Politico runs correction of DeLay claim that Soros funds Media Matters
As Media Matters for America noted, on April 23, the same day that Fox News' Bill O'Reilly went on the attack against Media Matters -- purporting to diagram what he presented as a web of conspiracy involving progressive donors, nonprofits, and the media, with Media Matters at the center -- The Politico ran an op-ed by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), in which DeLay alleged that "George Soros, upset with the slight inroads conservatives have made recently, has funded an organization called Media Matters for America, led by liberal muckraker David Brock." In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization.
On April 26, The Politico issued the following correction:
Picture's not showin up guys, technical difficulties?
well, it is from page 48 bottom left so it's not as if it is meant to be seen! (FYI the placement comment is just a freaking joke)
Right the Politico corrected itself as a joke... directed at who? Politico? IDIOT
It would be nice if they turned honest and just renamed it Repolitico, but then it is a neo-con spin-zine so we know how quickly that will happen...
follow the money follow the money
Right because when I give money away it remains MY MONEY. So I paid my gardner who gave it to his girlfriend who gave a bartender a tip who bought drugs with it so I am supporting drug dealers. Brilliant, I am so glad you made that point AGAIN. We have only debunked it a few hundred times. THIS TIME I see the light.
I've asked this before on this same subject and not one of the followers of mmfa or mmfa itself seems to be willing to provide proof that they do not recieve money from soros. Who got a link to mmfa financial statements that prove they do not get soros's money? I've asked several times before and no one seems willing to share the information. Perhaps something is being hidden?
Can not see the picture either.
can we see another flow chart? the real intent here is to deflect away from what mmfa actually does, which is provide extensive quotes of what many in the media say.
You mean...Tom Delay....LIED? Please, Hammer...tell me it ain't so!
LOL...too funny.
Funny stuff. MMFA corrects the Soros allegation once again but aparently has no problem with Brock being referred to as a "liberal muckraker".
Ahh Bruce,
Quoting one of the great posters here, disquised as a seafood entree'.....are you mind reading again?
Actually, I think I have figured something out. All this fuss the past few weeks (or is it months?) about correcting the "Soros is funding MMFA" canard. I think they protest too much. But I have the reason why. It's because they REALLY aren't getting any Soros money and they want some. I mean, isn't MMFA as good a liberal site as these Soros funded ones? Why shouldn't MMFA be getting a little Soros money, I think they might be a little jealous and perhaps in need of some cash flow...;-)
No, all the "fuss" was about media figures LYING about Soros funding this website. The "fuss" is about correcting LIES. If MMFA were desperate for funds, they would request more donations from readers, and have major donation drives like other websites.
MMFA - The "John McCain" of websites. All that fund raising stuff is so unseemly.
Point Tommy!
Whoops, hold on there Brucie. You need to consult with the other refs. I believe Tommy was out of bounds before he scored. If we check the replay:
"If MMFA were desperate for funds" "If MMFA were desperate for funds" "If MMFA..." "If...fI...If...fI...If"
Yes, the replay shows indisputable evidence that the implication was that MMfA were NOT desperate for funds, therefore Tommy's whole foot was outside the field of play BEFORE he used the McCain reference.
The ball will be placed back in Tommy's court, where it will be second and goal.
Great job completely ignoring the fact that all your heroes in the right-wing media LIED about who funds MMFA.
Keep those heads planted firmly in the ground Tommy and Bruce.
WHAT? I can't hear you. All the subterranean noises down here make it so damn hard.
Obviously.
There's nothing wrong with the term "muckraker". It's been around since Teddy Roosevelt's time. The definition is "one who exposes corruption".
Thank you. It sounded like a slur to me. And the fact that Delay wrote it didn't alter that thought.
Well, if you traffic in corruption, and a muckraker exposes corruption, you don't consider "muckraker" a compliment, do you?
Don't take it personally. By you I don't mean you, don't you know.
Believe it or not, I learned the definition in grade school. We actually were taught such things back then.
In high school we had to read works by Upton Sinclair and other muckrakers.
because MMFA has some class unlike your "hero's" who feel the need to lie about everyone and everything?
He shouldnt. When the term was first coined it was complimentary. It was for people who raked the muck to expose the truth like Upton Sinclair with the Jungle.
Funding or not funding, George Soros is a great American.
mmfa is still playing the cute littel game...Soros has never given money directly or through any of his organizations...laughable.
Just because there is no "smoking check" evidence or evidence that Soros dirrected one of his organizations to give money to mmfa...Soros money arrives at mmfa and helps fund their operation.
It has become more than curious why mmfa continues to deny their connections to Soros. Why are they apparantly afraid of identifying their efforts with those of Soros? Maybe Rod Serling will return and explain this Twilight Zone scenario.
and yet you have no proof of your slander. but you don't need no stinkin' proof do you when you can have that mush between your ears injected with more stupid every day from your masters.
"Soros dirrected one of his organizations to give money to mmfa"
This is the heart of the accusation against MMFA yet, no dittohead accuser has provided any evidence except Moveon.org which is NOT Soro's organization. Evidence anyone?
LOL asking wesley for evidence! Never has hapened, likely never will
Depends on the subject of discussion: were the subject chosen to be "the mush between" his ears, he provides evidence - irrefutable evidence - with each ensuing post.
Okay okay-i'm a spy for the masses who has a job here at MMFA!! We got 100 billion dollars from George Soros since January!! SO F---ING WHAT!! What is your point? What is the point of where they get the money??? What is the objection??????? HUH HUH HUH??? Go crawl in a hole you pig
The point is misdirection. It's the classic rightwing technique. Ignore substantive argument and go directly to the ad hominem attacks. If your opponent gets flustered and responds to your attacks, you've got him. You've won the argument without even engaging in it. Case in point, all the posts rehashing the "does he, doesn't he argument" which, as you point out, is completely irrelevant.
So, what you're saying is, just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean that it's not so.
Oh, yeah? Prove it.
I never said that-I asked what difference does it make if it were true, which I don't know nor care.
Wesley,
You seem to be quite certain, especially for one who appears to have not one shred of proof.
If you can polish up your lying, you're well on your way to being a good Republican.
Soros funds several groups...those groups fund mmfa...mmfa receives Soros money.
If these groups that receive money from Soros segregate the accounting and distribution and state that under those conditions they can validate that mmfa receives none of George's dollars...I'll stand corrected.
The larger unanswered question is...why does mmfa hide from their association with Soros. Given their track record...I don't see why it would be any big deal. A liberal donor...funding a liberal organization...que sera sera.
Once Soros donates to an organization, it’s not his money anymore; it’s the organization’s money. These organizations can then do whatever they want to with their money. The only possible exception is if the donation is conditional (the donor actually specifies where the money should go or puts some other condition on it).
- Once Soros donates to an organization, it’s not his money anymore; it’s the organization’s money. These organizations can then do whatever they want to with their money. - loonz
Well I'm gald we cleared that up...makes me wonder why we spent so much time prosecuting Jack Abramoff....lmao.
Well I'm gald we cleared that up...makes me wonder why we spent so much time prosecuting Jack Abramoff....lmao.
The Abramoff scandal is about bribery.
Anyway, I have no idea why you mentioned Abramoff. What's the analogy?
i'll take a wild guess. it's the fact abramoff is in prison, and what that has to do with money going to mmfa....?
Man that was a pathetic attempt at changing the subject. Bribery isnt even in the same area code as this subject.
You're absolutely correct...this is not about bribery.
It's about the comical statement that donors give their money with no expectations. Whether it is criminally given by the likes of Abramoff...or freely given by Soros...or a charitable donation by someone to the Red Cross...the donors have expections.
To suggest that Soros just throws around millions of dollars with no expectations about how they will be spent is the real comedy by mmfa's naive supporters.
mmfa receives Soros money...and it comes with expectations by Soros...tacit or otherwise.
Abramoff gave money to Republicans. Direct giving.
Abramoff also directed his clients to give their money to Republicans, and to give a smaller proportion to Democrats than what they had been giving.
Contrast that with no evidence that George Soros gave any money to Media Matters, and that there's no evidence that George Soros gave any money to any organization with the direction that they then must give it to Media Matters, nor any evidence that if George Soros wanted to give money to Media Matters he couldn't do it for some reason.
We prosecuted Abramoff because he did illegal things. George Soros has not done anything illegal.
You have no point. You made no analogy that fit. Media Matters facts win again.
The question is not about Soros and MMFA, the question is about why you continue to lie and fabricate about Soros and MMFA.
I bought some merchandise at Wal-Mart and then Wal-Mart went and gave some money to the bush (lowercase intentional) campaign. Does that mean I'm supporting bush?
What is curious is why you keep beating this dead horse. Soros gives group A money. It becomes THEIR money THEY decide to give some of it to MMFA, that is in no WAY saying Soros is giving money to MMFA. UNLESS you can show he is giving money to group A and TELLING them to give it to MMFA. Also it would be nice if you could explain why IF Soros wanted to give money to MMFA he wouldnt just WRITE THEM A CHECK.
This is what I noticed in this posting by Media Matters.....
"George Soros, upset with the slight inroads conservatives have made recently, has funded an organization called Media Matters for America..."
C'mon now. Slight inroads? Who is he kidding?
There has been a contamination of almost everything in America by these folks.
PBS - yes, even PBS has been contaminated.
K Street - the lobbyists and their firms who had to choose to employ a set number of conservatives in order to have access.
The Justice Department - has everyone seen how many people are working for the Bush Administration who came from Pat Robertson's law school, a 4th tier college. Do we really want 4th tier graduates running our nation and handling the application of our laws?
Global Warming - how much time has been lost in the efforts to save the world for my kids? I just retired so most of the really bad effects will happen after I die, but I have descendants who will suffer greatly because of the things my nation failed to do when I was alive, and those failures can be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration and neo-cons everywhere.
The suggestion that they have made "slight inroads" implies that they were on the outside looking in before. They were not. There was no liberal media bias to confront and contain. It was all an invention of those on the right. There had been a community of leaders from both sides of the aisle before, and it was the Republicans and the neo-cons who wanted to minimize the input from those on the left and have a unitary executive who was only given bills he would sign. It's the Republicans who walk in lockstep, excluding all others. It is they who refuse to allow dissenters to make "slight inroads" into their exclusive party.
"slight inroads", that's what caught my eye too.
If tom delay thinks that the crimes of the Republican Congress were "inroads", then he must think that the ditch that runs alongside the road is an "inroad".
If those many crimes committed were "slight inroads", then what's tom delay call his own indictment... the "high road"?
Or that the Panama Canal is a ditch in Central America.
Or that the Titanic sprung a leak
Something happen to the Titanic? I was watching the Fox NEWS Channel all day and they never mentioned it?
Prince:
It happened long ago. Pamela Anderson's grandmother went down on the Titanic.
If the right wishes to put an end to Media Matters all they have to do is stop fabricating it's as simple as that but until then.
Is it really a point of shame to receive funding from George Soros? The only people that have a problem with Soros are the people who keep slandering him. I wouldn't think of his money as tainted, and I hardly think anyone with MMFA would, either. The man has deep pockets for causes many people can get behind.
MMFA is doing what it should do (as it does with most else), and point out the lack of credibility to the counter-claims of Mr. O'Reilly and Mr. Limbaugh with regards to the Soros-funding. I gather Mr. Soros is somebody conservatives don't like or something?
I can only imagine that the funding issue really only matters to ditto-heads anyway. That certain radio and TV personalities have to go after MMFA specifically must mean their penchant for quoting these guys verbatim (with context) is getting under the old epidermis.
It's not a matter of shame. It's a matter of fact.
so prove it
No its a fantasy.
Good points. Funny how you never see the right complaining that Richard Mellon Scaife, the Scaife family, and the Koch family fund many of the most prominent conservative groups (both families are heavily tied to big oil).
Conservatives don't complain about all the funding from Scaife for "news" websites (and I use that term very loosely) like NewsMax.com, CNS News, or all the newspapers he owns. Scaife also funds most of the right-wing think-tanks like the Hoover Institute, Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, etc.
Those organizations produce most of the conservative talking heads you see on the news all the time.
Scaife even funds the right-wing "media watchdog" the Media Research Center, run by Brent Bozell, and all the connected organizations (Parent Television Council, etc.).
So who does fund MMFA?
(I heard that David Brock promised Tim Russert he'd release the financial records. Oh wait.. that was someone else...)
mmfa has made no substantive rebuttal of receiving Soros money. Their denial has come only in the form of slippery statements.
Makes no difference to me who funds mmfa because their liberal agenda is clear...and their donors will be like-minded. Yet, I won't abide their ridiculous claims that they receive none of George's money.
If they want to offer some substantial information about not receiving money from Soros...not just more of the "we don't" type...I'll stand corrected.
Until then...it's clear that Soros funds groups who contribute to mmfa...and that means Soros money funds mmfa.
So if MMFA receives a check from the Center for American Progress or Moveon.org, who gave the money to those people?
"In fact, as Media Matters has repeatedly noted, Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization."
This is obviously a lie in that if MMFA cashes a check from either of these institutions -- and it has -- money from Soros is obviously in it. MMFA has been forced to change its story in the past.
"Media Matters has not always been forthcoming about its high-profile backers. In particular, the group has long labored to obscure any financial ties to George Soros. The tactic met with success until December 1, 2004, when conservative journalist and author David Horowitz published a column in Front Page Magazine connecting Media Matters to Soros. Horowitz's allegations prompted an indignant response from Media Matters, subtlely titled "Proven Liar Horowitz said Media Matters Ignores the Facts," accusing him of dealing in "outright falsehood." Wrote Media Matters: "Horowitz asserted that Media Matters has received funding from billionaire philanthropist George Soros. To date, neither Media Matters nor its president and CEO David Brock has received any money from Soros or from any organization with which he is affiliated." (emphasis added) But in March 2003, the Cybercast News Service (CNS) had detailed the copious links between Media Matters and several Soros "affiliates"—among them MoveOn.org, the Center for American Progress and Soros confederate Peter Lewis. Confronted with this story, Media Matters was forced to retreat from its phony defense (but did not offer any apologies to Horowitz). A Media Matters spokesman cautiously explained that "Media Matters for America has never received funding directly from George Soros" (emphasis added), a transparent evasion."
Eventually documents will surface. And we won't need Dan Rather for it either. If O'Reilly had any brains, he would be financing proof for this is easily MMFA's greatest weak spot -- which is indignant lying about where its funding comes from.
Confronted with this story, Media Matters was forced to retreat from its phony defense (but did not offer any apologies to Horowitz).
- leatherhelmet / Thursday April 26, 2007 03:56:40 PM EST
Horowitz doesn't need an apology. He asserted that Media Matters receives funding from Soros which is a lie.
MMFA doesn't need to lie about where they get their funding. Even if it Soros gave money to MMFA, so what? Soros is held in high regard by everyone except dead end wing nuts. The question is why do you have to continue to lie about Soros and MMFA?
Let me try again. It's about lying vs telling the truth. See, its EZ.
Guys, please.
Our economy is such that with every purchase we make we support terrorists, drug dealers and every imaginable criminal and philanthropic activity.
We put our money into things we want and or believe in and then that money goes somewhere else. A lot of the time to organizations that we despise.
I can't stand News Corp, but Rupert gets my $39.99 every month for DirecTV, not to mention the extras he has me addicted to like TIVO and HD service. But that's a very obvious path. Most of the money we pay for goods and services goes God knows where for God knows what.
So, I'll grant you that money that came out of George Soros's accounts finds it's way into the account of MMFA.
But, remember, when we fill up our gas tank, we're putting money into the Madrases that teach children to hate us above all things.
When we buy things like soap and shampoo we're paying to torture little bunny rabbits.
When we pay for our health insurance, we're paying money to lobbyists who work to see that health care in America is weighted towards profit for the insurers and big medicine companies and against our own interests.
Once the money leaves your pocket, it's part of something that we have no control over. Not even Soros has that much control over the almighty dollar once he spends it.
Hey, Wesley: here's how it works:
if you release and publish here, you financial records going back to your birth, we will 1.) use the records maliciously, leading to your shaming before the civilized world; 2.) insist that you never be allowed to escape those records, not even to the extent of acquiring a different or additional email address, or using another's, to limit the spam; 3.) assure you once again that MMFA receives and has received no money from George Soros.
Ok Wesley SO WHAT? But really, by law and common sense, once Soros gives his money away its... DUH! No longer HIS money. That doesn't prove any accusations that mediamatters is a hitman website protecting BIG BAD Mr Soros from his "poor little" political enemies. Thats the crux of the beef with OReally and his ilk and supporters such as yourself. STILL No evidence to that effect. What say you??
Soros gave his money to his OWN organizations that he founded. He didn't just give it away. He gave it to his own organizations with pre-existing agendas which included funding Media Matters. Those are facts. And if Media Matters says they can guarantee that not one of the millions and millions of dollars of checks they cashed from SOROS founded organizations, it is lying.
It doesn't matter. It doesn't dispute that "Soros has never given money to Media Matters, either directly or through another organization."
Again leather, the only viable example is MOVEON.ORG. Provide documentation that SOROS OWNS/FOUNDED moveon.org. PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
You two can repeat this bunk a million more times if you wish. Your assertion is garbage. Wishing wont make it so. Repitition is not a magic formula that makes nonsense true. We have made the relevant points which you have NOT ADDRESSED. Unless you can cough up evidence we BOTH know you dont have, that Soros TOLD the groups to give the money he gave THEM, to MMFA, then ya got nothin. Also if Soros WANTED to give MMFA money he could WRITE THEM A CHECK, which he has not done.
LEATHERHELMET:
I'd like to know why YOU are then funding ME? It would seem unlikely you'd WANT to fund me, but since you pay the IRS with your dollars, and GW Bush sent out "refunds" to everyone back when, I got my $300 check, and it was BOUND to have contained some of the cash YOU sent in and laundered through the IRS.
By your "LOGIC", this little do-si-dough of money flowing through organizations proves conclusively that YOU are funding ME.
What I can't understand is WHY you would do such a thing?
- Ok Wesley SO WHAT? - dtrain
That's my point exactly...so what. In that context why does mmfa go to such lengths to deny receiving Soros money....when it plainly does.
unlike you wesley some folks like the truth
The Politico is really getting the job done. At least with the Rudy quote/non-quote about Dems being terror-friendly, it shows they can screw up Repub and Dem candidates alike.
I saw that USA Today signed the Politico up for a story sharing arrangement. I think Chris Dodd and Mike Huckabee have a better shot of being around after Iowa than Politico.
We'll know for sure when Allen or Vandehei jump ship.
ILL BET U OREILLY WONT CORRECT IT HA HA
HE KNOWS HE CAN GET AWAY WITH LIES HIS CULT MEMBERS DONT CARE
Too simplistic DRS. Needs some more spunk.... I am offering classes next week on how to effectively refute wingnuts. Sign up dude.
Open enrollment?
Fees?
Required reading?
On-line only?
Syllabus?
itll cost ya a pretty penny... no seriously... just a pretty penny will get you in.
All my pennies are those ugly little copper-clad slugs. (sorry)
BUT WHAT ABOUT BILL O'REILLY'S CHART?
Maybe Bill could sell it to a gynecologist with poor eyesight as an anatomical diagram. ;>)
I'm pretty sure it was MY donation to MoveOn that went to Media Matters.
Heh, why not.
Hey, if you limit yourself to either/or, we'll never get the truth:
Give to BOTH! (Note than I am retired, fixed-income thing and all; but I do cycle donations among those two, and BuzzFlash, and TPM, and once in a while, RawStory. Nobody gets rich, but I find value in each, so I support each.)
Republican lies are front page news, the truth is on page 3 of the style section.