Liberal vs. Conservative Benefactors and their Agendas how is G.Soros More Troubling?

[host]

I started a thread a couple of days ago:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130666">Iraq War False Statements By Month Chart of 935 False Statements by 7 Admin Officials</a>

The oppostion argument to the "False Statements" presentation, was based on an Investors Business Daily Editorial that dismissed the study, the chart, and the search capability for retrieving the 935 statements and who said them, because, the IBD editorial stated:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...86069773455153
Journalism's Lazy Lie Protectors

....The so-called Center For Public Integrity is a "non-profit" funded by the profits of left-wing billionaire George Soros. It also gets foundation support from the Heinz Endowments, chaired by Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

You'd think that in a presidential campaign year, a "study" by an organization propped up with money from someone who contributed more to defeat George W. Bush than anyone, plus cash from the wife of the man who ran against Bush in 2004, would be treated skeptically by our oh-so-impartial and professional mainstream media.

Not a chance. This week, when Soros' group accused the White House and Bush cabinet secretaries of making hundreds of deceitful assertions about Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, the activist organization was treated as an objective source....

The same financial news publication, Investors Business Daily, did another editorial, four months ago, titled:

"The Soros Threat To Democracy"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...es-from-china/

.....Finally, the limited access to the Internet that one gets in China (through a combination of having better things to do with one's time and the sometimes capricious nature of what gets through the Great Firewall) allowed me to take a bit of break from the constant back and forth on the climate blogs. In getting back into it, one appreciates just how much time is wasted dealing with the most ridiculous of issues <h3>(Hansen's imagined endorsement of a paper he didn't write <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/perspectives-from-china/">thirty six years ago</a></h3>, the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-be">debunking of papers</a> that <a href="http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/09/ha-ha.html">even E&E won't publish</a>, and the <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/09/and-so-it-goes.html">non-impact</a> of the current fad for amateur photography) at the expense of anything substantive. In effect, if possibly not in intention, this wastes a huge amount of people's time and diverts attention from more significant issues (at least in the various sections of the blogosphere). Serious climate bloggers might all benefit from not getting too caught up in it, and keeping an closer eye on the bigger picture. We will continue to try and do so here.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007...aily_has_a.php
Investor's Business Daily has as much as 100 lies on every page
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: September 27, 2007 1:13 PM, by Tim Lambert

Via <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/perspectives-from-china/">RealClimate</a>, James Hansen <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_Grandfather_70924.pdf">refutes</a> the Investor's Business Daily's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/to_rasool.php">claim</a> that he endorsed global cooling in 1971:

<i>Mr. McCaslin reported that Rasool and Hansen were colleagues at NASA and "Mr. Rasool came to his chilling conclusions by resorting in part to a new computer program developed by Mr. Hansen that studied clouds above Venus."

What was that program? It was a 'Mie scattering' code I had written to calculate light scattering by spherical particles. Indeed, it was useful for Venus studies, as it helped determine the size and refractive index of the particles in the clouds that veil the surface of Venus. I was glad to let Rasool and Schneider use that program to calculate scattering by aerosols. But Mie scattering functions, although more complex, are like sine and cosine mathematical functions, simply a useful tool for many problems. Allowing this scattering function to be used by other people does not in any way make me responsible for a climate theory.</i>

But hey, the hacks at IBD can churn these things out faster than Hansen can knock them down. <a href="http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836">Look</a>:

The Soros Threat To Democracy

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

And if you invest just $10,000 in my get-rich-quick pyramid scheme you can make as much as $720,000 profit! Once you realise that "as much as $720,000" includes the amount $0, you understand the scam.

So what did the IBD build this story out of? Well, the <a href="http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731/a_complete.pdf">OSI annual report</a> says:

Scientist Protests NASA's Censorship Attempts James E. Hansen, the director the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, protested attempts to silence him after officials at NASA ordered him to refer press inquiries to the public affairs office and required the presence of a public affairs representative at any interview. The <a href="http://www.whistleblower.org/template/index.cfm">Government Accountability Project</a>, a whistleblower protection organization and OSI grantee, came to Hansen's defense by providing legal and media advice. The campaign on Hansen's resulted in a decision by NASA revisit its media policy. ...

The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

So the OSI didn't give Hansen any money at all. They did give money to the Government Accountability Project, "the nation's leading whistleblower protection organization", who <a href="http://www.whistleblower.org/content/press_detail.cfm?press_id=1155&keyword=">provided legal advice</a> for Hansen, and a <a href="http://ent.groundspring.org/EmailNow/pub.php?module=URLTracker&cmd=track&j=161281030&u=1587131">detailed report</a>. And the $720,000 is the total of grants to defend against the politicization of science, not the amount of money given to GAP.

<h2>The IBD has declared George Soros a "threat to democracy" because he helps defend whistleblowers. You can't make this stuff up.</h2>

Of course, the usual collection of anti-science warriors blogged about it, often embellishing the story with their own fabrications.

<a href="http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+James+Hansen+and+the+Politicization+of+Science/article9061.htm">Michael Asher at DailyTech</a>:

A report revealed just this week, shows the 'Open Society Institute' funded Hansen to the tune of $720,000, carefully orchestrating his entire media campaign. ... For Hansen to secretly receive a large check from Soros, then begin making unsubstantiated claims about administrative influence on climate science is more than suspicious -- it's a clear conflict of interest.

<a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27245&only">Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs</a>:

Dr. James Hansen, who approves and issues NASA climate change statements and is one of the most alarmist global warming advocates in the US, is apparently deep in the pocket of George Soros

<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-gontesky/2007/09/26/global-warming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros">Jake Gontesky at NewsBusters</a>:

So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much

<a href="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1190831545.shtml">Scott Kirwin at Dean's World</a>:

Nearly a million dollars. That must be a lot of money to a humble civil servant like James Hansen. However since Hansen's climate models are riddled with errors, self-fulfilling assumptions, and bootstrapping biases, I'm not sure I would call what Hansen has done "speaking truth to power." It's more like "telling a rich geezer what he wants to hear for a few bucks."

<a href="http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9883">Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom</a>:

Writes Gary Schamburg (who emailed me the article) in a loose paraphrase of Lenin, "[Soros'] money is buying the noose that will hang our country.

Maybe so.

Though I remain stubbornly convinced that a paradigm shift in the way we come to think about how it is we interpret could provide the intellectual corrective to combat the consensus-driven meaning-making that has grown like kudzu in the wake of the linguistic turn.

As far as I can figure out, the last paragraph doesn't mean anything at all, but I like the imagery of kudzu growing in the wake of the linguistic tern.

<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasa-s-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report">Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters (again!)</a>:

As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don't find this newsworthy. Think they'd be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official?

<ahref="http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2007/09/ibd-mr-global-w.html">Russ Steele at NC Media Watch</a>:

Mr Global Warming was on the take

<a href="http://www.technorati.com/posts/tag/soros+hansen">And on and on and on</a>.

So what I'm wondering here, is:

1.) Why the intense anti George Soros sentiment? What sets Soros apart from deep pocketed opposing politicial activists, like Richard Mellon Scaife, Richard Devos, the Koch and the Coors families, to name just a few of the wealthiest and most prominent and accomplished benfactors of organizations and agendas?

2.) Why do Investors Business Daily editorials have any remaining credibility, in your opinion? How could they seriously described Soros as a "Threat to Democracy", when the causes and organizations he supports and funds, seem aligned with the ACLU's defense of the Constitution, and the concepts of protecting whistleblowers in government and in the courts, sentencing reform and monitoring?

Don't these agendas center around protection of the least of us, or the most put upon? How does support for such principles and political activities make Soros, as the IBD editorial claimed, a "threat" to democracy?

Are you somehow more incensed about Soros's activities, and the effort he puts in to timely disclosure of them, than you are, for example, about this?:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/u...ory/16224.html
U.S. attorneys 2006 Missouri's election was ground zero for GOP
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Wednesday, May 2, 2007

...Joining the push to contain "voter fraud" were Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., who charged that votes by dogs and dead people had defeated Ashcroft, Missouri Republican Gov. Matt Blunt, whose stinging allegations of fraud were later debunked, and St. Louis <h3>lawyer Mark "Thor" Hearne, national counsel to Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, who set up a nonprofit group to publicize allegations of voter fraud....</h3>

....Separately, Hearne helped establish the nonprofit Center for American Voting Rights in February 2005, which issued lengthy reports alleging voter fraud in states across the country, including Missouri. One director of the supposedly nonpartisan group was Brian Lunde, a former executive director of the Democratic National Committee who switched his allegiance in 2000 and headed Democrats for Bush in 2004.


Barnard's Minnite said the center's summary on Missouri consisted of "a litany of overblown allegations of fraud appearing in newspapers, most of which turn out to be minor problems or no problem at all."


Republican state Sen. Delbert Scott of Lowry, Mo., chief sponsor of the photo-ID bill last year, said Hearne had helped draft it and served as a key adviser.


Hearne didn't respond to several requests for comment. His organization closed down its Internet site in March and has disappeared from view...

http://www.firedupmissouri.com/rove_..._lott_writings

<font size="2">omgA <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003100.php#more">post this afternoon at the excellent TPM Muckraker</a> demonstrates that a speech on &quot;Voter Fraud&quot; delivered by Karl Rove to the Republican National Lawyers Association in April 2006 drew heavily on a New York Post op-ed co-authored by nutty professor John Lott:<br /></font><blockquote><font size="2">...we took a hard look at just where Karl Rove got the bulk of the voter fraud stories he imparted at an <a target="_blank" href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002982.php">April 7, 2006 speech</a> before the Republican National Lawyer's Association. We noted that three of the seven &quot;hot spots&quot; he mentioned in that speech appeared to come directly from a <a target="_blank" href="http://www.americanretiredpersons.com/InsuranceServices/itsfraud.htm">2000 New York Post op-ed</a> by Stephen Bronars and <strong>John Lott, Jr</strong>....</font><br /></blockquote><p><font size="2">Missourians <a href="http://www.firedupmissouri.com/lott_id_hearing">may recall</a> that John Lott was the creator of written &quot;expert&quot; testimony submitted to the Cole County Circuit Court by <a href="http://www.firedupmissouri.com/cummins_hearne_doj_purge">voter fraud hypester Thor Hearne</a> as the prominent GOP attorney spearheaded the third-party legal defense of Missouri's Republican-built Photo ID Voting Law, which the courts would <a target="_blank" href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/missouri-judge-rules-voter-id-law.php">ultimately find unconstitutional</a>.</font></p><p><font size="2"> That Rove and Hearne were relying on writings from the same discredited academic to stoke the bogus flames of &quot;voter fraud&quot; fear and agitate for the constitutionality of a suppressive Photo ID voter identification law is yet another indicator of the national pervasiveness and thorough coordination of the effort by Republican Party operatives at the highest levels.</font></p>

Why? Soros is not an elected official, and, unlike in the immediately preceding example, even closely connected to elected officials, compared the Thor Hearne.

Can you see the difference between what is stated in the above example, and what the IBD editorial board stated in "The Soros Threat to Democracy"?
Are the IBD accusations against Soros, on the same par as the McClatchy and <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003322.php">TPM Muckraker</a> reporting on Thor Hearne's suddenly emerging, and later disappearing, "voting rights", organization?

Thor Hearnes' misinformation "Op", and the Rove/RNC/DOJ use of it to justify <ahref="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070531nj1.htm">prosections of ACORN</a> and select voters, and purging of US Attorneys, was in direct opposition to the efforts of <a href="http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275181103776079">Soros funded ACORN</a>....

Why do you think there is so much animonsity towards, and distrust of George Soros? Do you have a more positive opinion of Richard Mellon Scaife?

[dksuddeth]

I didn't read the entire post, but Soros is an issue. He funds alot of things that are completely anti-constitutional, but on occasion I see he also supports some decent things, like whistle blowers.

Soros, along with Heinz and other wealthy leftists, are pursuing socialist policies in this country with their wealth and this is the danger they present.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I didn't read the entire post, but Soros is an issue. He funds alot of things that are completely anti-constitutional, but on occasion I see he also supports some decent things, like whistle blowers.

Soros, along with Heinz and other wealthy leftists, are pursuing socialist policies in this country with their wealth and this is the danger they present.

dk....are you inferring that socialist policies are anti-constitutional?

If not, what "things" has he funded that are completely anti-constitutional?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

dk....are you inferring that socialist policies are anti-constitutional?

If not, what "things" has he funded that are completely anti-constitutional?

some of them are, yes, but to go further in to this discussion would only result in debating the opinions and interpretations of whats constitutional between us and I don't want to derail hosts thread.

Maybe another thread about interpreting the constitution could be created, though I'm actually quite tired of them.

[dc_dux]

I have a hard time understanding how freedom of expression is anti-constitutional under any interpretation.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have a hard time understanding how freedom of expression is anti-constitutional under any interpretation.

it's not his funding for things I have issue with or that is unconstitutional. That would be the freedom of speech. It is WHAT he is funding that I consider anti-constitutional, or what he sees as the end objective for what he funds.

[dc_dux]

I could say the same about Scaife or Coors funding the John Birch Society.

[dksuddeth]

isn't that exactly what I just said?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

isn't that exactly what I just said?

You lost me

Why is Soros more troubling than Scaife or Coors?

[dksuddeth]

i meant in that it is down to a difference in interpretation of what is constitutional.....and not the free speech part.

[ratbastid]

I think it's just the cognitive dissonance of the phrase "left-wing billionaire". It hurts the right's little vision of the world too badly to have such a creature exist in the world, so he has to be rendered into a ravening monster of some sort.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

I think it's just the cognitive dissonance of the phrase "left-wing billionaire". It hurts the right's little vision of the world too badly to have such a creature exist in the world, so he has to be rendered into a ravening monster of some sort.

I guess that could be so in some of the 'rights' eyes. Personally, I find it ironic that he doesn't like the system that made him a billionaire, so he's attempting to change it. That alone should make anyone suspect his motives.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I guess that could be so in some of the 'rights' eyes. Personally, I find it ironic that he doesn't like the system that made him a billionaire, so he's attempting to change it. That alone should make anyone suspect his motives.

And yet, you still havent offered an example of such programs.

Most of the programs, organizations or initiatives he funds that I am aware of have a mission of promoting equal justice and equal opportunity...as opposed to the "system" where he grew up.

Of course, anything that promotes equal justice and equal opportunity for those most disenfranchised is supporting an "evil system" in the eyes of many on the right.

[loquitur]

He doesn't have to hate the system that made him a billionaire. He merely has to be so infused with a sense of his own competence and wisdom that he thinks he can tell other people what to do. It's a common malady on both left and right.

[joshbaumgartner]

So Soros is an issue because he bankrolls advocacy for programs some people don't think are constitutional.

As DK admitted, what constitutes a constitutional or unconstitutional position is a matter of much debate. I think we all know this.

Thus while I think we could have guessed that the right dislikes Soros because he funds operations they don't like, but there doesn't seem to be anything special about him in comparison to right-wing funders. Flip sides of a coin if you will.

What I do find interesting is the focus on how he could be a billionaire and still remain true to his beliefs and not endorse the laissez-faire movement that supposedly would benefit him. Of course, such a confusion is based on a presumption that such an economy would indeed benefit him most, which is not something all wealthy individuals agree on. Also, even if it were true, why would one demonize the fact that one put morals above personal gain? We saw a version of this in '04 with the attacks on the Kerry/Heinz fortune.

Originally Posted by loquitur

He merely has to be so infused with a sense of his own competence and wisdom that he thinks he can tell other people what to do.

Why does being an advocate or sharing your view on things automatically mean that you are telling people what to do? I'm an advocate for causes I believe in. I share views on this board on a regular basis. Do you think I am trying to order you around? Why would it be any different if I were funding advertising and websites that promoted that view? Isn't America a country where we are SUPPOSED to share our views in a marketplace of ideas?

[Elphaba]

I think the resentment toward Soros goes well beyond his failure to "see the light." He was a poor Greek immigrant who through hard work and intelligence became a self-made man of great wealth. He wasn't born into wealth as was Scaif, nor did he pick the pockets of the faithful to enrich himself, as have many of the Religious Right leadership.

His greatest "crime", however, is that he didn't use his wealth to bring greater power to himself. Instead, he has been doing what Bush only uses as a slogan for other purposes. Soros is bringing democracy to other countries and it isn't at the point of a gun, but through willing economic reform. One of his foundations is assisting the former Communist Bloc countries who wish to join the European Union. These countries must abandon the communist policies that brought them monetary ruin and adopt other economic principals that will lead to self-sufficiency.

Soros loves democracy, and he is intelligent enough to see how capitalism can become corrupted. It is easy to understand why he must be personally vilified by those who have a stake in corporatism.

[host]

Read the posts on the first page of this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=130666

Watch the Tom Delay political ad at the "click here" link to the video, in the following quote box,(it's short, and downloads quickly):

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefi...lay_ads_1.html
washingtonpost.com's Politics Blog
Meet Chris Cillizza
Soros Appears in Pro-DeLay ads
An interesting television ad went up last week in Rep. Tom DeLay's (R) Houston-area congressional district. The ad attacks Democrat billionaire philanthropist George Soros for his alleged funding of attacks on DeLay.

"George Soros: full of money and liberal ideas" says the ad's narrator. The commercial notes that Soros donated $25 million to efforts to defeat President Bush in 2004 and "bankrolled the liberals linked to attacks on Tom DeLay." Last month the Public Action Fund and Campaign For America's Future began running ads critical of DeLay. Soros donated $300,000 to Campaign For America's Future in 2004.

In the new ad aimed at Soros, the narrator goes on to suggest that liberal interest groups don't like DeLay because he "fights for lower taxes and economic freedom." <a href="http://mfile.akamai.com/18288/rm/video.washingtonpost.com/media/politics/022106-7v.ram">Click here</a> to see the ad for yourself (Requires Real Player).

The Houston Chronicle reported last Friday that Houston homebuilder Bob Perry funded the entirety of the $200,000 ad buy through a donation to the Free Enterprise Committee, which is the soft-money arm of the Free Enterprise Fund -- a D.C. based thinktank and political action committee. (One Democratic strategist pointed out that Perry was also a main source of funding for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads during the 2004 presidential campaign.)

The Free Enterprise Committee filed its paperwork as a 527 with the Internal Revenue Service in June 2005, although the organization did not receive any contributions or spend any money last year. In its incorporation papers, the group's purpose is listed as "education and issue advocacy regarding the free enterprise system and pro-growth, free-market economic principles (such as lower taxes, smaller government/less government regulations, sound fiscal policies, litigation reform, and free trade)." Because it is a 527, the Free Enterprise Committee can accept unlimited donations (like Perry's) but must disclose its funding sources and expenditures on a regular basis....


By Chris Cillizza | February 21, 2006

http://web.archive.org/web/200602251...n/3668654.html
DeLay ad challenges anti-Bush billionaire
Area builder paid entire cost of TV attack on Dem financier Soros

By SAMANTHA LEVINE and KRISTEN MACK
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle
Feb. 17, 2006, 11:49PM

Houston homebuilder Bob Perry is the sole funding source for a $200,000 TV advertising campaign that supports Rep. Tom DeLay and criticizes Democratic financier George Soros.

Perry, a longtime Republican donor, gave the entire amount that the conservative Committee for Free Enterprise used on the 30-second spot, according to spokesman Anthony Holm. The committee, rather than Perry, is identified in the ad as the sponsor.

"Mr. Perry felt the truth needed to be told and this was the best vehicle to do so," Holm said. "Mr. Perry believes Tom DeLay has done an excellent job protecting jobs, NASA, and our borders. He spent it as the result of the several unjustified attacks on Tom DeLay."

The ad is running on at least two television stations in DeLay's suburban Houston district a few weeks after two liberal groups aired an anti-DeLay ad.

E. O'Brien Murray, executive director of the Washington-based Committee for Free Enterprise, would not discuss the contribution.

Perry, a close friend of President Bush's top political aide, Karl Rove, has given millions to Texas GOP candidates, including DeLay.

Perry and his wife, Doylene, each contributed $5,000 late last year to DeLay's legal defense fund.

Perry's company is building the Oaks at Rio Bend, a residential campus for foster children founded by DeLay and his wife, Christine.

DeLay is running in the GOP primary March 7 and is awaiting trial in Travis County on charges of money laundering relating to the 2002 Texas House races.

KPRC Channel 2 and KHOU Channel 11 are airing the ad from the Committee for Free Enterprise for two weeks.

Tom Ash, vice president for creative services at KTRK Channel 13, would not say whether the station was running the ad.

KRIV Channel 26 will not air the spot in its current form.

Hopefully, somebody will start a new thread where we can dicsuss, in earnest, splitting into two separate politics forums, one for each planet.