CHANGE MY LOCATION
Commentary
California News
Multimedia News
Commentary - Soros drives Democratic Party: Author
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
Related Topics: WASHINGTON
)
David Horowitz, co-author of the book “Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party,” argues financier George Soros is the force behind Democratic Party politics.
WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The Examiner interviews David Horowitz, co-author with Richard Poe of “The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party,” published by Nelson Current.
Examiner: What is “The Shadow Party” and why do you call it that, instead of a “movement” or even a “conspiracy”?
Horowitz: Shadow Party is a term the Washington Post and other media organizations gave to a group of 527s — entities for funding political efforts — that were being organized by [billionaire activist] George Soros. It’s a transmogrification of “shadow government,” a political science term for a government in waiting.
Soros was the spearhead behind the McCain-Feingold [campaign finance] bill, and raised tens of millions of dollars to promote the cause. What it did was defund the Democratic Party in particular because it severely limited the contributions to a political party, and most Republican contributions went to candidates. At that point in time, the Democrats depended to a great extent on big union contributions, 95 percent of which went to them.
The Democratic Party lost $100 million or more to Soros-created entities like Americans Coming Together that collected that union money. So the control shifted from the Democratic Party to Soros’ network, which became the force behind Democratic Party politics. All Democratic candidates had to answer to Soros. Unions also provided workers during elections; 100,000 campaign workers amount to another $100 million, all of which were under the control of Soros-created 527s.
The second sense in which it’s a shadow party is that Republicans were in power and Soros Democrats were seeking power, first to unseat the Democratic Party regulars and then the Republicans.
Examiner: How is this different from, say, the GOP’s Goldwater movement in the 1960s?
Horowitz: The Goldwater movement was a grassroots movement. Here you have an immense concentration of wealth. Richard Scaife gives some money to Republicans, but Soros personally put $27 million into his campaign to remove George W. Bush, and the Shadow Party spent $300 million in the ’04 campaign. Before then, the largest individual contribution to a political party was $600,000 from a Clinton donor, so the concentration of money and resources has dwarfed anything previous.
And it’s top-down; 100,000 union members are not the same thing as Americans at a town meeting. This is very much an orchestrated effort by a very small group of people.
Examiner: Who are the big players in this Shadow Party?
Horowitz: Insurance mogul Peter Lewis, Stephen Bing of Shangri-La Entertainment, members of Americans Coming Together, and lawyer Harold Ickes — Bill Clinton’s fixer in the White House and Hillary’s silent chief of staff who is also CEO of the Shadow Party and ran its media operation.
Examiner: How would you track the activities of the Shadow Party?
Horowitz: You need to alert Examiner readers to the fact that a lot of these organizations such as America Coming Together don’t exist any more. They are not really grassroots organizations. Soros will just create a new set for coming election.
My Web site, discoverthenetworks.org, is an encyclopedia of the left. You can see our tracking of Soros’ Open Society Institute and follow his money and network ties to the Clinton machine in our Politics section. He’ll do what’s needed to elect Hillary Clinton.
Examiner: Is the level of critical media scrutiny commensurate with Soros’ influence on public policy?
Horowitz: Not at all, the reason being that the media is sympathetic to Soros and his biggest goal: to destroy Bush and take the Republican Party down with him.
Democrats are scared of him because he has too much power. Look what happened to Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who challenged him. Soros put up a complete non-entity in the primary and defeated him. Other Democrats don’t want him going into their congressional districts and unseating them, too. Everyone has to look over their shoulder, which is why they march in real lock-step, with very little disagreement or dissent.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., was a very good national security Democrat; nobody who ran against her ever got 40 percent. But her politics — and her votes — began to change when the Soros machine threatened to go in with a credible candidate and resources to defeat her.
Soros has a deep anti-American sentiment. In his view, George W. Bush created the terrorists. He’s so historically ignorant that it’s breathtaking, but even John Edwards repeated that when he said that the war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker.
Examiner: Can the Shadow Party change public policy on an issue of its choosing?
Horowitz: We still live in a democracy, however flawed, so Soros’ influence on a particular policy depends on the issue. He’s had a huge influence on the most important issue — the war — but he’s been less successful trying to legalize drugs, which cuts sharply against the American grain. He’s also a huge supporter of euthanasia, a Dr. Kervorkian fellow-traveler.
Examiner: How should conservatives respond to the Shadow Party?
Horowitz: Conservatives are really lame at political battles. Witness what we are up against: people who want to betray our troops in the field and end the war in Iraq with absolutely no plan what to do when the bloodbath begins — just to win the next election.
Conservatives should have been setting up mirror 527s three years ago. Republicans always lose the political battle because they pretend it doesn’t exist. Bush allowed the opposition to paint him as a liar and manipulator with very little response. And the surge should have been done three years ago. What kind of rules of engagement allow terrorists to have bases in big cities? What lunacy is that?
The first thing we have to do is fight the domestic movement that wants us to lose the war on terror. That includes Al Gore, the wretched Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and half of the Democratic leadership who are more interested in getting elected one time than protecting Americans.
But the Republican Party pretends it’s just politics as usual. We’re not in the battle.
Examiner: What is the Shadow Party’s biggest objective for 2008?
Horowitz: Get us out of Iraq. Soros also wants Hillary elected president. She’s a very left-wing socialist and so is he. He’s also big on open borders: he’s already declared that American supremacy is the world’s number one problem. If you point out they have a similar agenda to the communists, the left will call you a McCarthyite and witch-hunter. We can’t even call traitors that, so they’ve won that battle.
We [you] need to be asking: Are you ready to defend this county and insist that legal immigrants are respectful of our institutions and language? We can’t even win that battle, let alone the battle over the Islamic invasion of the West. America’s only hope is to defeat the Islamo-fasists who want to destroy us, but the Shadow Party doesn’t want to defend this country.
The U.S. is in exactly the same position as Israel, held to a higher standard than anybody else. We’re cutting ourselves off at the knees.
Examiner: Will the Shadow Party win the next election?
Horowitz: If the election were held tomorrow, yes. The Democratic Party is a dangerous party that wants to disarm America. But the Republicans are in serious trouble and their base is demoralized. It’s terrible.
Examiner: Does the Internet make it easier for Soros to achieve his political objectives?
Horowitz: The Internet is neutral. It would actually be easier for us conservatives — if we did something. But there’s no leadership.
If the American people understand the stakes in Iraq — and the president hasn’t spent a whole lot of time explaining them — they’d respond the way they always have.
Bush would have lost the last election if not for the Swift boat guys operating on a shoestring, but the Bush White House attacked them. You don’t see any Democrats attacking Soros.
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:16 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 30, 2007 re: "Soros drives Democratic Party: Author"
Report as inappropriate
1:40 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 30, 2007
re: "Soros drives Democratic Party: Author"
Report as inappropriate
6:25 AM MST on Wed., May. 23, 2007
re: "James Joyner: ‘Brave New War’ offers grim view of future"
Report as inappropriate
Publis10011(cont.) said:
I think that Messrs. Horowitz & Poe should give Mr. Soros the benefit of the doubt. As his new book "The Age of Fallibility" (2006) suggests, the way to think about Soros is that he is like Socrates--what he is really fighting against is dogmatism--and what he is fighting for is critical thinking. From his new book: "I do NOT feel comfortable engaging in partisan politics.... I would prefer to be ABOVE politics" (p. xviii). ... "My goal is to make the world a better place" (p. xi). "I recognize that no one has elected me or appointed me as a guardian of the public interest; I have taken on that role for myself" (p. xii). "Our society is suspicious of those who claim to be virtuous and not without justification. ... When I claim to be disinterested, the burden of proof is on me" (p. xi). In the Socratic sense, what if Messrs. Horowitz & Poe are wrong? What if Mr. Soros is authentic and the "real deal?" I say give him the benefit of the doubt! :)
222 agree | 246 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Publis10011 said:
For all this talk about Soros having an impact on the Democratic Party, I would like to quote some passages from his book "Open Society" (2000): "People should separate their role as market participant from their role as political participant. As market participant, people out to pursue their individual self-interests; as participants in the political process, they ought to be guided by the public interest" (p. 152). ... "I have never forgotten the words of Sergei Kovalev, the Russian dissident and human rights activist, who told me that he takes great pride in having fought losing battles of his life. I have not quite lived up to his standards, but I do practice what I preach. I try to be a winner as a market participant and I try to serve the common interest as a citizen and human being." (p. 155). If Mr. Soros is using his influence to help make the world a better place (which he is), I say BRAVO!!!
234 agree | 226 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Bob Stevens said:
To- James Joyner: Great review of John Robb's new book and same for the interview. A global view of not only "sacred rage" jihadists, but also criminal and tribal organizations is vital to understand what civilized societies must do to respond and survive. Yes, Robb misses one of the primary solutions to global disruption, especially since the perpetrators don't have an infrastructure to target. The infrastructure, materials, technology, and money to support disruption can do nothing without the nefarious people. Thus, the primary solution is to target the people, including preemptive strikes. It hasn't been too many years since suggesting preemptive action was sacrilege and Congress would threaten to throw us in jail. Now, Congress is demanding preemptive actions against global disruption. We need to spend more of those billions allocated to the global war on targeting people who would like to take us all back to 600A.D.
236 agree | 251 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree