Follow the money

Open Secrets publishes a list of who gives money to which candidates. Look at the most recent lists. Notice that the top big-money recipients are mostly blue. Democrats like to cry about the Koch Brothers. They don’t appear until # 49, below Bloomberg and just a little above the American Dental Association.

Our mythology still says that Republicans are the fat-cat establishment. This has not been true for a long time.

The fat-Cats are like real cats. They hang around and are loyal only as long you give them cream. And they quickly figure out who will give them the most. The danger to the free market comes from without and from within. A "partnership" with government is dangerous to liberty.

Both sides will be tempted to expand their power, usually their mutual power. Business supplies money. Government furnishes protection from competition. This allows the favored business, unions or associations to garner higher profits that it would in a real free market. It freezes innovation, since the favored firms no longer need to compete. It locks in technologies, since it is easier to keep making what they already make. This looks more rational and it seems to work at first. We often like what we get, not understanding what we have lost.

Posted by Christine & John at November 29, 2015 7:50 PM
Comments
Comment #400960

A good example is Donald Trump. Trump contributed to 96 candidates running for federal political office since the 1990 election cycle. Only 48 of the recipients — exactly half — were Republicans at the time they received their contribution, including ex-Gov. Charlie Crist (I-Fla.) and ex-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who both of whom received their Trump contributions as Republicans.

Why did Trump do this? Clearly, he was playing the game.

Posted by: C&J at November 29, 2015 8:32 PM
Comment #400961

This article intentionally misrepresents what is happening. For example:

“Notice that the top big-money recipients are mostly blue. Democrats like to cry about the Koch Brothers. They don’t appear until # 49, below Bloomberg and just a little above the American Dental Association.”

Here is another blatant misrepresentation:

“Our mythology still says that Republicans are the fat-cat establishment. This has not been true for a long time.”

The linked article to Open Secrets says the following:

“The totals do not include contributions to 501(c) organizations, whose political spending has increased markedly in recent cycles. Unlike other political organizations, they are not required to disclose the corporate and individual donors that make their spending possible.”

Vast amounts of money- ‘dark money’- pour into GOP coffers. The money is dark because, unlike donations made by Democrats, which are above board, the GOP funding occurs anonymously.

Within the linked article there is a link about that dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/disclosure.php

” Democrats like to cry about the Koch Brothers. They don’t appear until # 49…”

Here is another example of a very intentional misrepresentation of the truth. The Koch Brothers ALONE have announced their intention to give Republicans @ $900 million for the 2016 campaign. Compare this sum to the sums listed in the article. The biggest conservative donors do not even appear on that list. That is because they want to hide. Conservatives do not want American voters to know who actually owns the party. Sadly for establishment Republicans, many conservatives are disgusted with the establishment wing of the party. The majority would rather vote for people who know absolutely nothing whatsoever about politics than a Republican Senator or Governor.

The GOP has been selling fear, bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, and hatred to its base for a long time. It kept making promises and breaking them. Now the base has had enough. They have come out in the open and demanded candidates who reflect that fearfulness, bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, and hatred. That is how we get to Trump, Carson, and Cruz controlling @ 60% in the polls.

The problem with selling hate is that its targets represent the majority of Americans.

Posted by: phx8 at November 29, 2015 10:56 PM
Comment #400962

Dark money flows to Democrats too. It is dark, after all. I notice lots of ads critical of Republicans attributed to organizations officially unaffiliated with Democrats.

We also have the example of the Clinton Foundation. They do lots of good BUT they also supply lots of networking opportunities for the Clintons and jobs for their cronies.

As I have written, I am not fan of Trump. I don’t much like Cruz either. I think that Carson is a good man, but we do not need another inexperienced president. We should have learned a lesson in hope versus experience.

But I don’t think any of those guys will end up being the nominee. Unlike the Democrats who decided on their new queen seven years ago, Republicans have a open race and are not marching in lockstep toward an inevitable old lady.

Posted by: C&J at November 29, 2015 11:10 PM
Comment #400965

The sad thing is the mount of money given to democrats by unions, who’s membership has no say in where the money goes. Through the work of Democrats unions are forced on companies…employees are forced to join the unions…employees are forced to pay union dues…union dues are directed to democrats; it’s a vicious circle of corruption.

Regarding 501c organizations; wasn’t the Obama IRS accused of allowing leftist 501c’s to organize, while creating red tape and blocking conservatives?

C&J, Trump admitted months ago that he played the system on donations, and why he did it. This is not new news.

If you don’t like Trump or Cruz, and Carson has no chance of winning; then who do you like? Are you a conservative who is once again rooting for the establishment republican? The establishment republicans just can’t seem to wrap their minds around the republican and conservative voter’s motivations and anger at the party. Conservative voters are absolutely fed up with mealy mouthed and wimp establishment candidates, who can never win. If we are going to vote for weaklings like Bush or Rubio, we might as well vote for a democrat. We want someone who will actually stand up for conservative ideals.

Posted by: Blaine at November 30, 2015 9:38 AM
Comment #400966

So, we all should dismiss the actual list that C&J provides, and instead believe extremely biased opinions on where leftists think “dark money” goes anonymously?

The left is constantly trying to convince voters that a secret cabal owns the right, but it is the right who is selling fear? LOL!

“The GOP has been selling fear, bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, and hatred to its base for a long time.”

Supporting equal treatment over special treatment, is not bigotry.
Supporting America and Americans first, is not nativism.
Supporting laws for legal immigration, is not xenophobia.
Supporting traditional marriage, is not hatred.

The left has redefined all of these for the sole purpose of scaring and guilting people into supporting its agenda, but it’s the right who is selling fear? LOL!

More leftist hypocrisy.

Posted by: kctim at November 30, 2015 10:12 AM
Comment #400967

tim, I do not even try to answer phx8’s comments. He/she, whatever, is an idiot who is incapable to logical discussion. The very things he blathers on about are the very things the left has done for years.

Posted by: Blaine at November 30, 2015 11:15 AM
Comment #400969

Jeezus kctim what happen over the holidays, a serious head injury? You give us two choices either the selective and incomplete list provided by C&J or phx8s “opinion” that actually links to factual information from the same source! You would allow only one portion of the source because it supports your very partisan beliefs while discarding the rest of the story! Koch Industries is a fraction of what is spent by the Koch Bros on political issues, we all know this to be true yet you argue as if it weren’t.

Such foolish logic when it is obvious the latest and greatest means of buying candidates is the dark money. Secondly it would seem that despite the Koch Bros telling you they are spending 900 million this election cycle you refuse to believe it and continue to support the biased misleading information from C&J.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Brothers

I expect this from Blaine but you kctim should know better. Rest assured C&J know the false assertions they wrote is just drivel. No wonder it is so easy for Fox news to dumb down the conservatives they are Kochsuckers! They fall for anything they are told to fall for.

C&J shame on you for concocting such rubbish as if it were factual information.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 30, 2015 12:25 PM
Comment #400971

What is the difference between the money unions contribute to politicians and the money the Koch Brothers contribute?

First, the sheer size of the contribution differs. The Kochs have stated their intention to donate @ $900 million.

Second, the number of people represented by the contribution also differs. The Koch Brothers reflects their beliefs. Period. Unions represents the thousands of people who belong. The leadership is democratically elected, the organization runs according to a constitution, and all members pay dues.

While both sides accept dark money- that is, money that comes from anonymous donors- the GOP collects much more. Furthermore, Democrats and liberals want Citizens United repealed and favor campaign finance reform. Republicans and conservatives favor keeping the current system the way it is.

A notable exception among Republicans is Donald Trump. In that case, we have just cut to the chase and put a billionaire up for the GOP nomination.

There seems to be some confusion about the term ‘dark money.’

“… Dark money is a term that describe funds given to nonprofit organizations—primarily 501(c) (social welfare) and 501(c) (trade association) groups—that can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals, and unions, and spend funds to influence elections, but are not required to disclose their donors.”
Wikipedia

In the 2014 midterms, “Republican-leaning dark money groups dominated, with $94.6 million in expenditures, exceeding dark money expenditures by Democratic-leaning dark money groups ($28.4 million)…”
Wikipedia

Is the GOP ‘marching in lockstep’? Heh. Good one. I know it is hard to believe, but Trump could actually win the nomination. All that money going to GOP establishment candidates could actually fail because Trump can self finance- which is great, in my opinion- and he is appealing to the absolute worst in the GOP. Trump is selling fear, bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, and hatred. He is quite open about it. His base is primarily rural white males with high school educations, and that is what they want, and since they constitute the majority of the GOP…

The GOP nomination will come down to the Florida primary on March 15th. It is a winner-take-all primary with a LOT of delegates. If Trump wins that one- and in so doing, defeats Jeb! and Rubio- he will probably run the table. Only Cruz will be left standing. And right now Trump has a big lead in FL. It could happen, folks. Hard to believe, but it could happen.

Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2015 1:05 PM
Comment #400972

J2

C&J provided a list of who gives money to which candidates and then commented on THAT list. Phx8, and apparently yourself, do not like what that list shows and attempt to deflect from it with lies and opinionated conspiracy.

- “The Koch Brothers ALONE have announced their intention to give Republicans @ $900 million for the 2016 campaign.”

- ” it would seem that despite the Koch Bros telling you they are spending 900 million this election cycle you refuse to believe it and continue to support the biased misleading information from C&J.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/22/bernie-sanderss-inaccurate-claim-that-the-two-koch-brothers-will-spend-more-than-either-major-party-on-2016-elections/

- “Conservatives do not want American voters to know who actually owns the party.”

Agenda at all costs, is why promoting such nonsense is why the left relies on lies and conspiracy.

“You give us two choices either the selective and incomplete list provided by C&J or phx8s “opinion”

No, the two choices are:
1 - C&Js list that can be cross checked
2 - Guesses where nondisclosing groups used their money.

I’ll keep with facts, you can keep going off with conspiracy.

Posted by: kctim at November 30, 2015 2:02 PM
Comment #400975

kctim,
Did you read that ‘fact check’? It is absolutely ridiculous. That is one of the worst ‘fact checks’ I have ever seen.

The Koch Brothers plan on spending $900 million on the 2016 election, which is more than either party spent in 2012. Sanders is absolutely correct. The Brothers announced their intent at a retreat. The ‘fact check’ author pretends the $900 million will be divided up in such a way that it does not count.

Here is an accurate article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/kochs-plan-to-spend-900-million-on-2016-campaign.html?_r=0

Posted by: phx8 at November 30, 2015 3:41 PM
Comment #400979

Phx8, yes I read the article and in it the author uses the Koch’s own words to detail what they plan on doing. It is now estimated to be $750 billion and it does not represent direct donations from the two brothers, and only one third of it will be used in direct electoral spending.
I know that’s not as sexy as some ‘evil intent,’ but that is what they have actually stated.

Did you read the article? The link you provided was already addressed in it.

Posted by: kctim at November 30, 2015 5:02 PM
Comment #400981

The way I read phx8’s comments he writes like the Koch brothers are using their own money and it’s totally NOT what the 2 articles say. I think phx8 needs to take reading comprehension classes. Their GROUP may donate that amount but it’s not all the Koch brothers money hundreds of donations total that amount.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 30, 2015 5:13 PM
Comment #400985

Blaine
I am not a fan of Trump because I don’t think he could be a good leaders of our country. He claims to be into the art of the deal, which he defines as him winning and the other side losing. This sounds good and may allow an individual or firm to make big bucks. It is a horrible way to lead and a sure way to get yourself in trouble in international affairs.

In these cases, you have to look for the ostensibly naive way to make your opponent a winner too, unless you have the capacity and the will to annihilate the opponent. This is a rare situation. The last time we have been in this position was with Germany in 1945. Even there, we had to make lots of compromises with our former enemies. Trump would have to modify his personality and his methods. The in-your-face style, that supporters so much love, would have to be jettisoned first.

Ben Carson is a nice guy and an extremely intelligent man with no experience in politics. This is one reason why people like him. However, there is a steep learning curve. There is much more to being president than being the top guy. He will need to run a team much bigger than his operating room. He may learn quickly, but I doubt it. I think he will soon be out of the race.

Cruz is slick and a wonderful debater. He wants to be Ronald Reagan, but he isn’t.

Indeed, I do favor a more mainstream candidate. I voted twice for Ronald Reagan. He was NOT an outsider. He had long experience with politics and organization. I loved his ideas, but I recognize that ideas are not enough. “Vision without execution is hallucination.”

J2t2
We understand dark money flows to causes supporting various candidates and parties. Hillary is very clearly the beneficiary of this. The Clintons are past masters at getting donors to do their bidding.

Phx8

We hear the Koch affiliated organizations will spend that money. They have not yet done it and beyond that not all these organizations are run with Koch money. Many raise money from multiple donors. I have given a small amount to Americans for Prosperity, for example. That is actually the power of the organization – it organizes. The many donors put up their money and it commits them.

Re Unions – if Unions represented their members’ wishes, you would be correct. We should ask all union members to opt-into any political contributions. Otherwise, it is like a corporation giving money and claiming it represents its thousands of employees. Funny, there would be overlap between unions and firms, both claiming the same constituents.

Posted by: C&J at November 30, 2015 5:55 PM
Comment #400986

The Koch Brothers

BTW - their story is a very American on. Their grandfather was an immigrant, an apprentice printer, who saved him money and eventually bought a small-town newspaper, earning enough money to put his kids through college where one of them turned out to be a brilliant engineer who founded a successful business. The Koch Brothers are very generous. Politics is just part of their portfolio. They are also big donors to medical research and education.

Posted by: C&J at November 30, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #401000
Blaine I am not a fan of Trump because I don’t think he could be a good leaders of our country.

As I have said to you previously on WB; I am not a supporter of Trump, but unlike you, I understand the frustration of the American voter. You claim he couldn’t be a good leader, but that’s exactly what the voters want… a leader. In the eyes of the left and the Republican establishment, a good leader is someone who agrees with the left and the media. Romney and McCain lost because they were nothing more than liberals wrapped up in the blanket of conservatism. McCain is a waste and should have retired a long time ago, and Romney was nothing more than a New England liberal. Obamacare is falling apart before our very eyes and yet Romney supported it; something that the majority of voters have never done.

Cruz is slick and a wonderful debater. He wants to be Ronald Reagan, but he isn’t.

Every candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, at some point in his candidacy wants to be compared to Reagan. So this is nothing new. But it is interesting that both the Republican and Democrat establishment had no use for Reagan. They thought he was a cowboy country bumpkin, whose intelligence level was far below their elitism. I would consider Cruz a much closer match to Reagan than McCain, Romney, Kasich, Rubio, or Christy. I like anyone who is willing to take on the establishment fight for the voters. Trump is perceived to be able to do this and Cruz has proven himself able to do it. Cruz is more than “slick and a wonderful debater”; Cruz is smart, and Cruz is a real conservative. He certainly has my vote. Your beliefs are in complete opposition to conservative voters; the polls show this to be true.

The left tries to create a story when talking about the Koch brothers and their support. It’s not even worth debating. George Soros is one leftist who has spent his life trying to predetermine the outcome of elections or the economies of countries. If you want to talk evil, then talk Soros. Putin has banned Soros from any influence at all in Russia, and for good reason. Soros spends his money in support of Global Warming, gun control, illegals invading America and other countries (Mexican or Islamic). The left has no problem with Soros economic influence. The left attacks the Koch brothers simply because they are conservative and believe in the American dream and capitalism. Soros has no country; he is an internationalist who supports no nation. Obama is an internationalist; he views America as the problem of world matters. Obama is a traitor. He swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and yet hates the Constitution. The Republican Party is stuck in the minority of the 50’s and 60’s when they were nothing but a token party that were handed scraps from the democrat’s table. The establishment has never understood why the voters have continually given them control of the Congress. The establishment are unable to lead. The voters see Trump as someone who will fight.

Posted by: Blaine at December 1, 2015 1:00 PM
Comment #401002
We also have the example of the Clinton Foundation.

C&J you keep trying to tie Hillary to dark money from the Clinton Foundation but I was under the impression the Clinton Foundation gave grants for causes not political contributions or 501c groups.

What is your source for these allegations?

Posted by: j2t2 at December 1, 2015 1:02 PM
Comment #401017

j2t2

The ostensible purpose of the Foundation is good and many of it grants are good.

Money and influence are not the same. They can sometimes be converted. What the foundation does is provide connections, access and infrastructure. It allows Bill and Hillary to travel around to create networks. It provides places to store supporters. Recall that Huma Abedin was actually still on the Foundation payroll while working at State. Sidney Blumenthal was working for the Foundation while he was advising Hillary on Libya, among other things.

Grants made to other legitimate organizations help build the network that Hillary and her supporters can use.

This is a textbook case of how to build an influence network. When Clinton left office, he essentially set up an outside bureaucracy to keep going.

The State Department ethics code says that officials OR their spouses should not be in leadership positions in outside organizations, even non-profits - that may have dealings with the Department. Hillary just ignored that. She also ignored the prohibition of accepting money from foreign governments. She ignored Obama’s specific direction not to put Blumenthal into a position of authority.

Clintons feel that they are above the law and it looks like they often get away with it.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 5:18 PM
Comment #401019

Blaine

I explained why I think Trump’s leadership is right for the job. I agree that Americans are frustrated, but we should not let frustration draw us into poor choices.

I do not have strong opposition to “the establishment.” Reagan, despite the hype, was establishment by 1980. He brought with him an experienced group. He guys like Weinberger and Haig had long governmental experience. Other appointees were long established in business and other institutions. Reagan himself had been in public service for decades by the time he became president. He had been governor of the largest state. He had the networks and the gravitas. Reagan knew to try to limit government, but he also knew how to make it work.

Reagan famously took the role of the lead man and let other competent allies carry on.

Ted Cruz is no Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 5:33 PM
Comment #401023

Ted Cruz is no Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 5:33 PM

Cruz is tough, savvy, and competent to do the job of reigning in a government that is top heavy and wasteful.

Oobama had no leadership experience and look how successful he is in the wrong direction.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 6:03 PM
Comment #401024

Royal

Obama is a good example of why we don’t want a guy like that.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 6:36 PM
Comment #401027

Please don’t use the royal “we” C/J. Millions of conservatives want Cruz for president. He is capable of undoing much of the harm wrought by oobama.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 6:48 PM
Comment #401029

Royal

I was referring to Obama as the “guy like that.” My point was that comparing anyone to Obama is not a good idea.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 6:52 PM
Comment #401030

At this point my preferred Republican ticket would be Cruz/Rubio.

Anyone else care to share their ticket preference?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 1, 2015 6:59 PM
Comment #401031

Cruz and Rubio are fighting for the same place on the spectrum. Which would be on top anyway?

I could take Rubio. I think he is too young and inexperienced, but he does have good political instincts. Of course, much better than Clinton.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 7:06 PM
Comment #401034

Side note: if Cruz or Rubio actually won the White House, both would face challenges in the Supreme Court regarding their eligibility. The be president, a person must be a “natural born citizen.” Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. Rubio was born in the United States, but his parents were not US citizens at the time. Remember the Birthers? Remember all that talk about rejecting birthright citizenship? It could cause a very awkward situation for many conservatives.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2015 7:45 PM
Comment #401036

phx8,

You forgot: IOKIYAR. The Constitution’s rules and limitations don’t apply here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 1, 2015 8:24 PM
Comment #401037

phx8

I explained this in relation to Obama and I will explain it to you again.

Obama is a natural born American because his mother was an Americans city. I believe he was born in the U.S. but it would not matter. He was an American at birth by the laws applicable at the time. My daughter was born in Brazil and one son was born in Norway. I did extensive research into this.

Anybody born on American soil is an American citizen. That has been the law and practice except in the case of some Indian tribes until 1924. Rubio is a natural born American. Even if they changed the law today about birthright citizenship, Rubio would still be in. Your citizenship status is governed by the law in place during the year of your birth unless specifically made more generous with more options. Anything else would violate past precedence and violate the Constitutional ban on ex-post-facto laws.

Cruz’s situation is like I explained in Obama.

Birthers were not a big factor among Republicans. Democrats looked for instances and tried to magnify it. It is like “truthers” on the left.

Posted by: C&J at December 1, 2015 8:57 PM
Comment #401038

C&J,
We agree on defining ‘natural born.’ Personally, I think both Cruz and Rubio meet the constitutional standard. However, there are many Republicans who ascribed to Birtherism, and if they were sincere in their beliefs, they will come after both of them. Trump was a prominent Birther in 2012 and he has never renounced it or apologized. If Cruz or Rubio even threaten to win the nomination, the chances of a lawsuit would be excellent, and that lawsuit would almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. (A House Democrat, Grayson, has already announced his intention to file a suit).

From the very beginning I predicted Cruz will win the nomination, and I will stick by that prediction, although Trump is looking stronger and stronger. Go figure. Cruz will say anything to get the nomination- anything at all- and this is a year where that scorched earth approach may work, at least with the GOP base. The funny thing is Trump will say anything just like Cruz, but Trump dumbs it down and makes it more entertaining. He really is a carnival barker, or as Governor Perry so memorably put it, “a barking carnival.”

The GOP base has been fed a lot of baloney over the Obama years- one conspiracy theory after another- and when the conservative politicians have failed to act on those conspiracies as if they were true, the base has become enraged.

Now we are witnessing almost half of conservatives believing things that are simply not true, and demanding a candidate who reflects those delusions. The result, as many have already observed, is a movement that has encouraged racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and hatred. They believe Global Warming is a hoax, Obama is a Muslim, unemployment numbers are fixed, and virtually any good news about the economy is fraudulent. Almost every premise is rooted in fear- fear of ISIS, fear of Muslims, fear of Ebola, fear of blacks, fear of illegal immigrants, and more.

They have created a monster, and no one in the GOP knows how to stop Frankenstein from running amok. No one can find the off switch.

Posted by: phx8 at December 1, 2015 10:02 PM
Comment #401040
if they were sincere in their beliefs, they will come after both of them

Republicans never were sincere with their beliefs. All they care about is fealty their bankrupt ideology. American traditions and the Constitution do not mean a whit to them unless it supports their goals.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 12:11 AM
Comment #401041

phx8

I know a fair number of Republicans and conservatives. I don’t know any who believed the birther thing. There is a lot more discussion of that issue than is justified by its prevalence.

Re the birthright etc - I don’t believe that is a serious position, but I know there are some who do. It is meant to be forward looking, however. I have never seen anybody propose taking away citizenship from adult Americans who have held it their entire lives. The program is aimed primarily at the “baby drops” by illegals. Rubio’s parents were in the country legally.

Posted by: C&J at December 2, 2015 12:22 AM
Comment #401042

C&J,
According to polls, over half of all Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim, or Obama is not the legitimate president because of questions about his birth certificate. This belief is more prevalent in some areas more than others, so it is very possible you do not travel in circles where that kind of ignorance is common. It is prevalent among white males in the rural south with no more than a high school education.

The Southern Strategy worked for the GOP for a long time. It does not work anymore because of changing demographics. But we all know the saying about paybacks…

Posted by: phx8 at December 2, 2015 12:56 AM
Comment #401043

Phx8

There are lots of polls we don’t trust. I look at Pew for this, since they are used to the issue. Pew found that around 17% thought he is Muslim as opposed to around 7% of Democrats.

Do Americans think Obama is too sympathetic to Muslims? That is a different question. Does he have significant Muslim heritage? He spent some of his childhood in a Muslim country, attended some Muslim school and his father was Muslim. These questions can get easily conflated.

Re Republican strategy - since 2008, Republicans have gained control of the House and the Senate. They increased their share of governors and state legislatures. The party has been declared dead many times.

Let’s see if the demographics favor an old and not particularly charismatic white women. Obama is not a good president but he was a great campaigner. Hillary, not so much.

Recall that the demographic shift has been mostly Hispanic. Black make up a similar % of the population they did in 1970 and will make up a similar % in 2070. Hispanics are democrats today in the same way my ancestors - white ethnics” were democrats in 1970. The demographic surge in the future will be Asian. There has been no net Hispanic immigration since 2009. As Hispanic assimilate, they will likely shift conservative. Asians are quickly becoming prosperous, with incomes higher than American whites. Sooner or later, they will get sick of getting their money taxed away to pay for programs that give them less.

The future will - as usual - be different than we think. People will change their minds; parties will change their positions.

My core beliefs are liberty, free markets and the desire not to be bothered much by the authorities. Neither party gives me what I want 100%. Republicans do better. Maybe in future they will not.

BTW - talking about the South - people of the south are very friendly, good people in my experience.

Posted by: C&J at December 2, 2015 1:27 AM
Comment #401048
people of the south are very friendly, good people in my experience.

Unless you are trying to get a zoning permit to rebuild the Fredericksburg Islamic Center, apparently. Not that this sort of thing is restricted to the South, but there are lots of places in America where bigotry is on display. Typically, these are communities where whites without college educations predominate.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 7:51 AM
Comment #401056
No, the two choices are: 1 - C&Js list that can be cross checked 2 - Guesses where nondisclosing groups used their money.

I’ll keep with facts, you can keep going off with conspiracy.

Well first of all kctim let me borrow from C&J to answer you “This is a textbook case of how to build an influence network.”. The Koch Bros use a bit of their own money and create dark money organizations and convince others to contribute. The difference between a foundation like the Clinton’s and what the Koch Bros are doing is pretty clear, the Clinton’s aren’t using their foundation for political issues where as the Koch Bros are using their corporations to buy influence and propagandize voters.

One of the organizations they support is ALEC which has led the voter suppression lies in states around the country and yet educated people like C&J will tell you they are buying and influencing the repubs/conservatives, the party of liberty! I use this as one example of how the Koch Bros, their political corporations and nefarious schemes take away rights and tell us it is liberty.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 2, 2015 11:03 AM
Comment #401057

So J2, I guess that means it’s not true that “the Koch Brothers ALONE have announced their intention to give Republicans @ $900 million for the 2016 campaign” so that they can “own” the party.

I don’t remember mentioning the Clinton Foundation, but your belief of their angelic innocence, the Koch Bros nefarious schemes, and now ‘voter suppression lies,’ are nothing but partisan opinion you are trying to sell for some votes.


Posted by: kctim at December 2, 2015 12:14 PM
Comment #401060

Warren

I saw that report. A couple guys complained. Are we to judge a whole group by the actions of a couple guys? If we did that with all groups, we would be in serious trouble.

Zoning, BTW, is always a problem, even among friends.

Posted by: C&J at December 2, 2015 12:30 PM
Comment #401061

Kctim, you missed the influence part I guess. ALEC and voter suppression laws are an ongoing process in many states, you act as if it were made up.

Kctim are you suggesting the Koch Bros are lying when they announced their plans for this election cycle? Or are you suggesting by capitalizing “alone” you mistakenly thought it was just the two Bros contributing that much money? I think it means them and their organization alone. It doesn’t include other parties like the dems and the repubs, not the other corporations and billionaires like Carl Rove’s organization and Sheldon Adelson as examples.

The dark money corporations are where the big money is coming from not the individual contributions C&J originally linked to. You only received a misleading piece of the pie in their post.

While you didn’t mention the Clinton Foundation, to your credit I might add, C&J did mention it as if it was in the same league,with the same intentions as the Koch Bros and other dark money corporations that exist to influence elections with propaganda and misinformation.

I don’t believe the Clinton’s are angels kctim. But that doesn’t mean the repubs haven’t been running a smear campaign on them. Just because they aren’t angels doesn’t mean they are in the same league with the Koch Bros who buy politicians influence legislation by buying representatives instead of working in government to solve problems like both the Clintons have done.

Remember this started with misinformation in C&J’s post. This post appears to paint a picture, a very misleading picture for conservatives and it is important to set the record straight. You guys actually think it is the Koch Bros who are angels and the Clinton’s evil. You mistakenly believe the small amount directly donated by Koch Bros in the open secrets link posted by C&J is the sum of their efforts completely forgetting the huge dark money organization they lead. Why if this wasn’t challenged you guys would believe your team is made up of angels and it is only the dems that take huge sums of money to get elected.

To suggest, as you do, “So, we all should dismiss the actual list that C&J provides, and instead believe extremely biased opinions on where leftists think “dark money” goes anonymously?” tells us you would put blinders on to avoid the facts. You should instead of using the either/or logic you espouse look at both and drop the partisan BS of “extremely biased opinions” and realize these are corporations that exist to launder money for political gain. To keep the voters dumb and voting for feel good words like “liberty”. What kind of liberty hides in the dark ?

The dark money doesn’t go towards funding medical supplies for poor countries or getting food to starving people or electricity to small villages that have none you are wrong.It goes to politicians and political ads and such.

Now the Clinton foundation does fund medical supplies, electricity and such in poor countries yet C&J would mention Hilary as a beneficiary of dark money for her efforts with the foundation. That is wrong.

The problem is you rightist believe it to be true once you read it and it becomes a myth in conservative circles and you mistakenly think you are voting for “liberty” instead of fascism.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 2, 2015 1:13 PM
Comment #401062

phx8 continues to rant on what he perceives are the fears of conservatives. He is wrong.

We fear a national debt approaching $20 Trillion

We fear a federal government grown so large that it is incapable of good governance

We fear a federal government that is mostly run by un-elected bureaucrats who defy mainstream America

We fear a federal government that writes thousands of new regulations each year that mostly hamper our lives and degrade our economy

More fears available by request.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 1:14 PM
Comment #401063

“American traditions and the Constitution do not mean a whit to them unless it supports their goals.”
Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 12:11 AM

Interesting comment Warren. Can you be specific?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 1:23 PM
Comment #401064

Oklahoma Wesleyan University President Dr. Everett Piper: ‘This is not a daycare’

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/12/01/oklahoma-wesleyan-university-president-dr-everett-piper-this/21276273/

Any comment Warren?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 1:25 PM
Comment #401065

j2t2

I think we view this whole thing differently.

Historically, we see movements building and growing. Whether or not you like their goals, they often share characteristics. They are often network organizations where people connect to others to pass along information. Resources are used both to persuade outsider and to enhance the power and reach of insiders. They often start as top-down organizations, but the really successful ones quickly evolve into a more decentralized form, ironically being both centralized in their goals, but taking information and values from the broader group.

The classic cases of this is the spread of Christianity. There were certainly Church fathers like Peter and Paul, but the transmission adapted and was largely dependent on the initiative of members.

It is also to some extent the way firms like Amway or Tupperware developed and - less benignly - how radical Islam seems to be developing its networks in Europe.

Money is important, but money alone is not sufficient. We see high-priced failures in things like Air America, which fail to get traction because they remain top-down and do not develop a true interactive network.

I know this is a long explanation. Sorry.

The networked organization is a form. To work, it requires a significant number of engaged followers. Let’s consider the word “engaged.” It does not mean that they are passive receivers. When you engage with someone it means that what they say or do may affect your own thinking or actions and that the outcome might be different. This is how it differs from the old-style one-to-many systems.

This is the organization the Koch Brothers are trying to foster. I say trying to foster, because I don’t want to use the word create in that it implies that the one intelligence does it. As president Obama might say, “they didn’t build that.”

It is about power and influence but not about greed. The organization is designed to make changes in society. That is why it has political, social, philanthropic and business dimensions.

The Clinton Foundation has similar aims and organization. The big differences are the the Clinton Foundation is more top-down, more aimed at political elites and has as one of its key goals the election of Hillary Clinton as president and the perpetuation of Clinton power.

I do not object to the organizations. It depends on the goals. I read the Koch book and have some experience with how they run their businesses through Georgia-Pacific.

Stipulating that there are always pluses and minus, the Koch vision of a more pluralistic society with government playing and important but not predominant role and where we appreciate innovation by individuals and voluntary cooperation is one I can endorse.

I believe the Clinton’s are also sincere in their beliefs, but I don’t like much of what I see from Hillary. As Secretary of State, she spent most of her time traveling. She advocated top-down change and emphasized things like women’s and LGBT rights. I think these are worthy goals, but not important enough to dominate as they did.

My observation is that liberals emphasize top-down mandates and group over individual rights.

So I like what the Koch Brothers are doing. I also see a really big difference in what they want and what I think Hillary wants.

The Koch Brothers goal is to reduce the reach of government. They are involved in politics more as defense, in order to protect business from usurpation by government. For them (and me) government is necessary but should be limited to tasks that government MUST do. Government creates the conditions of prosperity but not prosperity directly. Hillary seems to see government as a positive force. She advocates private-public partnerships. These CAN be good. But she sees it as less a partnership than government co-opting private resources and then rewarding them with protected markets. This is the basis of crony capitalism, which can turn into a species of socialism/fascism.

So to sum up - the Kochs are involved in politics in order to limit government, which has grown beyond our needs in some areas and lost priorities in others. The Clintons are involved in politics in order to use government as a tool to create social change. I make the value judgment about which is better.

Posted by: C&J at December 2, 2015 1:45 PM
Comment #401068

“Interesting comment Warren. Can you be specific?”

Royal, I think he is talking about how Conservatives use government and/or the courts to destroy American traditions such as marriage, guns, holiday celebrations and personal responsibility. And how they are always trying to infringe on peoples religious rights and their right to keep and bear arms.

Posted by: kctim at December 2, 2015 2:33 PM
Comment #401071

I expect you are correct kctim.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 2:53 PM
Comment #401078

J2

The left likes to promote the false idea that the Koch Bros are buying government with $900 million of their own money. Why? Because one or two people $900 million sounds a lot more sinister than hundreds of people donating $250 million.

And no, I did not miss the influence part. As C&Js list points out, many use money to hopefully influence politicians.

“are you suggesting the Koch Bros are lying when they announced their plans for this election cycle?”

Of course not, J2. Why would I claim they were lying and then provide a link to what they state their plans are?

- About two-thirds of the $889 million “will help support research and education programs, scholarships and other efforts designed to change policies and promote a culture of freedom in the United States,” according to the newsletter. It includes money that will be donated to the United Negro College Fund, Youth Entrepreneurs, criminal justice reform and “other worthy causes that help people improve their lives,” it says.

The remaining one-third will be in direct electoral spending, including presidential, congressional, state and local races. (Donations by the Democratic and Republican parties, in contrast, are more focused on direct electoral efforts than issue advocacy.)

“dark money corporations that exist to influence elections with propaganda and misinformation.”

In other words, they don’t say or support what you want them to, so it is your opinion that it is propaganda and misinformation.

“Remember this started with misinformation in C&J’s post.”

Um, no. You have presented no facts that prove the list C&J linked to is wrong.

“You guys actually think it is the Koch Bros who are angels and the Clinton’s evil.”

Actually, I never think about the Koch Bros until you guys bring them and their supposed plan for world domination up. And as far as the Clintons, they are evil because of the policies they support, or at least pretend to support.

“Why if this wasn’t challenged you guys would believe your team is made up of angels and it is only the dems that take huge sums of money to get elected.”

Uh, no, we pretty much understand how it works, J2. Thanks though. The fact that it just highlights liberal hypocrisy is just icing on the cake for us.

“realize these are corporations that exist to launder money for political gain.”

And exactly where have I denied that possibility?

“To keep the voters dumb and voting for feel good words like “liberty”.”

Beats the way you guys keep voters even dumber and voting for so-called government freebies.

“Now the Clinton foundation does fund medical supplies, electricity and such in poor countries yet C&J would mention Hilary as a beneficiary of dark money for her efforts with the foundation. That is wrong.”

So if I have this straight, you won’t believe the Kochs who tell you where 2/3 of the money will go to, but you will believe the Clintons when they tell you where that money goes? Color me surprised, lol.

“The problem is you rightist believe it to be true once you read it and it becomes a myth in conservative circles”

No, the problem is that leftists think they know everything, and what is best for everybody, so you expect everybody to take your opinion as fact. Sorry friend, but facts do not become myth simply because they don’t support you.

“and you mistakenly think you are voting for “liberty” instead of fascism.”

So, the people who support individual rights, a representative Republic with strong states rights, a free market, and who are always b1tching about political correctness, are the people who support fascism?
BUT
The people who put groups above the individual, who support a centralized autocratic government, who support the redistribution of wealth and special treatment and rights for groups, are the people who support liberty?

LOL!

Posted by: kctim at December 2, 2015 3:40 PM
Comment #401083

kctim, do we believe that j2 understands “liberty” in the way our founders did?

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 4:13 PM
Comment #401093

OK, so the Koch brothers are choir boys and HRC is the evil wicked witch of the west then, right?

Posted by: Speak4all at December 2, 2015 5:00 PM
Comment #401099
I saw that report. A couple guys complained. Are we to judge a whole group by the actions of a couple guys? If we did that with all groups, we would be in serious trouble.

Zoning, BTW, is always a problem, even among friends.

It is not fair to paint all Southerns by with the brush of these guys in Virginia. Still, there is no excuse for the behavior. It is plain and simple bigotry, there is no other explanation. I am aware of the mud that gets tossed around zoning decisions; my Dad happens to serve on the conservation commission in my hometown. No construction happens in that town without the commission’s approval. Ultimately, nearly everything is motivated by fears regarding property values. Still, if property values go down just because a Black family moves in down the street, then that is a reflection of racism in the culture. Same goes if a lot gets developed as a Mosque instead of as a Church. That, and the other behavior chronicled in that VOX article is simply despicable.

American traditions and the Constitution do not mean a whit to them unless it supports their goals.
Conservatives seem to have a double standard when evaluating the Constitutional eligibility of a Presidential candidate. Barack Obama was made to do the unprecedented and release not only his certification of live birth, but also a long form certificate of live birth as well. Obviously, there was intense scrutiny regarding Obama’s birth. Lots of conservatives claimed they personally believed that Obama was probably born in Honolulu, but that they were concerned that the long form document was not released. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Cruz is a native Canadian, but he would be a natural born American if his mother met certain residency requirements. However, no one on the right has demanded Cruz to release documents proving those requirements were met.

Regarding Dr. Piper, I agree with him 100%. Obviously, there are some opinions that are so extreme that they have no place on a college campus. For instance, a university need not make space available for individual justifying Nazism. But the most recent controversies have not been about such things.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 6:41 PM
Comment #401100

Warren wrote; “American traditions and the Constitution do not mean a whit to them (Republicans) unless it supports their goals.”

I asked for clarification.

His pathetic milquetoast answer; “Conservatives seem to have a double standard when evaluating the Constitutional eligibility of a Presidential candidate.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 2, 2015 7:02 PM
Comment #401101

Speaks

As I wrote “I believe the Clinton’s are also sincere in their beliefs … So to sum up - the Kochs are involved in politics in order to limit government, which has grown beyond our needs in some areas and lost priorities in others. The Clintons are involved in politics in order to use government as a tool to create social change. I make the value judgment about which is better.”

You can make the opposite choice.

Warren

Yeah - we have a couple of residents of Fredericksburg who make some nasty comments. They don’t make physical threats and go away after that. You know, I just don’t care. I am not outraged. If this kind of think happened to me, I would joke about it. I expect that our Muslim neighbors can and should get over it. We should all lighten up.

Posted by: C&J at December 2, 2015 7:09 PM
Comment #401107

RF,

I was speaking in the context of phx8’s comment regarding Cruz’s eligibility. The right made a big fuss asking for Obama’s birth certificate, claiming fealty to the Constitution. However, not a word has been said regarding Eleanor Darragh’s status when Cruz was born. Looks like pretty clear proof that Republicans apply a double standard here.

C&J,
If this was an isolated incident, you would be right. But regrettably this is part of a pattern and Muslims have been the victims of violence in this country. I doubt people such as Blaine or dbs consider those people in Fredericksburg to be nasty people, but perhaps I am wrong.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 2, 2015 8:55 PM
Comment #401110

Warren

More hate crimes against Jews than Muslims. In the great scheme of our large country these numbers are small. Naturally we have to be concerned with any violence, but this is not such a big deal.

Here is the chart of hate crimes. http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_16/326426/140415-hate-crimes-by-religion2-2300_8f2eb71bfa345ac0669fad850cfd4b8d.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

Notice Jews are victims 66% of the time. Muslims 12%. But there are not large numbers in general (5,928 in 2013) and numbers have dropped in the last twenty years.

We just don’t need to get too worked up over a couple of guys making comments. I am not anymore going to allow myself to be pushed into pretending that these things are crucial.

My brother in law, a person of white, was walking down the street in Phoenix and some kids called him a bald-headed f-er. So what? Sht happens.

Posted by: C&J at December 2, 2015 10:36 PM
Comment #401113

It is important for people to express empathy for the victims of these crimes. About 15 years ago, someone vandalized my house of worship, painting swastikas everywhere. It was much easier to shrug off the incident after the outpouring of support from other clergy and congregations in my hometown. I worry that outside observers aren’t treating crimes against American Muslims the same way they would treat crimes against American Jews or Christians.

Posted by: Warren Porter at December 3, 2015 5:24 AM
Comment #401115

Warren

We can express empathy with our neighbors and help recover and rebuild. We should do that. It is this collective guilt thing that bothers me. The incident in Fredericksburg, for example, is just trivial in the national sense. Indeed, we do not treat it the same way; we make too big a thing.

And consider that there are many more southerners in the U.S. than Muslims. Most are good people. Yet the same people who condemn in strong terms any indication that Muslims are responsible for what others do, feel gleeful in lumping millions of southerners into the bad group for a couple of guys making comments.

We should treat all behaviors similarly. If we do not, we are acting in a bias manner.

Posted by: C&J at December 3, 2015 7:23 AM
Comment #401117

Royal, I have no doubt that they understand the founders intent, they just think it should make way for the emotional and materialistic ‘progress’ they desire.
If they didn’t, they wouldn’t use the courts to reinterpret in order to redefine the founders intent.

Posted by: kctim at December 3, 2015 10:58 AM
Comment #401118
The left likes to promote the false idea that the Koch Bros are buying government with $900 million of their own money. Why? Because one or two people $900 million sounds a lot more sinister than hundreds of people donating $250 million.

Then you did miss the influence part kctim. Do you actually believe the Koch Bros do not control the associated groups and the groups efforts to influence elected officials, two words- Scott Walker? Do you really believe the education they refer to is anything more than a front to brainwash people into believing their JBS ideology? It all comes down to one thing, control by the Bros of the government. Making government small, the ability to pollute at will.


Full Definition of SMALL from Merriam Webster-
1
a : having comparatively little size or slight dimensions
b : lowercase
2
a : minor in influence, power, or rank
b : operating on a limited scale
3
: lacking in strength
4
a : little or close to zero in an objectively measurable aspect (as quantity)
b : made up of few or little units
5
a : of little consequence : trivial
b : humble, modest
6
: limited in degree
7
a : mean, petty
b : reduced to a humiliating position

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2015 11:14 AM
Comment #401120

Again J2, I did not miss the influence part. I specifically said that the groups on that list use money to try and influence politicians.

What I believe are the facts. The Koch Bros are part of a group of like minded people who contribute to those who share their political beliefs.
They aren’t using almost a billion dollars of their own money to buy government, and they aren’t brainwashing people by simply supporting the idea of limited government control over the people, as was intended.

What I don’t believe is that two old guys have some secret dark plan to control government and pollute the country.

Posted by: kctim at December 3, 2015 12:27 PM
Comment #401122

Well kctim, you may have seen the influence part but you seem to miss the point. You claim facts but here are some facts regarding these “angels”.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Brothers

What I believe are the facts. The Koch Bros are part of a group of like minded people who contribute to those who share their political beliefs.

If they are truly so benign as you would have us believe why would they take the dark money route instead of proudly declaring their beliefs?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Koch_Network

What I don’t believe is that two old guys have some secret dark plan to control government and pollute the country.

Of course you don’t kctim. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. From the Sourcewatch link “Koch Industries has been involved in many investigations and indictments related to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.”

Posted by: j2t2 at December 3, 2015 1:15 PM
Comment #401128

j2t2

The Koch Brothers are open about what they do. That is how you know.

Posted by: C&J at December 3, 2015 5:49 PM
Comment #401139

J2, your sourcewatch ‘facts’ read like gregpalast and infowars - Some facts and a ton of guessing as to what it ‘really’ means.

The beliefs of the Koch Brothers are no secret and they are not shy in talking about them.

http://www.kochind.com/About_Koch/default.aspx

- “Koch companies are involved in refining, chemicals, biofuels and ingredients; forest and consumer products; fertilizers; polymers and fibers; process and pollution control equipment and technologies; electronic components; commodity trading; minerals; energy; ranching; glass; and investments.”

It is no surprise that they will sometimes run into environmental issues.

Come on J2, you have already shown that you don’t really care about ‘dark money.’ The only problem you have with the Koch Bros is that they don’t support the politics you support, and you will believe anything that supports your opinion.
I can’t argue against that, man.

Posted by: kctim at December 4, 2015 10:14 AM
Comment #401140

Just commenting without reading the other ones, but I know this for certain: most of the superpac donations are not disclosed, so using disclosed financial contributions is deceptive, if you’re trying to portray it as the actual character and extent of their political activity. There’s a reason they call it dark money.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 4, 2015 10:55 AM
Comment #401141

Really guys! Open and honest because the are currently running a PR campaign as investigative reporting ferrets out their deeds and deals! How come you guys are so silent on Scott Walker and his work for the Koch Bros in Wisconsin?

The beliefs of the Koch Brothers are no secret and they are not shy in talking about them.

Kctim, confusion or obfuscation? Such sophistry from you. No wonder you defend these guys, two peas in a pod. Of course their beliefs are known, the issue is their actions.

It is no surprise that they will sometimes run into environmental issues.

So once again confusion on your part or intentional obfuscation? Their record speaks for itself kctim, their belief the government shouldn’t be involved in protecting the environmental is self serving, and their insistence on polluting at will harms the rest of us. Yet you give them a free pass, why? Not enough teens getting incinerated lately?


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924

Come on J2, you have already shown that you don’t really care about ‘dark money.’

No I haven’t kctim, but I can see your argument is so weak you need to go into the illogical conclusions arena to continue defending these guys.

What I am against is the misleading attempt by C&J to paint the Clinton foundation as an equivalent to the dark money corporations used in politics today. It just isn’t so. I also disagree with the misleading attempt to convince us the Koch Bros are bit players in the dark money problem when they are in fact major players.

The only problem you have with the Koch Bros is that they don’t support the politics you support, and you will believe anything that supports your opinion. I can’t argue against that, man.

Yes you can kctim but instead you use it as a strawman to protect the Koch Bros and their dark money groups because it is wrapped in an American flag and carrying a cross, Gods Guns and Greed uber alles.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 4, 2015 11:22 AM
Comment #401143

Geez J2, you’re arguing more with yourself than you are discussing anything actually being said.

“Open and honest because the are currently running a PR campaign as investigative reporting ferrets out their deeds and deals!”

And they will pay the price IF those investigations prove fault on their part. NOBODY is saying that should not be the case.

“How come you guys are so silent on Scott Walker and his work for the Koch Bros in Wisconsin?”

Speaking only for myself, it’s because I thought Walker was still governor of Wisconsin. I had no idea he resigned and took a job with Koch Industries.

“Of course their beliefs are known, the issue is their actions.”

Then why did you ask why they aren’t “proudly declaring their beliefs?”

“So once again confusion on your part or intentional obfuscation?”

Neither. It’s more like not being susceptible to partisan hyperbole.

“their belief the government shouldn’t be involved in protecting the environmental is self serving”

Limited government does not mean no government. Smart regulations does not mean no regulations.

“Yet you give them a free pass, why?”

Pointing out the holes in the ideological hatred of them, is NOT giving them a ‘free pass,’ J2.

“No I haven’t kctim, but I can see your argument is so weak you need to go into the illogical conclusions arena to continue defending these guys.”

Actually, you have, J2. You initially deflected from C&Js list of money with screams of ‘dark money,’ then you ignore the fact that Clinton also receives ‘dark money.’

http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/03/behind-the-clinton-campaign-dark-money-allies/


The only problem you have with the Koch Bros is that they don’t support the politics you support, and you will believe anything that supports your opinion. I can’t argue against that, man.

“Yes you can kctim”

No, I can’t J2.
I have asked for facts and all I get are assumptions of what ‘it really means.’
I have provided links that show the opposite of what you claim, and all I get are talking points about how that’s not how it ‘really’ is.

“because it is wrapped in an American flag and carrying a cross, Gods Guns and Greed uber alles.”

Personally, I find nothing wrong with holding my country and my rights above everything else. Not sure why you do, but to each his own.

Posted by: kctim at December 4, 2015 1:58 PM
Comment #401146

j2t2

Re Scott Walker - There are two things. First, the idea of his connection to Koch Brothers comes from a leftist who called him and told him it was a call from Koch. Walker was interested, as you would expect. BUT consider. When the leftist journalist called to embarrass Walker about Koch, it was clear that Walker did not know them personally. He did not recognize the voice and did not talk of the big plan. So Koch Brothers did end up supporting Walker - AFTER he was already in office and after he had faced the unions. BTW - I sent donation (much smaller) to Walker to help in the fight against the unions in my native state. Many did.

Secondly - If the Koch Brothers invested in Walker to run for president, it didn’t work out for them, did it?

So we prove that the Koch Brothers were contributors (as I was) but that they came late and did not have a prior relationship with Walker. AND we prove that their contribution, large or small, did not get Walker even into the first part of the presidential run.

I will reiterate that most of what I see from the Koch Brothers is good. I have contributed to their Americans for Prosperity and I am grateful that their big contribution help many of the small fry like me have a bigger voice.

Posted by: C&J at December 4, 2015 4:17 PM
Comment #401151

Walker was interested, as you would expect. BUT consider. When the leftist journalist called to embarrass Walker about Koch, it was clear that Walker did not know them personally.

C&J they are on a first name basis yet he didn’t know them personally!!! Taking a phone call as governor and talking for 15 minutes with a stranger!!!!

Over 15 minutes talking about busting unions and the war on the middle class but didn’t talk “the plan” !!!!!

Here is a transcript of the phone call that will end the revisionism you attempt here.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=koch+bros+scott+walker+phone+call&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Posted by: j2t2 at December 5, 2015 2:11 AM
Comment #401153

j2t2

I think Walker sounds pretty good in the transcript. A good governor fighting thuggish union operatives and irresponsible Democrats. He comes off sounding very good and does not take the bait. I would vote for him again and wish he would have been more successful running for president.

He was doing what he thought right and showing great courage and persistence. I think reducing the power of public employees unions is a very good thing. I support that. As FDR thought, public employees should not have collective bargaining rights since they work for the people and already enjoy protection through civil service rules.

“If you’re doing the right thing, you stay firm and, in this case, you know, we say we’ll wait it out. If they want to start sacrificing thousands of public workers who’ll be laid off, sooner or later there’s gonna be pressure on these senators to come back”

Posted by: C&J at December 5, 2015 11:30 AM
Comment #401182

So C&J are you still trying to convince someone Walker didn’t know who he was talking to or are we over that fantasy?

As far as the Koch Bros I can understand how you support dark money, think tanks that bend fact to serve their ideology and such as many on the right do. Hell they support voter suppression laws as well which is all part of the movements long term plan. The problem is we tend to oligarchy when so many people support the wealthy who are self serving. We support fascism when we support the use of government to protect the business of corporations and wealthy investors, and when we favor the wealthy at tax time.

That is why I can understand your support of the Koch Bros but myself I think they do more harm than good.

Posted by: j2t2 at December 7, 2015 10:53 AM
Comment #401214

j2t2

No. The transcript indicates that he thought he knew the Koch. It also indicates that he did not know them well enough to recognize the voice and speech patterns.

And when I read the content of the discussion, I find little to dislike and much to admire.

I do not believe the Koch brothers support oligarchy. On the contrary, they seem working to limit the scope of government, i.e. establish more freedom. An oligarchy is a form of government. Limiting government would limit the extent of that and other forms.

Posted by: C&J at December 7, 2015 4:30 PM
Post a comment