Questions Answered
October 30, 2007
In all honesty, I’m feeling a little bad about anything I may have done to contribute to the miniature shit storm with this whole Forward Montana thing. It’s clearer than ever that Carol’s post was based off of half-truths and assumptions that could have only been pulled from one place (*ahem*), not to mention a ridiculous reliance on an anonymous commenter (Mellon?).
Luckily, people on the left are starting to get fired up about all of this, and between them, most of Carol’s points have been addressed, though she seems to be unable to operate in the comment threads to defend herself. Here’s a brief summary:
Wulfgar (In top form, might I add…):
And now, so many years later, I find that Matt has been receiving huge bucks from George Soros! Matt is, according to at least one Special Olympian, laundering funds for Soros, and I haven’t seen a dime. I feel so used! He promised me grassroots and all I got was concern for the communities of Montana. I don’t live in the palatial estates like Singer. I can’t singlehandedly arrange rock concerts for the people I own thrown by their friends (I mean really, Singer must own everybody that his politicians have friends who are Rock Stars.) I can’t start and personally fund organizations three years before they get the big OutOfState bucks. And I can’t personally circumvent and break rules that don’t exist. That takes a special kind of guy. That takes Matt Singer.
From jhwygirl, with appropriate passion:
She frames the Roosevelt Institute as a “Soros-funded conglomeration of think tanks.”
The Roosevelt Institution has an annual budget of around $150,000. Can’t much fund a conglomeration of think tanks with that kind of budget, now can we? (But honestly, if you want to see who’s funded well, check out that link.)
She disses on his 2 year communications director gig at Progressive States Network because they were funded with $30,000 ($30,000! The horror!!) grant from the Proteus Fund, which is separated by how many degrees? Three? Six? Fifty? to George Soros?
Then she goes on to connect the $250,000 grant that Forward Montana got to “Jon and Peter Lewis of Skyline Public Works.”
Skyline Public Works is the baby of Deborah and Andy Rappaport…
From there she takes that lie and ties the Lewis’ false connection to Soros – which she admits didn’t work out too well – and connects Matt to Soros.
But wait! It gets better! She then takes an anonymous post to that first lie-filled post and creates another post about how Matt supposedly had a conversation with a group of strangers, in a public place, bragging about his connections to Soros!
*snip*
I know lawyers are supposed to twist the facts to make the best case they can for their clients…but are they really supposed to lie?
And Jay:
And that’s what Forward Montana works for, too. If you don’t like people participating in our democracy, fine. But how about debating the substantive issues instead of slinging mud, accusing legitimate organizations of being astroturf fronts built for some insidious purpose, without having a shred of evidence to support your allegations? And why repeat these rumors if all you have to go on is some anonymous comments and an unfounded blog post? Did you email Matt and ask him your questions? Have you met any Forward Montana members? Have you attended an event? Do you know what a 501c4 organization is?
And Finally, Matt (who e-mailed these answers to Dave):
Unless I have a legal reason not to, I respect my members’ right to privacy. That said, other than the Skyline matching grant, we currently have a dozen donors who are at the $1,000 level or more. All dozen (actually, slightly more than that, counting couples) live in Montana.We’ve got a total of roughly 375 members (counting the dozen who have given $1,000+). Of those, all but 27 live in Montana (or at least did when they joined — I haven’t done an accounting of them more recently).
*snip*
As for volunteers campaigning for candidates while working for Forward Montana, they shouldn’t be, unless they’re volunteering for our PAC, which is currently not in operation anyways. For our Beer Brats and Ballots effort, for example, we’ve had to strike a few BBQ hosts because they told us that they would be too likely to tell their attendees whom to vote for.
Not that I needed convincing, but I’m sold. This shit-storm is artificial in nature. Unfortunately, most of our dextra pals will choose not to take any of these responses seriously. I’d be surprised if Carol addressed any of these posts directly. I’m now seeing the wisdom in leaving these folks to their conspiracy theories.
Finally, I cannot believe that smart people like Budge and Mike are taking Carol’s post at face value without the slightest hint of scrutiny. Get over it, guys. You got nothin’.
And I think an apology would be nice. But who am I kidding?
October 30, 2007 at 9:15 am
I don’t think that Carol will, it is likely that she will bury it under 12 posts by the end of the day.
October 30, 2007 at 11:13 am
I think you’re sold too early. The matching grant is funded by Soros partners:
Secondly, regardless of the funding, or lack thereof, for Roosevelt (never mind that Soros has given multile millions to the Center for American Progress that has funded PSN as well), Soros, et al have funded in spades the Progressive States Network directly which has in turn provided FM at least some funds for lobbying. But knowing the connection between David Sirota and Matt Singer it is quite likely that there is more.
Last, as to the comments by “anonymous” at Carol’s site – I know this person and believe him to be of high character. I have agreed not to disclose his name because he fears that it will effect him professionally. But I take him at his word. I posted as much in the comments at Carol’s site.
But yet, no of this addresses the issue of what is “grass roots” and to what extent there is monkey business between FM/MontPIRG/ASUM.
So feel free to be satisfied yourselves but, given the poor research that Matt’s defenders have produced I say the only way for Matt to end this is to fully disclose where the matching funds (he as accounted for a small portion of them) have come from. And if the issues raised by “anonymous” are in fact false he should say so.
October 30, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Dave,
That is ludicrous. Unless anonymous is willing to step forward and show himself, the ‘allegations’ mean nothing. If they wont stand up to the light of day, then I salute Matt for not responding to them at all.
October 30, 2007 at 1:16 pm
What’s also ludicrous is throwing out names like Soros without showing any influence of those donors on Matt. Could it be….*gasp*…that Matt Singer actually has some good ideas?
He’s got 375 members in the organization already; it’s quite popular here in Missoula. Why does this seem to elude righties?
Let’s put it in market terms. People are buying what Matt’s selling. Those that invested in Matt’s business think they’ll see profits from their investment in the form of a more committed and unified progressive body in Missoula and Montana.
There, wasn’t that simple?
October 30, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Ya know, Budge is many things, but I really didn’t expect him to be this lazy. This imperious? Of course, but not this lazy.
See, ever since Carol did her Halloween post about the evil tentacles of Soros, and their hold on zombie Singer, all he’s done is demand. He wants answers, GODDAMMIT! Dave wants to know why Matt is engaging in activity that Dave doesn’t trust. And even worse, others are applauding Matt for his work. How can this happen? Justify yourself Singer!
And yet, the only one with supposedly direct access to proof that Matt has done anything wrong, is Dave. And yet Dave whines about the poor research on the part of us who a) know Matt a helluva lot better than that spiteful curmudgeon, and for a lot longer, b) know considerably more about the history and function of Forward Montana, and c) don’t wet the bed having nightmares about George Soros. In Dave’s head, the onus of defense is on Singer and the rest of ‘his supporters’ (try the word “friends”, Dave, it fits better); defense against allegations that Dave is too lazy to support himself. That’s really kind of sad.
Matt is in league with Soros! So what.
Forward Montana must be partisan! Based on Dave’s say-so. And as far as I’m concerned, again, so what?
Matt could put this outrage to rest if he would only tell me what I want to hear!!! You’re a libertarian, Dave. You should be used to disappointment by now.
I’m Dave Budge and Matt Singer owes me … Jack-Shit.
Right here in these comments, Dave takes us to task for not researching, and examining and crawling up Matt Singer’s ass with a microscope. And why? Because Dave is too lazy to do it himself. Because Dave somehow feels that he has a right to know something no one has any obligation to provide. Because he has it on good authority that Matt is a bad bad person with a political agenda that Dave doesn’t cotton to. Because obviously Dave (and Carol and the rest of the Missoula Online Conservative Kids) are owed answers, obedience, authority and control, more than Matt is owed loyalty for his work, his friendship and the honesty he has shown his ‘defenders’.
There’s your right-wingnut mindset, right there. Capitulate, or we will demand that you capitulate again! Kinda full of themselves, aren’t they? Why yes, yes they are.
No Dave. You aren’t owed a damned thing. Not answers, not research, not justifications or defenses. Matt Singer is not running for office. Matt Singer is not elected to anything. Your attempts to discredit him and Forward Montana, will only work with those already predisposed to your particular brand of arrogant paranoia. Other than that, you’re just giving them free publicity. In that regard, please, by all means, let’s not “end this”. Lets keep it going. Keep making your demands. Keep whining that others don’t bow do your imperious lazy efforts. Good luck with that, Dave.
October 30, 2007 at 4:16 pm
As if in punctuation to my very point, Dave whines in his latest:
I want to know what the political coordination between FM, ASUM, MontPIRG and the College Democrats. Is that too much to ask?
Well, yes, yes it is if you’re too fricking lazy to research for yourself, Dave.
(Does anyone else read that quote and get the picture of John Lovitz weezing “I just wanna be loved! Is that so wrong?!?”)
October 30, 2007 at 6:01 pm
It’s important to note that Dave is not accusing Matt of any wrongdoing. He’s just asking a question that he knows is impossible to answer. It’s a non-question question for the purpose of getting under Matt’s skin.
October 30, 2007 at 6:28 pm
On the contrary, Steve, Dave knows exactly what he’s accusing Matt of. He did indeed accuse Matt of wrongdoing, precisely because Dave’s good confidant told him a yarn of Matt doing wrong. Dave’s issues, those which cause him to screech all the louder, are that he will have no authority over any answer and that no one else gives a crap about his issues.
I apologize if I am jepordizing Dave’s readership of your excellent blog, but he is a pussy. He will not frequent a place where his authoriTAY is challenged. You needn’t make excuses for him. He has indeed accused Matt of wrongdoing, and that is the source of his petulant demands for clarification which he will not accept. Scrape Budge off your boot. He only makes the place smell, and stains the carpet.
October 30, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Wulfgar –
Trust me, that was NOT me defending Dave. I apologize if I wasn’t being specific enough for you. Dave’s role in this is the most infuriating of all. I find his questions to be the height of silliness.
My point was this: Dave is simply asking ridiculous questions instead of accusing Matt of any actual wrongdoing. He seems especially fond of asking Matt questions that he knows he can’t respond to (“Please violate any principles of privacy and tell me who all of your donors are…”). This way, he can claim that Matt’s silence implicates him in some wrongdoing… even if Dave doesn’t know what that wrongdoing is.
Dave’s simply playing the game. Unfortunately, he’s playing it very well, ethics be damned.
October 30, 2007 at 10:38 pm
1) Accpeting money from George Soros is not wrong. Supreme court has spoken. Money = speech.
2) I’d be interested in Dave Budge’s opinions on the activities of Richard Mellon Scaife.
3) I’m especially interested in Dave Budge’s take on Howie Rich. Especially interested.
This is all farce – fake indignation, hypocritical posturing, swiftboating, mud slinging. Shame on you Budge, Carole, and the rest. Shame.