March 21, 2007

But Will They Stop Taking His Money?

George Soros wrote an article for the New York Review of Books that attacked the US for its pro-Israeli policies. The Democratic Party underwriter made clear that he felt the US should start dealing directly with Hamas, despite its existence as a terrorist organization, and complained about the influence of AIPAC. That created a problem for Barack Obama, who has received support from Soros, as well as many other Democrats:

Leading Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, are distancing themselves from an essay published this week by one of their party's leading financiers that called for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. ...

The Soros article puts Democrats in the awkward position of choosing between Mr. Soros, a major funder of their causes, and the pro-Israel lobby, whose members are also active in campaign fund-raising. Pressed by The New York Sun, some Democrats aired their differences with Mr. Soros.

Well, except for Obama, the leading Democrats themselves are not distancing themselves from Soros. His campaign office, at least, issued a statement rejecting Hamas as a partner for peace, noting that the US position on this is correct, and that many other organizations besides AIPAC agree. Obama himself has not addressed the issue, but at least his staff has.

The same cannot be said for Hillary Clinton or the DNC. Hillary Clinton's response came via Re. Eliot Engel, who called Soros "obviously very self-absorbed". The DNC refused to comment, and one of its vice-chairs, Susan Turnbull, tried to blame the pro-Israel policies of the US on George Bush -- meaning that she agreed with Soros about it, although she tried to separate her agreement from AIPAC, which promotes the policies that Bush (and previous presidents) implements.

When will we hear directly from Clinton on this issue? Soros plays a critical role in raising funds for the party she wants to lead. Will Hillary personally and explicitly reject his calls to negotiate with terrorists? Up to now, Democrats haven't breathed a word about Soros' attempts to paint AIPAC as part of a cabal to make American policy subordinate to Israeli interests. They need to state whether they buy into Soros' conspiracy theories as well as into his cash, and they need to do that themselves, rather than through proxies.

In fact, they can make their position very clear by either accepting or rejecting Soros money, now and in the future, and that applies even more to the DNC.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference But Will They Stop Taking His Money?:

» Captain's Drek from bustardblog
For a blogger on the right, Captain Ed is occasionally reasonable. Today just isn't one of those occasions. He writes about Soros' article in the New York Review of Books, about which I wrote yesterday, without actually discussing any the [Read More]

» Captain's Drek from bustardblog
For a blogger on the right, Captain Ed is occasionally reasonable. Today just isn't one of those occasions. He writes about Soros' article in the New York Review of Books, about which I wrote yesterday, without actually discussing any of [Read More]

» Soros wants his money’s worth from Likelihood of Success
And not in shekels, either.  Captain’s Quarters calls George Soros “underwriter” of the Democratic party.  With a little luck, aided by the force of his magnificent, warbucks-enriched and hypocrisy-proof ego, he may end up being its... [Read More]

» Web Reconnaissance for 03/21/2007 from The Thunder Run
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention. [Read More]

» Sucking up to Soros from Wizbang Politics
When George Soros recently penned a column for the New York Review of Books which blasted the United States for refusing to deal with Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group elected to power in the terror-tories, and calling upon the Democratic... [Read More]

» THURS MAR 22 Those Adorable Lying Democrats from The Pink Flamingo

I’ve had a discouraging day. 

[Read More]

Comments (29)

Posted by stackja1945 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 6:58 AM

Sorows of the Dems. The Sorows money or the election loss?
Joos keep making trouble. Sorows and Ham Ass maybe seeking a final solution.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 8:08 AM

In my lifetime, I've witnessed the Democratic Party completely morph into the Socialist Workers party, right in front of everyone's eyes. They've ridden high on the heady wave of an inexhaustible supply of other peoples' money, pandering to everyone's greed and self-absoption. And now the few remaining Democrats are beginning to see the terrible price that they are going to pay for that catastrophic error.

Now the devil is demanding his due, and we shall see what currency he will accept. How many souls will it cost?

Posted by DaveR [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 8:09 AM

I am sure the media calls for the other Dems to either distance themselves from Soros' position or say why not will soon prove deafening.

Now I have to get back to work on my list to Santa. I'm so going for the pony this year!

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:01 AM

Soros spent much of his time and money lambasting Halliburton for the past several years. Recently, Soros made a very large purchase of Halliburton stock.

This guy is a very dangerous man; and he owns the Democratic Party... This man needs to be exposed for the anti-American hyprocrite he is. The fact that this man sits on top of the Democratic Party is very revealing as to the direction Dems will take our country if given the power.

Posted by lawismylife [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:13 AM

It's wishful thinking to believe that the liberal jewish lobby will abandon any preferred candidate who cozies up with Soros. First, from what I have read over the years, the liberal jewish lobby is about as anti-israel as Soros is. Second, both major political parties are willing to swallow a lot of poison pills in order to gain the whitehouse prize. Third, the liberal-socialist agenda takes priority over any concerns about Israel. In the end, these seemingly antagonistic liberal groups will ride the same horse if it means victory for them.

Posted by krm [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:24 AM

Soros' subsidiary, MoveOn.og, claimed a while back to have purchased the Donks. We have to expect the Donks to jump at their mater's voice.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:31 AM

"You can pile bales of cash on top of a jackass, but underneath it's still a jackass." --Jackie Mason, on George Soros

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 11:35 AM


The one political stereotype about Jews that is correct is that they are the most left of center interest group in the country. In the past election cycle 88% of the Jewish vote went to the Democrats which is close to an historic high. The Jewish center (the median voter) still has warm feelings about communism. Jewish American affection for Israel began to deteriorate when Menachem Begin and Likhud took power in the 1970s. Begin’s anti-communism, honed from his stay in the GULAG as Polish POW captured in the Nazi-Soviet Invasion of 1939, was an anathema to the majority of Jews in America and they never forgave Israel for leaving the socialist fold.

There is a certain irrational and pathetical behavior for the Jewish affinity for the left. The Holocaust itself happened only because the Left sold the Jews down the river in 1939. Instead of seeing Communism/Socialism as a threat to Jews they doubled down on their commitment to the cause to demonstrate that they were the most loyal members of the socialist left. Today, the Left is once again selling Jews down the river and the community reaction is the same. So I agree that, if anything a plurality of Jews will back a leftwing candidate just because Soros is doing it. They do not want to in anyway appear to be deviating from the “Red” line. In the black community this kind of behavior is associated with the term “Uncle Tom”

Posted by Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 12:12 PM

One unfortunate consequence of constant persecution is the tendency of the persecuted to form a group/herd mentality.

That is, we must hang together if we are to survive. Anyone who breaks from the herd will be singled out and destroyed by the hostile world.

For some reason the herd mentality amongst many jews is support for far left solutions. Perhaps because the stereotype of Jews is moneygrubbing capitalist. So the group psychology went the other way in order to prove the stereotype wrong.
Perhaps it had to do with the capitalist (at the time) nature of many of the societies that rejected and persecuted the Jews. They reject the creed of their persecuters.

I've talked with a number of blacks who tell me that the reason they continue to vote Democratic, despite the fact that they are personally opposed to almost every position the Democratic party takes, is because they don't want to have to explain to their Grandmother why they didn't vote with the rest of their people.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 12:44 PM


It isn’t capitalism that turned Jews to the left; it was a combination of ignorance and Eastern European ethnicity. Prior to the turn of the 20th century Jews in America were either Sephardic (usually Spanish Jews who emigrated to England or Holland in the 17th century or Ashkenazi’s from Germany or Austria. They were typically well educated, skilled professionals their political views ranged uniformly across the political spectrum. The influx of Russian/Polish Jews running away from Czarist Russia brought in people who were poor, often illiterate even in Yiddish and fearful of persecution. They formed a close knit group who maintained their group identity and as they gradually lost their religious faith they transferred their allegiance from God to Marx which promised to abolish the religious distinctions that made their lives so miserable. Unfortunately, they missed Marx’s scorn for Jews in the process. The fact that they now outnumbered the old Jewish population has a lot to do with today’s distribution of the Jewish vote.

Posted by lawismylife [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 1:26 PM


Your facts are pretty much what I have read in the past, and I accept what you are saying. I do wish I could pull up a good source of information to back up what you are saying and what I believe to be true.

Caveat: I am not trying to make a statement regarding jewish identity so much as I am pointing out the difficulty in swaying the liberal mindset even when liberalism is obviously in conflict with a particular group's or individual's self interest. From my standpoint, it appears ideological purity supplants any notion of jewishness, whether in the ethnic or religious sense. Thus, it is acceptable to be in league with Soros and his ilk so long as there is shared cause at the altar of liberalism.

The challenge for conservatives is how we persuade members of monolithically aligned interest groups that conservatism truly represents their interests. Sadly, individual freedom and liberty don't seem to be much of a selling point to the monolithically aligned. In the current climate, Soros and those who feed at his trough face no political consequences and are not held to accountability.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 1:34 PM

A good source for the sociology of Jews in America is a book called "Our Crowd" by Steven Birmingham. It is about the great 19th Century Jewish families of New York City. The description of their reaction to the great unwashed coming from Russia highlights the points I made in my post.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 2:18 PM

I wonder if there is something that happens to scorned populations that gradually gain acceptance in society, and then watch as a second wave of their brethren come off the boats with empty pockets and ragged clothing. I'm thinking of the Irish and Scots-Irish immigrations into America that pitted the first wave that came in before the Revolution against the second wave that came in response to the Potato Famine of the 1840's. The second wave were denigrated and called "shanty Irish" by those that had come before, even more severely than by the general population. I think the second wave embarrasses and frightens the first wave in some way, by reminding them just how tenuous their grip on acceptance really is.

Also, there may be something unique in the Jewish experience in that they have such a strong intellectual tradition that can easily support a kind of elitism that in turn fit's very well into liberalism. And the two influences and experiences probably reinforce each other, the scorned immigrant who gains acceptance in the new society can very easily overcompensate the inherent insecurity of his situation by leveraging a strong intellectual streak into an elitism.

Interesting subject.

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 6:16 PM

Keemo sez:

"Soros spent much of his time and money lambasting Halliburton for the past several years. Recently, Soros made a very large purchase of Halliburton stock."

I saw a story today that his investment in Halliburton's stock has fared pretty poorly lately-in the past 2 days he's supposedly lost $25 million on paper.

Hillary's Half-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Express also suffered a major hit today:

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has reversed the conviction and sentence of James Tobin, the former regional chairmain of President Bush's re-election campaign who was sentenced to 10 months in prison for his role in an Election Day phone-jamming plot against New Hampshire Democrats in 2002.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 7:11 PM

So Soros bankrolls the Democrats to the point of ownership? That simply is not the case at all.

AIPAC certainly does not require anyone's help in defending itself... it is the second most influential lobby group in the United States after the AARP and ahead of the NRA and other gorupd and its sole purpose is to maintain the strategic alliance between the US and Israel for the benefit of Israel. To that extent, it does nothing for American Jewry and American Jews tend not be single issue voters concerned only with US policy on Israel nor are they made up of mostly of socialists or Marxists for that matter. Republicans and Democrats have the same policy on Israel and Soros will not likely be able to change that. He is a large donor but few of his pet policies ever make it to the Dems executive party level. I'm not a huge fan of his but at least he has a decent track record of fighting communism.

How many of Soros's employees current or former have been convicted of espionage against the United States? Is it healthy to have such a powerful lobby group in Washington whose sole purpose is to seek continued financing/subsidies for another country?

"The Holocaust itself happened only because the Left sold the Jews down the river in 1939." Jerry, I don't understand your logic. The Nazi Party wanted to deport the Jews before deciding on genocide. Blaming the Left for the Holocaust is absurd. I was just reading earlier about some crackpot who claims to have support of the White House who went to Latvia and blamed the Holocaust on gays. It seems it was everyone's fault except the Nazis. American Jews like living in America and today there are more Jews in the US than Israel and they have not emigrated to the socialist state of Israel. If you think it is important that we continue to fund the socialist economy of Israel that is fine but I would more happy if this was done by individual donations (which is how Americans donate most cash to needy people) rather than straight out of the US Treasury at the behest of a poweful lobby group.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:09 PM


Let me make it simple for you. No Nazi-Soviet Pact so all the German's get is a piece of Poland. Stalin and his huge army doesn’t get surprised in the summer of 1941. Hitler faces a huge potentially hostile Soviet Army in his rear doesn't invade France at least not before the Western Allies are ready. If there is European War it is short and Germany loses quickly. Therefore the bulk of European Jewry never falls under Nazi control. No Holocaust happens.

Now do you understand?

Posted by Del Dolemonte [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:42 PM

lexhamfox said:

"So Soros bankrolls the Democrats to the point of ownership? That simply is not the case at all. "

Yeah,, you're right. It's actually Soros AND Peter Lewis. After all, they have been known to match each other's donations to such places as America Coming Together (each donated $10 million) and (each donating $2.5 million).

As for Soros himself, by November of 2003, he had already spent $15.5 million of his own money to try and defeat Bush the following year, according to the far-right-wing Washington Post:

If you can find anyone else who spent anywhere that much, I'd love to hear who they are! If anyone can claim "ownership" of the Dem party, it is in fact Soros.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 12:01 AM


Under the non-aggression pact the Nazis only got part of Poland and the Soviets got about 40% of Polish Jewry with the section of Poland they occupied. The pact therefore resulted in the same result you cite in your last post.

By your logic, the failure of the US and Western Europe to accept deported European Jews under Nazi occupation makes them just as culpable which is of course ridiculous. The German's did not need a non-agression pact with the US because the US was neutral during the first half of the war.... so it is their fault too according to you? No... it is just the leftists.

The Holocaust was of course the fault of Nazi Germany and the racist elements in the countries occupaied by Nazi Germany. Everyone else seems to get it.

Soros gives money to oppose Bush not directly to the Democratic Party. As with most of his other donations, he does not exercise much control once the funds are granted. He is very much a hands-off doner. You think the Post is far left? Didn't they support the invasion of Iraq in 2003?

Posted by Jim Rockford [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 2:57 AM

Law --

While it is true that Jews do vote very largely Democratic, recent Democratic rhetoric cannot go un-noticed. "9/11 was a Zionist Conspiracy" and other anti-Jewish smears peddled by the Anti-War aka Dem activists will have IMHO a profound effect. One likely to turn Jewish voters away from the Democratic Party for generations.

Already many Jews are turning conservative, i.e. holding to traditional FDR-LBJ positions which is basically the mainstream of the Republican Party today IMHO.That prominent "neo-con" Jews are being singled out for witch hunts and anti-Jewish witchhunts are being conducted by the very extreme hard-left groups that celebrate the murder of Jews in Israel and Europe by Muslims has surely not escaped Jews attention.

When potentially your life is on the line you pay attention. "Sudden Jihad" i.e. Muslims shooting up synagoges, Jewish Centers, etc. and Dems reflexive support of same, plus Dem's whoring themselves out to CAIR and anti-Jewish terrorists, all work against Jewish participation in Democratic circles.

By default most Dems demand: 1. Destruction of Israel, 2. A negotiation with bin Laden which amounts to surrender, 3. Special privileges for Muslims to commit hate crimes (none of the sudden jihad syndrome accused have been charged with hate crimes), 4. Some sort of tribunal to assign blame to "Jewish conspiracies" for 9/11 ala Rosie O'Donnell, or Jim Moran, or other notable latter-day inheritors of Nazi sympathizer and noted anti-Semite Father Coughlin.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 4:03 AM

Well Jim, as long as Republicans keep peddling nonsense like this at the party level they will still send most Jews running to the Democrats.

Show me where a State Democratic platform adopted crap like this and your argument might make some sense.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 5:34 AM


US neutrality did not enable Nazi Germany 's ability to conquer Europe. The pact with the Soviet did more then secure Germany's Eastern Border and enable the offensive in the West. The Pact allowed Germany to tap the Soviet Union's ast resources for two years so they could build up military forces for operation Barbarossa. It als led to its political control of Eastern and Southern Europe.

If Stalin was hostile to Germany then the French Communist Party would have supported rather then undermined the French War effort in 1939-40. The French might even have honored their commitment to Poland and attack the Rhineland as planned by the second week in September. The Polish plan was designed to hold German'y for two weeks but in the real war the held out longer. IF The French attacked game over for Germany. They lose the Rhineland and fail in Poland. Even if France fails to attack in the West. Hitler cannot shift enough troops to the West to successfully attack in France in 1940. The longer he waits, the more the correlation of forces moves against him. Germany would have lacked the resouces to fight a long war. The Nazis would probalby be overthrown in a military coup by the 1941.

No Hitler-Stalin pact, no Holocaust

Posted by Captain Ed [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 6:04 AM

The lack of American participation in 1939 hardly affected what happened in 1940, anyway. After Pearl Harbor, we mobilized on an enormous scale -- but we didn't have the resources to invade Europe and fight the Germans on the continent until 1943 in Italy. It took us several months just to beat the Germans in Africa, and that was only we got a brutal bloody nose in the Kasserine Pass and lost half of the men we have lost in Iraq in four years.

It took us three days to defeat a demoralized and undersupplied French force in January 1942. We woulnd't have affected the balance of power in Europe enough to keep the Germans from succeeding where they did in the event.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 6:31 AM

Jerry & Ed, I was not arguing that US neutrality enabled the Holocaust... I was pointing out the weakness of the argument that the Holocaust was caused by the non-agression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and the left generally. It's absurd to blame the Holocaust anywhere other than Nazi Germany and I think that is perfectly clear in my posts. Britain and France needed time to arm and mobilize for war... the only country ready for war in 39 was Germany. Polish plans went out the window on day one and France would not have penetrated far before being turned back by a much more organized and well equipped German Army. French doctrine was based on static defense.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 6:45 AM


Any crime requires motive, means and opportunity. The Nazis had a motive but without the treaty they lacked the means to make the opportunity to execute their plans. Stalin was Hitler's ally for two critical years and Hitler used this relationship to build up his forces and Germany's feared reputation. Without access to Soviet resources Germany would have found itself in the same situation as it did during First World War, i.e., on the road to starvation and bankruptcy from the very first day of the war.

Posted by lexhamfox [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 6:52 AM

Stalin wreacked his army by culling his officer corps (certainly more than 50% and possibly as much as 80%). The Russian military was in no position to take on Germany in 39 or when Hitler ripped up the treaty. Russia had a hard time against Finland despite overwhelming superiority in numbers and equipment. Size didn't matter against Germany... look at the North Africa campaign where Rommel took on the 8th Army and managed to hold out for ages.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 7:27 AM


Now I see you are resorting to the German Superman argument. How disappointing. The German Army in 1939 was inexperienced and really didn't perform that well in Poland. I recommend the book "The Blitzkrieg Myth" by John Mosier. He examined the performance of the German Army during the Polish campaign and found great gaps in their capability. In fact the most successful and fastest advancing German forces were not the mechanized forces but conventional infantry. In any case the Polish Army fought hard against long odds and successfully executed their planning objectives. The French didn’t attack as promised in part because of the Soviet double cross.

War is a chaotic process where small changes in events have great impact on the outcome. Stalin didn’t have to go to war against Hitler in 1939 to stymie Hitler’s plans. He only had to be a hostile force in being to prevent the conquest in the West. The Soviet Union’s position in the Pacific is a good demonstration of how merely having a hostile force in being on ones borders effects military decision making. Although the Soviet Union never went to war with Japan when it mattered it took the US Victory at Midway to release Soviet forces in the Far East for the counterattack at Stalingrad. It was only after Japan was forced to fight a losing war of attrition with the United States that the Soviet Union felt secure enough to denude the Japanese border of troops. By the way, the Red Army did quite well against a battle hardened Japanese force in the 1939 at Khalkhin Gol so they weren’t as incompetent as you claim.

Posted by Mark [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 9:28 AM

Considering that the Nazis were socialist through and through.

Blaming the holocaust on the Left makes a lot of sense.

Lex, do you really believe that Soros would continue to give money to groups that oppenly opposed his goals? He doesn't need to have his name on the titlehead to have control.

Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 10:05 AM

William Shirer in his book 'Berlin Diary' tells that the French barely resisted the Germans, due in large part because the officer corps thought they were fighting WW I again and were completely surprised by the Germans blitzkrieg.

But secondarily to that, most of the French soldiers were communist sympathizers and word had gone through the ranks that communists should not resist the fascist invader, due to the Nazi-Soviet pact.

Not only that, but Stalin initiated several pogroms against Russian jews, most notably during the "Revolution from Above" in the 1930's, were jews were accused of sabotaging the economic progress of Soviet Russia.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 22, 2007 11:42 AM


Shirer's view is the conventional wisdom and is probably an over statement of the lack of progress in French military thinking. The French Army understood mobile warfare quite well even if they were not quite ready to fight a modern military engagement. They bested the Germans in several major engagements in Belgium. The claim the French had a WWI mindset is usually misapplied. The French General staff believed that the German invasion would just be a modernize Schlieffen plan and the French were quite right in their belief. The first plans for the attack in West were nothing more then the WWI plan with the addition of Holland to the “strong right wing.” General von Manstein, later a Field Marshal, developed the attack plan through the Ardennes Forest and convinced Hitler that it would be a better plan. The rest is history as they say.

You are right about the influence of the Communists in ranks. The Party, acting under Stalin’s direction, undermined the morale among the troops. At the same time Communist trade unions conducted strikes and sabotaged war production which had a big impact on French readiness in the spring of 1940.