Responding to David Horowitz

David Horowitz (the right-wing whacko, not the consumer activist) is Wrong. by Scoobie Davis

Last Thursday (4/17/02), David Horowitz wrote an article, “David Brock: Professional Liar” for his web site Frontpage magazine. Because I believed Horowitz was inconsistent and hypocritical in the article, I wrote a letter critical of the article. Horowitz published my letter along with a response that I believe was inaccurate, barely coherent, and unfair. Accordingly, I am providing a detailed response to Horowitz’s response.

MY LETTER AND HOROWITZ'S NONRESPONSE:

It is rather expedient for Horowitz to cite Frank Rich’s concerns about David Brock’s veracity. Rich had raised serious questions about Brock’s journalistic ethics when Horowitz was Brock's “supportive friend." Most importantly, Rich wrote a 1994 New York Times column in which he described how a former colleague of Clarence Thomas claimed that Brock blackmailed her to disavow her eyewitness account of Thomas’s alleged pornographic activities (which Brock now acknowledges was a part of his attempt to discredit the book Strange Justice). Despite the seriousness of Rich’s charge (blackmailing sources is not only journalistic misconduct, but criminal activity), Horowitz and the American right—correct me if I’m wrong—largely ignored it and the story quickly died on the vine.

The degree to which Horowitz is distressed about Brock’s account of an alleged anti-gay slur is matched by his lack of concern about the paranoid conspiracy theories (e.g., the infamous “Clinton body count”) and smear campaigns funded by Horowitz’s benefactor, Richard Mellon Scaife (whom Horowitz called “a decent, patriotic American” on the same NPR show he accused Brock of libel). For instance, after Brock wrote the “Troopergate” story, real reporters found evidence that the Scaife-paid troopers lied about their stories about the Clintons—as well as Vince Foster (who, unlike Horowitz, doesn’t have a web site to defend himself). Even though several of the troopers admitted they lied to Brock, much of the right still treats these tall tales as established facts. For instance, L. Brent Bozell—another Scaife beneficiary--recently cited the discredited trooper stories in his column. If Horowitz would devote the same energy to debunking Scaife’s smears as he does to whining about being called a neo-conservative, then his columns would be worth reading.

Scoobie Davis (scoobiedavis@mail.com)
Los Angeles, CA
4/21/02

Horowitz responds:
1. I befriended Brock before he wrote any of his famous stories. 2. Self-described liberals who make a big deal out of pornography make me sick. 3. Richard Scaife cannot be held responsible for everything anyone he ever gave money to writes. 4. Clinton is a criminal -- and I'm someone who never believed the body counts or the Vince Foster scenario. But where do you get off complaining about this when you are still ready to assassinate the character of Clarence Thomas on the basis of allegations which even if true are laughable?

MY RESPONSE TO HOROWITZ'S NONRESPONSE:

Horowitz: "1. I befriended Brock before he wrote any of his famous stories."

REALITY: This makes absolutely no sense. If someone can email me at scoobiedavis@mail.com and let me know what the hell Horowitz means by this, I would appreciate it tremendously.

Horowitz: " 2. Self-described liberals who make a big deal out of pornography make me sick."

REALITY:I made no “big deal” out of pornography. For my own part, I don’t care if Thomas got his rocks off while watching The Adventures of Bad Mama Jama (see Strange Justice, pg. 107). In fact, the thought of Republicans having sex evokes some mental images I'd prefer to forget. However, I believe it is relevant that the types of pornographic materials that witnesses saw Thomas consume were consistent with the Anita Hill’s allegations about Thomas’s salacious conversations. What was at issue in my letter was that Frank Rich reported allegations that Brock blackmailed Kaye Savage in order to have her go back on her eyewitness accounts of Thomas’s pornography habit (a charge that Brock now admits was true). Rich made this allegation at a time in which Brock and Horowitz were friends. The point I was making was that Horowitz cites Rich’s current skepticism about Brock’s veracity; however, Horowitz had no problem with Rich’s allegation of Brock’s illegal and contemptible behavior at a time when Brock was doing the bidding for the American right.

Horowitz: "3. Richard Scaife cannot be held responsible for everything anyone he ever gave money to writes."

REALITY: This is the same pathetic apologia that Horowitz gave on the NPR show. This is complete nonsense. Scaife is a walking, breathing conspiracy theory. Scaife called the Vince-Foster-Was-Murdered conspiracy theory “the Rosetta Stone to the Clinton Administration” and paid various right-wing operatives (such as Chris Ruddy and Joseph Farah) to spread this ugly smear. In fact, Scaife withdrew financial support from The American Spectator magazine only after the magazine published a book review critical of Chris Ruddy’s shoddy and incompetent research on Foster’s death. To state such a blatant untruth demonstrates either naiveté or dishonesty—or both.

Horowitz: "4. Clinton is a criminal..."

REALITY:For what: getting a blowjob and not wanting to tell the whole world about it?

Horowitz: "... and I'm someone who never believed the body counts or the Vince Foster scenario."

REALITY: If Horowitz believes that the Clinton body counts and Vince Foster conspiracy theories were smears, the first thing he should do is to repudiate Scaife and give the money he received from Scaife to charity.

Horowitz: "But where do you get off complaining about this when you are still ready to assassinate the character of Clarence Thomas on the basis of allegations which even if true are laughable?"

REALITY: Several independent sources indicated that Thomas was into the same type of pornography that Anita Hill described in her testimony regarding Thomas’s conversations with her. Former classmates, Kaye Savage, Frederick Douglass Cooke, Jr., and the proprietor of the video store Thomas frequented all gave accounts of Thomas’s pornography consumption. Despite this, I used the word “alleged” to describe Thomas’s pornography habit. I did this to give Thomas the benefit of the doubt, an indulgence that the American right never gave to Anita Hill.