George Soros = Jack Abramoff?

|

Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.), who recently was edged out by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner for the title of most gung-ho drug warrior in the House, is upset about a drug policy debate at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference featuring Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance. Souder lays out his complaint in the Congressional Register:

George Soros, the radical liberal financier who dedicated himself to defeating President George W. Bush in the last election, has taken a lesson from Jack Abramoff.

As much of Abramoff's pernicious lobbying technique has come to light, we've seen how he was adept at manipulating certain conservative organizations to pursue a decidedly anti-conservative agenda, namely the promotion of gambling. By working hand in hand with the Traditional Values Coalition (TVC), for example, he was able in 2000 to undermine conservatives' best effort to outlaw on-line gambling. Proxy organizations played a fundamental role in Abramoff's strategy.

Since 1974, the American Conservative Union has held the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, which is billed as a three-day meeting for thousands of conservative activists and leaders to discuss current issues and policies and set the agenda for the future. I myself have addressed the conference in the past.

One can imagine a conservative's surprise to read on the CPAC 2006 agenda that a representative of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) is slated to moderate–yes, moderate–a panel Friday discussing drug policy. For those who are unacquainted with it, the pro-marijuana MPP has been funded by Soros in the past. Also represented on the panel is the Drug Policy Alliance, which is Soros' principal pro-drug arm. Incidentally, the moderator himself is a convicted drug dealer.

What on earth were the CPAC organizers thinking? Why would the American Conservative Union allow extremist liberals like George Soros and Peter Lewis (who is responsible for most of MPP's funding) to access a meeting of conservatives? And, in exactly whose estimation would there be balance in a debate moderated by the MPP?

Thanks to Accuracy in Media Report editor Cliff Kincaid, these are just a few of the questions that the CPAC organizers now face. I'd like to submit into the record his article of February 7, 2006, entitled "Soros Infiltrates Conservative Movement." In exchange for a donation, is this 32-year old conservative conference turning itself into a Soros proxy organization just like Abramoff's TVC?

Over the last number of months, we've been surprised to learn how one such as Abramoff was able to exploit conservatives for his own purposes. Surely in this environment we can't miss seeing it when it's happening once again.

I'm not sure what Souder means by "radical liberal" or "extremist liberal." Is that as left as you can get without actually being a leftist? Souder could not very well object to the drug policy debate by claiming that conservatives are of one mind on the subject, given the libertarian inclinations of many CPAC attendees and the antiprohibitionist sentiments expressed by prominent conservatives such as William F. Buckley. So instead his objection amounts to pointing out that Nadelmann, who is avowedly trying to build bridges between drug war opponents on the left and the right, runs an organization funded by a Democrat.

In case you're curious, here's the Cliff Kincaid column that apparently set Souder off. It is notable not only for the Soros bashing but for Kincaid's Harry Anslinger-style citation of brutal crimes allegedly caused by reefer madness.

[Thanks to DPA's Tony Newman for the tip.]

NEXT: Libertarians and the GOP

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Haven’t you seen the commercials, Sullum? If you smoke pot your hand will get stuck in your mouth!

  2. Wow, the conservatives are actually buying the twinkie defense. Could someone tell me when a legal defense was considered scientific evidence, because I certainly can’t remember the actual study that shows those findings….Psst, if you say the weed made you crazy, you might get acquitted.

    Oh right, the twinkie defense is just fine when it serves your purpose.

    If you want sentimentality, why don’t we talk about all the women who are abused or killed by men who are drunk. I think we can come up with more than two cases.

  3. he was able in 2000 to undermine conservatives’ best effort to outlaw on-line gambling

    Ok, maybe Abramoff is not the devil incarnate after all. Good for him for defending my right to play poker with like-minded adults, regardless of his reasons for doing so or his methods.

    The post also makes me like Soros again. Sometimes I like him, sometimes I don’t. He has been amazingly effective in helping what I still think of as Eastern Europe. I think he deserves some of the credit for turning Eastern Europe towards a libertarian economic bloc, certainly more libertarian than western europe. The fact that he is libertarian on drug issues also is a huge plus that helps mitigate against his support for Kerry in my book.

  4. George Soros is way hotter than that Abramoff guy. Totally!

  5. I hope Mr. Souder continues to do all he can to alienate people who straddle the fence between voting Republican and Libertarian. I wish him great success in this endeavor!

  6. Holy time warp, Batman!

    I haven’t seen a reference to “marijuana psychosis” in…well, let me think…it must have been…

    Okay, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a reference to “marijuana psychosis”. Of course, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen Reefer Madness.

  7. Are Souder’s (and apparently many conservatives) beliefs about marijuana really so paper thin that they can’t stand up to a debate at this conference?

    Yes, I bet they are.

  8. Do we know so little about the workings of our government that we don’t know the difference between the Congressional Record and the Federal Register so we combine the two in the Congressional Register? C’mon Sullum.

  9. C’mon Sullum.

    IIRC, the “Congressional Register” was the, or a, forerunner of the Record; the GPO uses the two terms interchangeably. Try a search:
    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html

    If Jack helped you off a horse would you help Jack Abramoff a horse?

  10. WOW! Just 9 posts and this chain has already jumped-the-shark!

  11. Incidentally, the moderator himself is a convicted drug dealer.

    I’d hardly say that’s incidental. It would seem to be directly relevant to his qualifications to moderate the group.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.