Late Night Open Thread: No Thanks, Mr. Koch

Former College Republican & current ABC News shill Jon Karl got himself an invite to Charles Koch’s sanctum sanctorum, and he could not be more impressed:

Charles Koch says he won’t “put a penny” into trying to stop Donald Trump, that there are “terrible role models” among the remaining Republican presidential candidates, and that his massive political network may decide to sit out of the presidential race entirely.

“These personal attacks and pitting one person against the other — that’s the message you’re sending the country,” Koch said in an exclusive interview with ABC News that aired Sunday. “You’re role models and you’re terrible role models. So how — I don’t know how we could support ’em.”…

“We haven’t put a penny in any of these campaigns, pro or con,” Koch said. “That’s not what we do. What we’re trying to do is build alliances to make the country better.”

Instead Koch said he and his brother plan to stay out of the party’s nomination fight…

Koch went so far as to say the GOP nightmare of another Clinton presidency might be a better alternative to the remaining Republican candidates at this point.

“It’s possible,” he said…

You can watch more of the interview at the link, but it’s basically 75% arse-covering (not our fault! you can’t prove one cent came from us!) and 25% complaining that you just can’t buy good help any more (seventeen GOP candidates and not one worth a bucket of warm spit!). That parvenu Trump is sucking up all the attention, Ted Cruz couldn’t sell meat to a hungry dog, and some pissant casino mogul is getting more attention than True American Heartland Job Creators(tm) like you-know-who. And despite what Dick Cheney might think, there’s still no cure for mortality…
.

92 replies
  1. 1
    Brachiator says:

    So, Trump kinda says he is going to play nice and be more presidential and the Koch boys claim that they are not going to throw more money into anti Donald schemes. Just when you think the GOP is going to settle down, you get this (from the Guardian)

    .Ted Cruz and John Kasich have announced that their campaigns will cede certain states in an attempt to keep Donald Trump from reaching the 1,237 delegates he needs to clinch the Republican nomination.

    In a pair of coordinated statements released on Sunday night, the Cruz and Kasich campaigns said that the Texan senator would concentrate his resources in Indiana while the Ohio governor would put all his effort into Oregon and New Mexico.

    This is gonna leave a mark.

  2. 2
    dollared says:

    Mr. Koch’s preference is pretty logical. If you’re running a large conglomerate, you gotta choose neoliberal, business friendly and predictable over GOP but dangerously populist and unpredictable.

    I’m sure he doesn’t mind the mischief his statement causes, but he’s stating a simple fact: between the Donald and HRC, every single member of the Fortune 500 that doesn’t dig for coal will favor HRC.

  3. 3
    C.S.Strowbridge says:

    “Koch praising Hillary may be trying to screw w Dem primary. But maybe it’s not a statement about Hillary as much a statement about Trump” – Dana Houle

    A bunch of Bernie Sanders supporters are using Koch’s interview as proof that Hillary Clinton is unfit for president. It’s just sad.

  4. 4
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @C.S.Strowbridge: Final straw for me. I’m in for Hillary. I’ve had it with the Berniebros. They can all just fuck off and die as far as I’m concerned.

    Way to be played by the Kochs, useful idiots.

  5. 5
    amk says:

    @C.S.Strowbridge:

    Look above. As usual #clueless.

  6. 6
    AnotherBruce says:

    Fuck the Kochs, they are cowards lower than Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. Do you know how I know? Because they haven’t got the balls to be politicians rather than buying them. These are the goddamn Tories that we should have got rid of during the actual Boston Tea Party. I hope we drown these seditious fuckers in the Boston Harbor.

  7. 7
    ruemara says:

    That is one damned tasteless bathroom interior. Then again, when you’re soulless, you have no taste.

  8. 8
    Amir Khalid says:

    I figure all Charles Koch is saying is that President Hillary would most likely be less bad for Republican moneybags, like himself and his brother, than President Trump. I think C. Koch may have pretty much written off Cruz’s and Kasich’s chances of the nomination at this point. (Is there a worse possible outcome for the 2016 election than Trump winning? I can’t think of one.)

  9. 9
    starscream says:

    Go Hillary for calling out two of the issues I care most about!

  10. 10
    amk says:

    @ruemara:

    all money, no class.

  11. 11
    Mnemosyne says:

    I am an inveterate bathroom reader with probably too many books in there, and even I find that excessive. Jaysus.

    Plus the presence of the urinal is creeping me out. Does he stand there and … for the love of God, someone pass me some brain bleach, quick!

  12. 12
    starscream says:

    Regarding America rejecting Tom Perez because of his baldness: we elected Dick Cheney veep twice, and he had the additional baggage of being Satan.

  13. 13
    AnotherBruce says:

    @Amir Khalid: You’re giving the Kochs too much credit. Fortunately for our side, they totally lack any semblance of political astuteness. Or to put it another way, they are political morons, at least on a national level. They are clever on a state level, Only because state and local poly races are cheap investments.

  14. 14
    dollared says:

    @Amir Khalid: This. She just doesn’t threaten to change the way anybody does business today, whereas Trump is wayyyyyy less predictable.

    Plus they can run against That Woman in midterm elections, where they have been much more successful anyway. So for the Kochs, maybe That Woman will allow them to control more statehouses in 2020.

  15. 15
    Steeplejack says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    Is there a worse possible outcome for the 2016 election than Trump winning? I can’t think of one.

    Cruz winning, if he somehow gets the GOP nomination.

    ETA: Which won’t be definitively ruled out, presumably, until the convention.

  16. 16
    Mnemosyne says:

    My fellow Hamilmaniacs will understand why “The Election of 1800” is running on a loop in my head right now.

    ETA: They say I’m a Francophile, but at least they know I know where France is!

  17. 17
    redshirt says:

    Can someone “Zoom and Enhance” that book collection? I’d love to know the titles. Though I’m not expecting to be surprised.

    Wait. I see “Inferno”. I read that, so apparently I’ve already been Koched. Shoot me if you see me.

  18. 18
    rikyrah says:

    @Brachiator:
    I read that and had to laugh. It tickles me 😄

  19. 19
    NR says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Spare me the righteous indignation. It’s clear that if they can’t get their establishment Republican, corporate America considers Hillary a perfectly acceptable alternative.

  20. 20
    Darkrose says:

    @Mnemosyne: Don’t know if you watch Last Week Tonight, but if not, definitely check out tonight’s main story on YouTube. It’s on the Puerto Rican debt crisis, and features a brilliant gentleman of Puerto Rican descent that we all know and love.

  21. 21
    NR says:

    @Brachiator: There’s something else that most people don’t seem to be considering. A large number of Trump’s delegates are not loyal to him. Some are loyal to Cruz and some are party insiders that don’t particularly like Trump. Even if Trump manages to reach 1,237, I doubt he’ll have an actual delegate majority. Sure, those delegates will be bound to vote for him on the first ballot of the convention. But they are not bound to vote for his chosen Vice Presidential nominee, and they are not bound to vote the way he wants on rules questions, which could be important for any number of reasons.

    Trump might get nominated at a convention he doesn’t actually control. Which would be… something else, for sure.

  22. 22
    dollared says:

    @C.S.Strowbridge: No, this is the usual bullshit from the Hillbot liars. They are saying, truthfully, that it is likely true that business interests prefer HRC to Trump, because she will reliably favor business over working people, just as she has done all her career.

    It is not that anyone is saying she is “unfit.” Total distortion. They are saying she is a poor choice for Democrats. Which is pretty logical if you think there is any continuity between the party of FDR and the party of today.

  23. 23
    AnotherBruce says:

    @amk: Very well said, and all we need to know.

  24. 24
    AnotherBruce says:

    @C.S.Strowbridge: I want a link. There are plenty of ratfuckers out there.

  25. 25
    hellslittlestangel says:

    @Mnemosyne: The man’s 80 years old. It takes him like 45 minutes to urinate.

  26. 26
    opiejeanne says:

    @AnotherBruce: There seems to be one right here, about two comments above yours.

  27. 27
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Karl is easily impressed. The first thing that came in my mind was how nasty it is to have books right beside a urinel, but that’s just me.

    I really doubt the Koch brothers are going to completely sit out the general election. For them, a Cruz or Trump presidency would be more favorable than a Clinton presidency.

  28. 28
    opiejeanne says:

    @Patricia Kayden: I was thinking the same, but they can get results by buying Congressmen. They have a lot of money spread around in various places like the American Lands Council, which is just one of their advocates for giving control of Federal lands to the states to manage. The end result of that little scheme is that most of the public land will end up in private ownership. Right now they seem to have the majority of congressmen from Utah in their pockets:
    https://www.hcn.org/articles/the-taxpayer-money-behind-local-control-demands

  29. 29
    amk says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    For a$$ ki$$ers like karl, easily impressionable is a requisite bonelessness for acce$$.

  30. 30
    magurakurin says:

    Laughing at the bernfeelers here today. Scoreboard. Your guy lost. Dry your eyes and deal. Or not, who gives a fuck?

  31. 31
    C.S.Strowbridge says:

    @dollared: “They are saying, truthfully, that it is likely true that business interests prefer HRC to Trump, because she will reliably favor business over working people, just as she has done all her career.”

    Fucking. Bullshit.

    Hillary Clinton was to the left of Obama during their stay in the Senate. She voted the same as Bernie Sanders 93% of the time. The Koch brothers were set to spend I believe it was $400 million through their foundations to stop Hillary Clinton… until Trump led the way in the GOP race.

    Then again, Merrick Garland is considered a moderate by some, but he voted with labor during NLRB disputes more than 80% of the time. He also supported environmental regulations, wide interpretation on standing, and other liberal positions.

  32. 32
    C.S.Strowbridge says:

    @Patricia Kayden: “For them, a Cruz or Trump presidency would be more favorable than a Clinton presidency. ”

    I honestly don’t think that’s true. Sure, Hillary Clinton will raise their taxes, impose environmental regulations, etc. That’s bad for them.

    On the other hand, Ted Cruz might nuke Iran, because he thinks he’s leading a Holy War to bring about Armageddon, while Donald Drop might nuke someone because they made fun of his tiny, tiny hands.

  33. 33

    @AnotherBruce:
    One of them did run for president, which is one reason I give this a ‘Yeah, right.’ The Kochs are dedicated to a campaign of lies that they’re just business friendly libertarians. It is %100 bullshit. Their platform in that candidacy was absolute removal of the government, WAY beyond mere deregulation. Ron Paul level cuckoo. The other reason their ‘libertarian’ cover is bullshit is who they support. They astroturfed the Tea Party, and who were those candidates? Batshit crazy social conservatives. If Cruz gets the nomination, they will rain money down on him. Right now they just don’t want to be publicly revealed as the unreasonable asshole bigots they are. That’s a thread running across the Republican Party right now.

  34. 34
    Baud says:

    Democratic presidents are generally always better for the economy than Republican presidents. It simply takes someone like Trump for the Kochs to say that out loud.

  35. 35
    BR says:

    Out of curiosity I looked up how John Fetterman’s PA senate campaign was going, and I stumbled across this article:

    http://www.phillyvoice.com/why.....l-numbers/

    This part in particular:

    While observing the campaign this spring, there was a nagging thought: Sanders hadn’t done a lick to help a candidate who fits the mold of what I think he’d like to have in the Senate if he were to win the presidency.

    I couldn’t quite fathom why Sanders (for whom I will also be voting because he also represents the status-quo rejection this nation needs; and, fair warning, I won’t respond to story comments that reference “socialism”). Turns out I wasn’t alone in thinking that.

    It was illogical and spoke to a detachment on behalf of the man seeking to best Hillary. That detachment speaks to why Sanders’ “revolution” warrants quote marks around the word itself.

    Had Sanders – or at least his campaign – jumped aboard the Fetterman bandwagon, as the behemoth mayor so vocally did for him, maybe neither would be trailing in the polls in Pennsylvania. Since they do, it’s easy to slip into a mindset that says “my votes have been rendered irrelevant next Tuesday.” It’s as if Bernie propagated a self-fulfilling prophesy that holds outsider candidates (Donald Trump-excluded category) can’t win.

  36. 36
    Amir Khalid says:

    @dollared:
    I think the Koch brothers are also acknowledging the failure of their efforts to swing the Democratic primary Bernie’s way (they preferred him as the Democratic nominee, since they figured he’d be easy meat for the Republican nominee).

  37. 37
    different-church-lady says:

    @BR: “If the guy who was losing had just jumped aboard the campaign of the other guy who was losing, neither of them would be losing!”

    Yeah, that’s some astute right there.

  38. 38
    Baud says:

    @BR:

    Since they do, it’s easy to slip into a mindset that says “my votes have been rendered irrelevant next Tuesday.”

    Voting is irrelevant if they polls say your guy isn’t going to win?

    People take voting more seriously on The Voice.

  39. 39
    satby says:

    @Baud:

    People take voting more seriously on The Voice.

    Might be why there’s so much wrong with our electoral process.

  40. 40
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Baud:
    Brian Hickey also says he plans to write in Lionel Messi. For President or for Senator? Why Messi and not, say, Luis Suarez? Suarez has given up biting people, so I hear.

  41. 41
    Gvg says:

    Unless your business is defense contractor or gun sales, chaos is not really good for you. Everyone except Hillary is chaos. In addition both Trump and Cruz have eluded party control and the Kochs want puppets. They have created and controlled very similar types before though so it’s on them that they didn’t realize this was possible or even likely.
    Last cycle a bunch of billionaires were all uncoordinatedly backing whomever they pleased and basically wasted their money in the big races. Rich people get used to thinking they can buy outcomes but the bigger US offices , voters just ignore them and vote their own interests. The sheer number of voters swamps the efforts of the would be election buyers so far.

  42. 42
    amk says:

    @Gvg:

    collectively, they burnt more than 2B in the last two cycles. citizens united gone rogue and killed itself.

  43. 43
    Patricia Kayden says:

    @magurakurin: It would be nice if Senator Sanders’ supporters dried their tears and then committed themselves to doing what’s best for this country, which is to make sure that a Democratic President is elected to further the agenda of the current administration and push for more progressive legislature. Also, we need a Democratic White House to nominate liberal/progressive judges to the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

    I really hope Senator Sanders himself leads his supporters to support the eventual Democratic nominee like Secretary Clinton did for President Obama once she lost the nomination in 2008. We’re all adults here.

  44. 44
    Keith P. says:

    All of those books have been flagged.

  45. 45
    Chris says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Ah, the cry of the last… six months? More? “WAAAAUUUUUGGGHHHH! Some undefined group of Bernie supporters was MEAN! So the candidate sucks!”

    Thank God my vote for Hillary wasn’t measured based on whether any of her supporters were toolbags. Although if I did that sort of thing, I’d literally never vote for anyone ever.

  46. 46
    Chris says:

    @Gvg:

    Unless your business is defense contractor or gun sales, chaos is not really good for you. Everyone except Hillary is chaos.

    Well, even if you are a defense contractor, chaos isn’t unequivocally good for you. You need some part of the world to remain safe and orderly so you can store your money and build your mansion. Erik Prince might’ve moved to the Middle East, but he lives in Dubai, not Baghdad.

    But the question is, are the Kochs smart enough to realize that? They’re the family that co-founded the John Birch Society, back in the mid-20th century when big government was doing AWESOME stuff for business and the other, smarter 1%ers like the Rockefellers were embracing the new big government society and doing very well out of it. These people aren’t interested in enlightened self-interest, they’re interested in putting the serfs back in their place and don’t care if they have to cut off their own nose to do it.

    And I seriously doubt if their positive words for Hillary were meant seriously, based on their history. I think it was more of a “you fucking idiots! Even Hillary Clinton would be better than you at this point!”

  47. 47
    Kay says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    They are moving on:

    “There is a greater goal here,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, a co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who sent a letter to Mr. Castro criticizing the mortgage sales. “The contribution of Bernie that will be lasting for us is that we will coalesce around an agenda.”
    The pressure from Mr. Sanders and his allies is putting the party establishment, which is closely aligned with Hillary Clinton, in a delicate position. Democratic leaders are wary of steering the party too far left, but do not want to alienate the Sanders supporters whose votes Mrs. Clinton needs in November, or risk losing the vast new donor base Mr. Sanders has created.

  48. 48
    msdc says:

    @Mnemosyne: I know I always love to take a nice long read at the urinal.

  49. 49
    amk says:

    @Kay:

    so the grey lady isn’t concern trolling about the literal knee capping happening across the aisle?

  50. 50
    msdc says:

    @BR: From the article:

    Since they do, it’s easy to slip into a mindset that says “my votes have been rendered irrelevant next Tuesday.”

    Because they have been? If the author really wants to shake up the status quo maybe he should consider voting for the candidate who actually supports the downticket races that are absolutely necessary to wresting Congress away from the Republicans. Protest votes won’t get it done.

  51. 51
    Joel says:

    @ruemara: He wipes his ass with those books.

  52. 52
    Kay says:

    @amk:

    It’s just a standard “winding down the primary” piece, IMO. I think most people expected them to do exactly what they’re doing, which is use their leverage to try to influence the platform.

    The Democratic National Committee now relies on Mrs. Clinton’s fund-raising to provide a fifth of its monthly income, an arrangement the Sanders campaign has criticized.

    The Sanders donor list is the counter-weight to Clinton’s influence. They were never going to blow off 2 million small donors. That’s nuts.

  53. 53
    amk says:

    @Kay:

    Yup, Hillary and dem establishment are not stupid. However, grey lady’s concerns are duly noted.

  54. 54
    Kay says:

    @amk:

    There’s always been tension with the Democratic Party and who they choose to fund and promote. It’s a constant complaint. Sanders’ route offers an alternative.

  55. 55
    RSA says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    The first thing that came in my mind was how nasty it is to have books right beside a urinel, but that’s just me.

    I know what you mean. There’s a chance those books in the front row might be a little too splashy to read.

    On the plus side, though, the stacks are hiding a mirror, which if you were collaborating with the Koch brothers you’d probably appreciate.

  56. 56
    D58826 says:

    Please tell me that bathroom photo is from the Onion. What an awful sight this early on a Mon day. But it is J. Karl so it does reflect his level of reporting

  57. 57
    J R in WV says:

    @NR:

    People keep pretending that those delegates will still be bound to vote for Trump after the rules committee finishes their work. And that Trump delegates will still be attending the convention, after the credentials committee finishes ITS work…. and that “Trump” delegates will still be Trump delegates, etc.

    I’m doubting either of those points will be true on opening day of the convention itself.

  58. 58
    D58826 says:

    @Kay: Maybe I’m missing something here. The 20% of the DNC budget that comes from HRC’s fund raising is somehow questionable but the Bernie fundraising is ok? In a perfect world elections would be funded by small donors but we don’t live in that world. Never have.

    Certainly the DNC would be nuts to blow off Bernie’s 2 million strong list BUT if I’m on the DNC I want to see if that list is still contributing in 2018 and beyond before I blow off Hillary’s 20%. Everyone keeps saying Bernie has found a new pool of voters and contributors. Well maybe but the real question is will they be there next year and the year after. Or will they disappear like the new Dean voters and Obama voters in the off year election cycles.

  59. 59
    D58826 says:

    @dollared:

    the party of FDR

    FDR let me see oh yea he was the guy who grew up on a hard scrablyl farm fifty miles beyond the point where Christ lost his sandals. Never had a dime to his name. A true man of the the little people.

  60. 60
    Robert Sneddon says:

    @D58826: FDR had solid Dem (super)majorities in the Senate and House for most if not all of his time as President, similarly to LBJ when he pushed through the Civil Rights Act in the 60s. Obama, not so much and SoS Clinton won’t have the House even if she swings the Senate to the Dems this election, and she won’t get 60 seats there to invoke cloture on bills anyway.

    The party of FDR was racist as fuck, mostly Southern Dems who only signed off on Social Security when the nigras were excluded. The poll tax was another Democratic invention too.

  61. 61

    <—– Librarian

    (sees all those books stacked disorganized) SCREEEEEEEEECH
    (sees those books stacked in a bathroom with moisture and mildew and bacteria) AAAAAAIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
    (sees these books do not contain one graphic novel) WHEW

  62. 62
    The Lodger says:

    @RSA: If you’re collaborating with the Koch brothers, your image probably doesn’t appear in a mirror.

  63. 63
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    Worth keeping in mind Hillary is running for president of the whole country and not just the Left. Obama has avoid just punishing the rich and concentrated on what he can get implemented for the most people. Admittedly have the cuddle party the rich were getting from the Bush admin that felt like punishment to them. But anyone rational and rich is going to get that Hillary isn’t going to go off on a wild tangent, like say a trade war with China, like Trump says he wants to.

  64. 64
    shomi says:

    Didn’t sound like anything close to an endorsement but Hillary campaign could probably spin the Koch thing a lot better. Challenge them to redirect that money to fighting climate change instead spending money to back puppets who deny it.

  65. 65
    Matt says:

    Re: that shithouse – finally, a good use for the output of Regnery Publishing. Hopefully they use soft paper for the promo copies they send to the Kochs.

  66. 66

    It’s not all Regnery: at the bottom of the short stack in front I recognize volume one of a projected three-volume biography of Stalin: not a rightwing screed, but a work of serious scholarship.

  67. 67
    Marjowil says:

    I spent time Sunday refuting a Bern girl on FB that Koch did not, in fact, “endorse” Hillay, that he merely said she would probably be a better President than Trump or Cruz (like, DUH), but that he couldn’t vote her based on what she said she was going to do in office.

    Then Hillary says she won’t accept Koch’s “endorsement.” Thanks, Hil.

  68. 68
    feebog says:

    You would think that with all that money Koch would be able to afford a library room.

  69. 69
    Chris says:

    @shomi:

    Eh, I liked it. It was as straight up a “fuck you, I don’t want your money” as you’re allowed to say by the rules of civil discourse.

  70. 70
    Kay says:

    @D58826:

    Maybe I’m missing something here. The 20% of the DNC budget that comes from HRC’s fund raising is somehow questionable but the Bernie fundraising is ok? In a perfect world elections would be funded by small donors but we don’t live in that world. Never have.

    I don’t think the Clinton money is “questionable” but 20% of their budget means Clinton will have a lot of influence on how they spend it. There’s a constant argument in the Dem Party on how funds are allocated, or there is as long as I’ve been around.

    I don’t think DWS should have stacked the platform committee with Clinton people, but she’s sort of universally recognized as terrible so I no longer bitch about it :)

  71. 71
    dollared says:

    @Amir Khalid: I see no evidence of those efforts.

  72. 72
    dollared says:

    @D58826: So you’re a Marxist? Class determines all? Maybe you might consider, you know, the actual historical record.

    Moron.

  73. 73
    Marjowil says:

    @D58826: Bernie has very shady campaign finances: illegal foreign donors (hello Australia), donors who have passed their maxes, and dark Republican donations — millions bundled into $35 packets. They need to clean that up first.

  74. 74
    dollared says:

    @Marjowil: Riiiiigggghhhhht. Oh yes. Bernie is deeply corrupt. Yup, the threat of Australian subversion is imminent.

  75. 75
    Miss Bianca says:

    @dollared: You do realize that “the party of FDR” was a party of racist Southern Dixiecrats? That all of FDR’s signature accomplishments depended on his being able to cajole, wheel and deal, and in certain cases, such as Social Security legislation, outright ban work done primarily by minorities from labor protections and Social Security? You think “the party of FDR” or FDR himself – just waved a magic wand and made a New Deal that worked perfectly for everyone? Not so.
    https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html
    http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/stude.....perea_.pdf

    If you’re going to get your hate on for how far “the party of today” has slipped from “the party of FDR”, at least read some history. But then you might discover that “the party of today” actually compares quite favorably to the “party of FDR”. Then where would you be…

  76. 76
    Bob In Portland says:

    @C.S.Strowbridge: She’s fit enough for President that Koch said something nice about her. And why shouldn’t he?

  77. 77
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Miss Bianca: When someone says “the party of FDR” he is not talking about the compromises he had to make to get votes from Southern Democrats. He is talking about federal intervention to ameliorate the damage done by the free market, i.e., the oligarchs.

    Unless you are merely trying to avoid the discussion, that’s what we’re talking about.

    People who were invited to Donald Trump’s wedding and who get a quarter million an hour to chat with the wealthy of the world are okay in Koch’s book. It’s that simple. Cruz and the rest would probably fall into line with every economic/budgetary thing that the Kochs would want, but their brand is so soiled now a Hillary presidency would run more cleanly. And since Clinton is wedded to the PNAC foreign policy, which is essentially to further control energy around the world, that plays very nicely into the Koch brothers portfolio.

  78. 78
    Bob In Portland says:

    @dollared: And with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer backing corporate Dems even if the Dems manage to succeed in electing some neoliberals, they get what they want anyway.

    Koch is telling the world the game is fixed and a lot of villagers here in Balloon Land are outraged that they aren’t the acknowledged winners.

  79. 79
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    FDR did great for white men. Everyone else, not so much. That’s why saying “party of FDR” works great on white men but doesn’t exactly excite everyone else.

  80. 80
    jeannedalbret says:

    @Rand Careaga: “How-to?”

  81. 81
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Mnemosyne: So your point is that Social Security, jobs programs et al are not good things? Is it that you resent FDR for not sticking to his guns? Why, you are really an absolutist, which doesn’t explain why you can’t seem to get your head around the fact that neoliberalism has screwed the bottom three-quarters of America, white, brown, black, yellow, male, female.

    I guess everyone but the rich getting screwed by the neoliberals is better than some not getting screwed under FDR. Gotcha.

    Or, in your neoliberal way you will cast aspersions on FDR because he made radical changes and you don’t like radical changes?

    Actually, you’ve done this before. If someone points out racism today, you will point out racism from another age to prove that nothing’s changed. If someone points out some unfair advantage someone holds today you point out unfair advantages in history.

    It’s a very weird position to have for someone who pretends to be liberal or progressive. You are essentially a reactionary, arguing that because history wasn’t perfect that we must settle today.

    You are the perfect spokesperson for H. Clinton.

  82. 82
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Miss Bianca: What specifically are you making excuses for today? What is it about FDR that frees the Democratic Party from criticism today?

  83. 83
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Um, all the white women and blacks don’t like Social Security? They didn’t like to be in unions? They have a strong preference for securities fraud and bubble economies?

    That is so completely fucked up it’s impossible to comprehend. You’re taking your resentment based identity politics to where you are denying the historical value of the Democratic Party’s accomplishments. You’re aligned with the GOP on the subject of the New Deal.

  84. 84
    shomi says:

    @Chris: While it may be satisfying on an emotional level. That is not how good politics works. Then again it is the
    “Pander to voters” phase of the election cycle when she can get the best mileage out of appealing to peoples lesser selves. Basically the same way Republicans do everything always including governing.

  85. 85
    dollared says:

    @dollared: @Miss Bianca: yes. We made this horrible deal with the devil:

    1. BEcause the Republicans were going to end apartheid in the South, right?
    2. Because we made sure blacks couldn’t join labor unions, vote or receive Social Security benefits, right?

    Your comments display an ignorance of history and a sense of privilege and entitlement to the safety net that people died in the streets earning for you. You are taking a core Republican position: the Democrats are the real party of racism, in order to take another Republican position: the New Deal is a bad thing.

    Go join your party. We don’t want you.

  86. 86
    Miss Bianca says:

    @dollared: Oh, screw you, you idiot. No one else will, with your winning personality. Not the point I was making at all. The point I was making is that nostalgia for some imagined “party of FDR” overlooks some inconvenient truths about how political sausage gets made. If you’re too obtuse to grok that point, I’m not going to be bothered with spelling it out in league-high letters and shoving it under your nose.

  87. 87
    Bob In Portland says:

    @dollared: I get the same feeling from these weird attacks. When I first arrived here at Balloon Juice there was some fun in poking at what was left of Cole’s Republican past. But most of the people here, certainly the ones who immediately devolve into the fuck yous like Miss Bianca or Mnem, are essentially using imperfection as a defense against something.

    There is no doubt that FDR’s legacy was tainted with compromise. That is essentially Miss Bianca’s argument for status quo.

    This is the current status of today’s Democratic Party. It will embrace various minority rights when it serves their interests (just follow H. Clinton’s career for examples), but refuse to acknowledge its unwavering relationship with the ruling class. So if you a transsexual, for example, you know that the Democratic Party sort of has your back, but unless transsexuals control the corporations that are fracking or building bombs and jets, you can pee but someone’s water is still gonna catch on fire.

  88. 88
    Bob In Portland says:

    @dollared: Weird, isn’t it? But people will jump through all sorts of hoops to justify their own greed.

  89. 89
    Chris says:

    @shomi:

    While it may be satisfying on an emotional level. That is not how good politics works.

    In general, fair enough, but this is the Koch brothers. If I believed that there was a snowball’s chance in hell of Hillary Clinton getting real support from a political machine that powerful, it might be worth considering (though there’d be the price of their support to consider as well). But I don’t believe that; with their family’s history as the tin-foil-hatters of the 1%, I’d say that when push comes to shove they’d rather stick their heads in an oven than help create another Democratic presidency.

    Like I said, I think if anything this is more of a message to the Republican Party of how irritated they are with them (note how vague they are; in the midst of tearing into how terrible this year’s candidate field is, they allow that even another Clinton presidency “might” be better, “it’s possible,” etc). I don’t think she’s risking much by flipping them the bird.

  90. 90
    lethargytartare says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    There is no doubt that FDR’s legacy was tainted with compromise. That is essentially Miss Bianca’s argument for status quo.

    no, it’s just an argument that being “tainted” with compromise doesn’t make a current candidate a tool of evil, or even any different than any of your supposed idols.

    You and Dollared would have campaigned against FDR in 1932 because he was clearly a tool of the rich elites like Kennedy and Hearst.

  91. 91
    dollared says:

    @lethargytartare: No, really, we couldn’t be that stupid. We couldn’t be like you, Miss B, and Memn, arguing that FDR was bad and that we shouldn’t have had unions and a social safety net, because Roosevelt didn’t put the entire continent in a time machine and make the country ready for integration in 1932, rather than 1965. I don’t know Bob, but I’m willing to bet he’d join me in pointing out that maybe the concepts of solidarity and equality inherent in Social Security and mass unionization may even have helped bring about the Civil Rights movement. But no, you guys are stuck in your time machine. Try putting another quarter into it……

    All because you’re defending a candidate who has spent her career helping large corporations screw millions of workers, and police incarcerate millions of blacks, and you don’t want us to point that out. I hear she’s good on women’s rights and gay rights, though. But don’t ask her for free stuff – her dear old dad told her that’s bad for people.

  92. 92
    lethargytartare says:

    @dollared:

    No, really, we couldn’t be that stupid.

    you do it every day

    We couldn’t be like you, Miss B, and Memn, arguing that FDR was bad and that we shouldn’t have had unions and a social safety net, because Roosevelt didn’t put the entire continent in a time machine and make the country ready for integration in 1932, rather than 1965.

    see there – you did it already. Noone made this argument, ever. period. You are a liar.

    I don’t know Bob, but I’m willing to bet he’d join me in pointing out that maybe the concepts of solidarity and equality inherent in Social Security and mass unionization may even have helped bring about the Civil Rights movement. But no, you guys are stuck in your time machine. Try putting another quarter into it…

    no, that’s our point. Your point is that what was okay for FDR makes Hillary the devil. it’s gonna be stupid no matter how many ways you try to parse it.

    All because you’re defending a candidate who has spent her career helping large corporations screw millions of workers, and police incarcerate millions of blacks, and you don’t want us to point that out. I hear she’s good on women’s rights and gay rights, though. But don’t ask her for free stuff – her dear old dad told her that’s bad for people.

    so your argument is essentially this:

    FDR compromises with racists – he’s super cool and couldn’t have done any better and was the most awesome for progress
    Hillary compromises with the rich – she’s unforgivably corrupted and fvck anyone she helps we don’t need progress for women or gays

    like I said, buddy boy, you’re this stupid every goddamned day.

Comments are closed.