACKBONE MISTER PRESIDENT.

Uncle Joe Mccarthy's picture

not the prez....right?

the ones without backbone are pelossi and reid....who need to go

yes, obama loses points for thinking like a senator and not crafting his own bill and twisting arms...however, he ran on that...saying that he would not do what other presidents have done

if the dems do lose seats in 2010...they will have themselves to blame...not obama

if health care INSURANCE reform is not passed...the dems in congress are to blame....not obama

Timmy the Music Snob's picture

But the LEADERSHIP must come from the DEMOCRAT president - he needs to tell other Dems in Congress to quit F'ing around and get it done.

I heard this bag of s***dust when he said, "His major domestic initiative is unpopular" and watched as NOBODY challenged him on this lie, including Jim Lehrer, who seemed to confirm the lie by agreeing with it.

That is when I turned off Lehrer; I won't watch his lying show again.

It's too bad that PBS "news" reporting more closely resembles Fox news than it does the PBS of an era long gone. One need only look at the corporate sponsors of this show and other PBS shows to know that PBS is a shill for the corporate culture that has consumed and is slowly destroying this nation.

in other news's picture

What do you expect from a right wing hack?

If Obama is losing popularity over health care it's because of what he's not doing which is standing up to the Republican lie machine and getting other dems to get behind a bold plan. The people are not lining up behind Repubs. They're popularity is even lower. The only ones courting them are the militia loonies. If the Dems blow this they have only themselves to blame for not anticipating the depths to which rethugs will sink in order to destroy the President's agenda.

jimbo92107's picture

As usual, reichwing screamers have their facts inverted. Ever hear about a sick person's insurance being revoked? Guess why?

RobertD's picture

...and the politicians. Who's up, who's down? Who's the new person we can elevate so we can later kick them to the curb? Whose martini party is not to be missed? Never mind the populace, that's hurting and needs some help to solve problems too big to solve individually.

Fuck politics. Now that Obama's been elected--and the game just goes on and on--I'm ever more convinced that the only place a person can make a true impact is on the immediate community he or she physically serves. Elected officials aren't going to help you. They're too busy playing the re-election game with the talking bobbleheads. D or R by their names--no fucking difference.

I've asked a lot of my repub buddies who they would blame if health reform doesn't pass and premiums double or triple in the next few years. Clinton?

quarzacc's picture

another site, why are they now holding signs to repeal the 1964 civil rights act. Do they really think that of all things can be changed?

ysbaddaden's picture
)O(

Anything that's not an amendment or the result of a Supreme Court Decision can be changed by legislation.

And if the change comes to the Supremes, whose gonna stop it, clarence thomas?


Diabolus est Deus Inversus

shag12@sbcglobal.net's picture

This clown is an alarmist. He jumps to conclusions about all. He's not to be taken seriously.

I noticed the TV pundits really pumped out the lie that people don't really want a public option. The Astroturf campaign scams didn't work but the TV pundits lie anyway. The David Gurgen on CNN is a piece of work. I see he has slipped under Regipizan party control on this issue.

Chris Matthews should acknowledge that his pundits don't do any research at all. They do opinion. Research would get in the way of that opinion. Research would clear things up and there'd be no need for radical opinion. Chris loves radical opinion - anything to fill the MSM void in the wake of the bush-cheney crime sprees. No drama Obama is being good to his word. It's the MSM that's acting out here!


"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-

EdgarHF's picture

This is the usual Shields and Brooks segment that runs on Firdays. It is pretty much Crossfire lite. The woman who was edited out of the clip (Sorry I forgot her name) was sitting in for Shields and was weaker in her response to Brooks than even Sheilds usually is.

tji's picture

Maybe I had just missed this before, but this seems like the newest scare tactic:

DAVID BROOKS: And then the final thing -- and this, I think, the administration is doing the right thing -- is in some of the Medicare cuts and taking benefits away from people. There are a lot of people who say, "I don't want my Medicare cut to pay for universal health coverage." And so they're doing the right thing, but it costs them with seniors.

SolomanLike's picture
[Comment Deleted By Administration For Violation Of Terms Of Service]
Nicole Belle's picture

I'm not seeing it.

We have a long history of documenting David Brooks' outright lies and disinformation.

If we're angry, it's because we're angry and tired of being lied to in the media. It's not about his right to speech. But Freedom of Speech does not guarantee you a national media platform (or multiple platforms) to LIE to us.

Your example of hypocrisy is a little askew. The protesters at these Town Hall meetings are attempting to SHUT DOWN debate. They are not interested in getting facts or allowing others to get facts.

diffrntdrummr's picture

I KNOW I can be wrong 100% of the time if they only give me a chance. I'll work for less if I have to. Life is so unfair!

Spaghetti Monster's picture

Yeah David unpopular as Penicillin! What a freaking screwball!

Cybercorrespondent's picture

George Soros and the progressive democrats he has in his pocket have a goal to destroy the dollar and to push for a global currency. As a result, George Soros would make billions just as he did from his attempt to destroy the British Pound. To accomplish his goal, George Soros and his team of democrats have chosen a messenger who via teleprompter will spread their message and will not oblige to his constitutional obligation to prove that he is a US citizen. Watch this video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe2bpV1QlkE To help George Soros push for global dominance, the democrats have created legislations such as the Stimulus Bill, the Equal Pay Bill, the Global Poverty Bill, the Tobacco Bill, the Climate Change Bill, the upcoming Health Reform Bill, the UN sponsored Bill that will force Americans to pay a global tax and whatever else they have hidden in the bills no one has read. If George Soros and the democrats are allowed to succeed, it will bring America to a $2 trillion dollars plus deficit ans make the dollar worthless.
Obamacare is just another push for a "New World Order". A Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, is telling us that the U.S. dollar-based system is flawed and risky and that the "dollar now is yielding almost zero return. The question is do we go to a new system in an orderly or disorderly way." Stiglitz urged rich nations to provide funds to help poorer countries avoid a steep crash during the financial crisis.
The group has called for global coordination to avoid competition to cut taxes, and for a worldwide increase in tax on high earners. Dubbing itself the "Shadow GN", the group has urged governments to opt for bank nationalizations rather than bailouts in order to drive the pace of fresh lending.
Don’t fall for it. Watch these two videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9-2PhChboU&fe...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&fe...
cybercorresponden
http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com

Cybercorrespondent's picture

George Soros
• Multi-billionaire funder of leftwing causes and groups
• Founder of the Open Society Institute
• Stated that defeating President Bush in the 2004 election “is the central focus of my life”
George Soros was born on August 12, 1930 in Budapest, Hungary. His father, Teodoro Schwartz, was an Orthodox Jew who, in 1936, changed the family surname from Schwartz to Soros in order to enable his family to conceal its Jewish identity and thus to survive the Nazi Holocaust. In 1947 Soros’ family relocated from Hungary to England. Five years later, George graduated from the London School of Economics. He subsequently worked for a London stockbroker.
In 1956 Soros, with meager personal assets, emigrated to the United States. He would go on to become one of the world’s leading hedge fund investors and currency traders. In 1969 he started his enormously successful Quantum Fund, which, over the ensuing three decades, yielded its long-term investors a four thousand-fold gain on their initial 1969 investments.
In a $10 billion 1992 deal whose success was contingent upon the devaluation of the British Pound, Soros earned himself a $1 billion profit and the title, “the man who broke the Bank of England.” To date, he has amassed a personal fortune exceeding $7 billion. In addition, his management company controls billions of dollars more in investor assets.
In 1979 Soros established the Open Society Institute (OSI), which serves as the flagship of a network of Soros foundations that donate tens of millions of dollars each year to a wide array of individuals and organizations that share the founder’s agendas. Those agendas can be summarized as follows:
• promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
• promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
• opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
• depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
• promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
• promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
• promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
• defending the civil rights and liberties of suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters
• financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
• advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
• opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
• promoting socialized medicine in the United States
• promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is ”not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”
• bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
• promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike
• promoting taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand
• advocating stricter gun-control measures
• advocating the legalization of marijuana
To view a list of many of the more important Soros donees that support the foregoing agendas, click here.
Moreover, there are numerous “secondary” or “indirect” affiliates of the Soros network. These include organizations which do not receive direct funding from Soros and OSI, but which are funded by one or more organizations that do. These secondary affiliates also include groups that work collaboratively or synergistically with Soros-funded entities. To view a list of some of these organizations, click here.
All told, Soros’ foundation network made an estimated $5 billion worth of grants between 1979 and 2007.
PBS broadcaster and Schumann Center for Media and Democracy President Bill Moyers is a trustee of the Open Society Institute’s Board of Directors.
In 1996 Soros launched the Soros Documentary Fund with a mission to “spur awareness, action and social change.” Over the ensuing decade, this Fund would help finance the production of several hundred documentaries. In 2001, the Fund’s leadership was turned over to Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute with a continuing mission: “to support the production of documentaries on social justice, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of expression issues around the world.”
According to journalist Rondi Adamson, most of the documentaries that that the Fund supports ”are highly critical of some aspect of American life, capitalism or Western culture,” and generally share Soros’ worldview that “America is a troubling if not sinister influence in the world, that the War on Terror is a fraud and terrorists are misunderstood freedom fighters, and that markets are fundamentally unjust.” Films which have been produced with the aid of Soros’ funding include Soldiers of Conscience (2007), An American Soldier (2008), and My Baghdad Family (in production as of late 2008).
In 1998 Soros was a signatory to a public letter addressed to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, declaring that “the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself.” The letter blamed the war on drugs for impeding such public health efforts as stemming the spread of HIV, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases, as well as human rights violations and the perpetration of environmental assaults. Other notable signers included Peter Lewis, Tammy Baldwin, Rev. William Sloan Coffin, Jr., Walter Cronkite, Morton H. Halperin, Kweisi Mfume, and Cornel West.
In 2000, Soros was a signatory to a letter titled “Appeal for Responsible Security” that appeared in the New York Times. ”We call upon the United States government,” said the letter, “to commit itself unequivocally to negotiate the worldwide reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons, in a series of well-defined stages accompanied by increasing verification and control.” Other signers included Jimmy Carter, Martin Sheen, Marian Wright Edelman, John Sweeney, and Ted Turner.
Also in 2000, Soros signed a letter addressed to President Bill Clinton, asking him to place a moratorium on federal death penalty executions. The letter maintained that the “death penalty system” was “distorted by bias and arbitrariness.” Other signatories included Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond, Wade Henderson, Jesse Jackson, Norman Lear, Jim Wallis, Robert Reich, and Barbra Streisand.
During the 2000 presidential election season, Soros first experimented with the idea of raising campaign funds through “Section 527″ groups. Such organizations are used for raising “soft money” which is not intended for “express advocacy” of any particular candidate, but rather for “voter education,” “issue-oriented” political advertising, and other such nebulous enterprises. As such, there are no limits on how much money they may receive from any given donor. In practice, however, 527s can exert — through public statements, press releases, media citations, research reports, and direct action campaigns — immense influence on the political views and voting decisions of the American public.
Soros assembled a team of wealthy Democrat donors to help him push two of his pet issues – gun control and marijuana legalization — by funneling large amounts of cash to some 527s that were committed to those particular objectives. The financial contributions that Soros and his fellow donors made to these 527s greatly exceeded the sums which campaign finance laws would have permitted them to give to any political candidate, political party, or Political Action Committee (PAC). By funding the 527s, Soros et al were helping them promote messages and worldviews that were consistent with those of leftist politicos; as such, the funders were indirectly but quite substantially helping candidates of the left. In a sense, Soros and his fellow donors effectively laundered their political contributions through Section 527 groups, which were dubbed “stealth PACs” by the media of that time.
Having experienced this success in 2000, Soros moved to exploit the power of 527s on a much larger scale during the 2004 election cycle. Toward that end, he was a key force in the creation of the so-called “Shadow Party” in 2003. This term refers to a nationwide network of unions, non-profit activist groups, and think tanks whose agendas are ideologically to the left, and which are engaged in campaigning for the Democrats. This network’s activities include fundraising, get-out-the-vote drives, political advertising, opposition research, and media manipulation.
According to Richard Poe, co-author (with David Horowitz) of the book The Shadow Party:
“The Shadow Party is the real power driving the Democrat machine. It is a network of radicals dedicated to transforming our constitutional republic into a socialist hive. The leader of these radicals is … George Soros. He has essentially privatized the Democratic Party, bringing it under his personal control. The Shadow Party is the instrument through which he exerts that control…. It works by siphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions that would have gone to the Democratic Party in normal times, and putting those contributions at the personal disposal of Mr. Soros. He then uses that money to buy influence and loyalty where he sees fit. In 2003, Soros set up a network of privately-owned groups which acts as a shadow or mirror image of the Party. It performs all the functions we would normally expect the real Democratic Party to perform, such as shaping the Party platform, fielding candidates, running campaigns, and so forth. However, it performs these functions under the private supervision of Mr. Soros and his associates. The Shadow Party derives its power from its ability to raise huge sums of money. By controlling the Democrat purse strings, the Shadow Party can make or break any Democrat candidate by deciding whether or not to fund him. During the 2004 election cycle, the Shadow Party raised more than $300 million for Democrat candidates, prompting one of its operatives, MoveOn PAC director Eli Pariser, to declare, ‘Now it’s our party. We bought it, we own it.…’”
In a November 11, 2003 interview with Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post, Soros described how he had jump-started the Shadow Party during the summer of 2002 by summoning a team of political strategists, activists, and Democrat donors to his Southampton beach house in Long Island. The attendees included: Morton H. Halperin (Director of Soros’ Open Society Institute); John Podesta (Democrat strategist and former Bill Clinton chief of staff); Jeremy Rosner (Democrat strategist and pollster, and ex-foreign policy speechwriter for Bill Clinton); Robert Boorstin (Democrat strategist and pollster); Carl Pope (America Coming Together co-founder, Democrat strategist, and Sierra Club Executive Director); Steve Rosenthal (Labor leader, CEO of America Coming Together, and former advisor to Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich); Peter Lewis (major Democrat donor and insurance entrepreneur); Rob Glaser (major Democrat donor and Silicon Valley pioneer); Ellen Malcolm (co-founder and President of America Coming Together and founder of Emily’s List); Rob McKay (major Democrat donor); and Lewis and Dorothy Cullman (major Democrat donors).
At that meeting, Soros laid out his plan to unseat incumbent President George W. Bush.
Profoundly contemptuous of Bush, Soros blamed the President not only for many of the ills that plagued the United States, but for a host of problems afflicting other nations as well. Speaking at a conference of the Jewish Funders Network in November 2003, for example, Soros said:
“There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the [Israeli prime minister Ariel] Sharon administration contribute to that…. I’m critical of those policies…. If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish.”
Asserting that America needed “a regime change” to oust Bush, Soros declared that derailing the President’s reelection bid in 2004 “is the central focus of my life … a matter of life and death.” “America under Bush,” he said, “is a danger to the world, and I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is.”
Soros had previously experienced considerable success in effecting “regime change” elsewhere in the world. For instance, he helped fund the 1989 “Velvet Revolution” that brought Vaclav Havel to power in the Czech Republic. And by his own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia.
When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government – a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.
Claiming that “the Republican party has been captured by a bunch of extremists,” Soros accused the Bush administration of following a “supremacist ideology” in whose rhetoric he claimed to hear echoes from his childhood in occupied Hungary. “When I hear Bush say, ‘You’re either with us or against us,’” Soros explained, ”it reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit (The enemy is listening). My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me.”
Soros likened Republicans generally, and the Bush administration in particular, to “the Nazi and communist regimes” in the sense that they are “all engaged in the politics of fear.” “Indeed,” he wrote in 2006, “the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines by drawing on the innovations of the advertising and marketing industries.” Soros would elaborate on this theme at the January 2007 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he told reporters: “America needs to … go through a certain de-Nazification process.”
In 2004 Soros spent some $26 million of his own money in an effort to drive Bush from office. That sum included a $5 million donation to MoveOn.org, a $10 million grant to a Democratic Party 2004 get-out-the-vote initiative called America Coming Together, and $3 million to the Center for American Progress (CAP), a think-tank headed by former Clinton chief-of-staff John Podesta. (Soros himself was instrumental in establishing CAP in 2003 as “a nonpartisan research and educational institute” aimed at “developing a long-term vision of a progressive America.”)
Though Soros and his Shadow Party failed to bring about “regime change” in 2004, the vast network of interrelated Shadow Party groups would prove to be key players in the 2006 midterm elections that saw Democrats seize control of Congress. Of particular significance was Democracy Alliance, a non-tax-exempt nonprofit entity registered in the District of Columbia, which Soros had founded in 2005, and whose long-term objective was to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups.
In 2008, Soros’ Shadow Party was again a major force in the movement that not only expanded the Democratic Party’s congressional majorities, but also delivered the presidency to Barack Obama.
Soros’ ties to Obama date back to 2004, when the multi-billionaire hosted a fundraiser for Obama during the latter’s 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate. In December of 2006, as Obama contemplated making a run for the presidency in 2008, Soros met in his New York office with the Illinois senator. Then, on January 16, 2007, Obama announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee. Within hours, Soros sent the senator a contribution of $2,100, the maximum amount allowable under campaign finance laws. Later that week, the New York Daily News reported that Soros would back Obama over the Democrat he had previously favored for the presidency, Hillary Clinton. Soros averred, however, that he would support Mrs. Clinton if she (rather than Obama) were ultimately to win the Democratic Party’s nomination.
In 2008, Obama announced that upon his election to the office of President, he would create a “Social Investment Fund Network,” which would provide federal money to “social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations [that] are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health care gaps, and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities.” According to columnist Michelle Malkin, “this Barack Obama brainchild would serve as a permanent, taxpayer-backed pipeline to Democratic partisan outfits masquerading as public-interest do-gooders,” and would serve as a “George Soros Slush Fund” by continuing to bolster numerous Soros-founded and funded organizations.
Soros has been a vocal critic of America’s military endeavors and foreign policies in recent years. He also has rejected the very notion that a war on terror needs to be fought. In August 2006 he wrote a Wall Street Journal piece titled “A Self-Defeating War,” whose premise was that “the war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive and self-defeating policies.” “Five years after 9/11,” Soros elaborated, “a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several fronts — Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia — a war that has killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued.”
According to Soros:
“[T]errorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush’s global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups…. The war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions…. [It] drives a wedge between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ We are [supposedly] innocent victims. They are [supposedly] perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world. Taken together, these … factors ensure that the war on terror cannot be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home.”
In the April 12, 2007 issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros penned an article titled “On Israel, America and AIPAC,” wherein he derided the Bush administration for “committing a major policy blunder in the Middle East” by “supporting the Israeli government in its refusal to recognize a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas, which the U.S. State Department considers a terrorist organization.” In Soros’ calculus, “This precludes any progress toward a peace settlement at a time when progress on the Palestinian problem could help avert a conflagration in the greater Middle East.” Added Soros:
“Israel, “with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel.… [Hamas] was not willing to go so far as to recognize the existence of Israel but it was prepared to enter into a government of national unity which would have abided by the existing agreements with Israel.… But both Israel and the United States seem to be frozen in their unwillingness to negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that includes Hamas. The sticking point is Hamas’s unwillingness to recognize the existence of Israel; but that [recognition] could be made a condition for an eventual settlement rather than a precondition for negotiations.… The current policy of not seeking a political solution but pursuing military escalation—not just an eye for an eye but roughly speaking ten Palestinian lives for every Israeli one—has reached a particularly dangerous point.”
In a November 2008 interview with Spiegel, Soros made some comments that accurately outlined precisely the course that President Obama’s administration would eventually pursue in 2009:
“I think we need a large stimulus package which will provide funds for state and local government to maintain their budgets — because they are not allowed by the constitution to run a deficit. For such a program to be successful, the federal government would need to provide hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, another infrastructure program is necessary. In total, the cost would be in the 300 to 600 billion dollar range [in addition to the $700 billion bailout which the government already had given to the financial industry]…. I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation.”
The interviewer then said: “Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as ‘big government.’ Republicans might call it European-style ’socialism.’” Soros replied:
“That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society…. I think it is better to have a government that wants to provide good government than a government that doesn’t believe in government…. At times of recession, running a budget deficit is highly desirable. Once the economy begins to recover, you have to balance the budget. In 2010, the Bush tax cuts will expire and we should not extend them. But we will also need additional revenues.”
Soros and his foundations have had a hand in funding such noteworthy leftist organizations as the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy; the Tides Foundation; the Tides Center; the National Organization for Women; Feminist Majority; the American Civil Liberties Union; People for the American Way; Alliance for Justice; NARAL Pro-Choice America; America Coming Together; the Center for American Progress; Campaign for America’s Future; Amnesty International; the Sentencing Project; the Center for Community Change; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Human Rights Watch; the Prison Moratorium Project; the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement; the National Lawyers Guild; the Center for Constitutional Rights; the Coalition for an International Criminal Court; The American Prospect; MoveOn.org; Planned Parenthood; the Nation Institute; the Brennan Center for Justice; the Ms. Foundation for Women; the National Security Archive Fund; the Pacifica Foundation; Physicians for Human Rights; the Proteus Fund; the Public Citizen Foundation; the Urban Institute; the American Friends Service Committee; Catholics for a Free Choice; Human Rights First; the Independent Media Institute; MADRE; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund; the Immigrant Legal Resource Center; the National Immigration Law Center; the National Immigration Forum; the National Council of La Raza; the American Immigration Law Foundation; the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee; and the Peace and Security Funders Group.
Apart from the more than $5 billion that Soros’ foundation network has donated to leftist groups like those listed above, Soros personally has made campaign contributions to such notable political candidates as Charles Rangel, Al Franken, Tom Udall, Joe Sestak, and Sherrod Brown.
If you want to learn more about George Soros, please visit the site the site where this information was found http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individual...
cybercorrespondent
http://cybercorrespondent.blogspot.com

Comments are closed on this entry