David Brock is, once again, exorcizing his demons, renouncing his ties to his colleagues who investigated Clinton administration corruption and making new friends in the establishment media world.

At this time, I would like to exorcize some demons of my own and renounce my old ties to David Brock.

While I was never a part of what Brock calls the “Republican sleaze machine,” I am guilty of a sin for which I now repent. In 1994, I bestowed upon David Brock the first journalism award he ever received for courage in reporting the “Troopergate” story.

On behalf of my organization, the Western Journalism Center, I presented David Brock with a tasteful and elegant trophy in Los Angeles along with a check for $2,000.

Now, since David Brock is expressing regret and remorse over having participated in such journalism, I assume he will be most eager to return the $2,000 award as quickly as possible.

I made the same suggestion to him three years ago when Brock wrote an open letter to President Clinton apologizing for his reporting. I wonder what happened. Did the check get lost in the mail?

David Brock is a truly sad case. He may be the most opportunistic man in America. He may put Bill Clinton to shame in that department.

First he doesn’t like Clinton, then he does. He doesn’t like Anita Hill, then he does. He likes Clarence Thomas, then he doesn’t. He doesn’t like Hillary, then he does. This is either a man-child who has severe problems making up his mind or one who has no credibility in anything he says or writes.

Or, maybe, it’s all about publicity with David Brock. Maybe it’s about the limelight. Maybe it’s about being popular – getting invited to the right parties and clubs, about not being ostracized in certain circles. Or maybe it’s just about paydays.

The fact is that David Brock was not greatly rewarded for his early work – which sold well. He was, ironically, greatly rewarded for his later work – his apologia to Hillary, for instance – which didn’t sell.

So, maybe, Brock is just following the money, as all good investigative journalists are taught to do.

There’s another problem with the David Brocks of the world – those I would characterize as “ideologue journalists.”

Good journalists dig deep and report the truth no matter what they find. They don’t evaluate it on the basis of who it hurts and who it helps. That is, apparently, just what Brock always did and continues to do – only his own ideological lens has been inverted.

That’s truly sad – and it is the reason I deeply regret ever having acknowledged Brock’s work. It was too early to do so. That was my mistake – one I will have to live with.

I was hoodwinked. I was deceived. I fell for Brock’s act.

I thought he was honest.

Instead, he proved to be a scam artist – writing whatever he thought would sell at the highest price at a particular moment.

I’m now convinced Brock wouldn’t even recognize the truth if it struck him like a lightning bolt. And it wouldn’t matter to him if he did.

Have pity on David Brock. No matter what his next publicity stunt is, he will never achieve best-seller status again. No one cares what he says or writes. No one believes him. He can’t be trusted.

I guess he expects some people to embrace what he writes now, because he says he lied before. I tend to believe people who have a track record of truth-telling, not a track record of deliberate deceit.

To be blunt, David Brock is a liar – an admitted liar. And he is choosing the company of other proven liars and con artists – people like Anita Hill and Bill Clinton.

They deserve each other. Good riddance, I say.

But I probably shouldn’t hold my breath about ever seeing that check in the mail. There are limits to Brock’s bridge-burning and denunciations of his past ties. On one point he is consistent: He always keeps the money.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.