Odd Brock

David Brock used to be one of the good guys. Seriously. Back in the 90s, he used to write investigative pieces for the conservative American Spectator magazine, mainly concerning the Clintons and their shady activities, both sexual and financial. I thought he also wrote the definitive piece on Janet Reno's mass murders in Waco that also appeared in the Spectator, but I am unable to find the piece online, so maybe I'm confusing Brock with some other author. Anyway, suddenly one day he went full Cahlres Jhosnon, "apologized" to the Clintons for all the bad things he wrote about them (without retracting a single word), and started the "Media Matters" website. MM is supposed to be a site that ferrets out "conservative bias" in the media, but that's actually its secondary purpose. Its primary purpose has been promoting, defending, raising money and running interference for the political careers of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

And as such, he was a major player in thr 2016 election. But "some", as they say, are getting tired of David Brock and wish he'd go away:

Many in the party—Clinton loyalists, Obama veterans, and Bernie supporters alike—talk about the man not as a sought-after ally in the fight against Trumpism, but as a nuisance and a hanger-on, overseeing a colossal waste of cash. And former employees say that he has hurt the cause.

Maybe it's because he promises way more than he actually delivers:

Brock bragged early last year that his team had assembled a mountain of damning oppo that could “knock Trump Tower down to the sub-basement.” But Trump Tower still stands, and Brock’s groups failed to help Clinton to victory.

And then there's his personal issues:

“I met with him a couple times—he’s fucking weird,” a former Obama administration official, who also requested anonymity, told The Daily Beast. “I felt like I was meeting Mugatu from Zoolander… I don’t know what the fuck [Brock’s network] did besides raise a ton of money, and I don’t think the after-action report on 2016 says we need more David Brock. Probably the opposite is true.”

Yeah, I've heard this before, that Brock has got a somewhat, uh, "quirky" personality that makes him hard to work with.

But not all of the Democrats dislike Brock. For example, James Carville said

“David has a really good relationship with a lot of donors and people who can help the party. If I were them, I would be thinking of ways I could work with David Brock, as opposed to having a tribunal determining the extent of party purity. I don’t think we need to walk around with ideological chastity belts.”

Of course, Carville himself is a Clinton creature, so it's perhaps not surprising that he's in Brock's corner. But perhaps the Democratic Party should consider purging itself of the Clintons, their hangers-on and anybody who ever had anything to do with them in order to move forward. So hand GTFO notices to Brock, Carville, Sid Bluementhal, whatsisface Mook who ran Hillary's campaign, who really should be fired for being an incompetent boob, the whole Clinton clique needs to be gone. I would think it's obvious that the Clintons are only in politics to enrich themselves, so I would think the decision to give them all the left foot of fellowship would be a no-brainer.

posted by OregonMuse at 05:54 PM

| Access Comments