Pity the poor Koch Brothers, just a couple of regular guys trying to do the right thing

By Richard K. Barry

Big joke. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) says that it inadvertently sent a letter to the Koch Brothers asking for a political contribution. Given the Koch Brothers' long history of financing fake "grassroots movements" and throwing money at every conceivable roadblock to creating a fairer society for more Americans, it does, at first blush, appear to be an obvious mistake.

Having said that, like most corporations in America, the Koch Brothers have probably, over time, financed both Democrats and Republicans if the candidate in question happened to be either on side with a particular corporate interest or deemed "swayable."

It seems too obvious to say, but, because corporations have so much cash to distribute, they throw their money in all directions on the chance that it might somehow have an impact consistent with whatever public policy goal they find useful.

That the Koch Brothers would have ended up on a list of those who had previously donated to individual Democratic candidates, and therefore be a potential target for a DSCC fundraising pitch, seems not only possible, but likely. It's the nature of list management in the world of high volume political fundraising. Lists are the real currency of politics: donors, supporters, opinions leaders, volunteers, sign locations, etc.

In fact, Politico reports that the Kochs did donate almost $200,000 to Democratic organizations in 2010 and $30,000 to the DSCC in the same cycle.

So, the "how dare you" response by the Koch Brothers seems a little strained to me, but predictable.

Clearly, though, if the DSCC had been paying more attention they would have pulled the letter, knowing that it would be a minor public relations bonanza for those on the right with too little else to do with their time. In that sense, it was a mistake.

Blah, blah, blah.

More interesting for me, though, was the final paragraph in the letter sent by a Koch Companies public affairs hack to the DSCC complaining about the request for financial support. It read:

It is troubling that private citizens taking part in the discourse have become the targets of White House and DSCC fundraising missives, and we would certainly encourage you to rethink that approach.

Give me a break. Holding aside that whole bizarre thing about corporate personhood, an entity as large, influential and powerful as the Koch Companies is a behemoth able to act in the public sphere in a way so dramatically different from what a "private citizen" could do as to make the Koch claim ridiculous.

In 2008, Forbes called Koch the 2nd largest privately held company in the United States, stating that it had an annual revenue at that time of $98 billion. Say it to yourself slowly, "an annual revenue of $98 billion."

I guess Koch's political activities would sort of be just like the guy down the street with a photocopier and a pet political issue to flog, except that it would be totally different from that.

It seems that we are supposed to feel sorry for the Koch Brothers because some would want to shine a light on their political activities to get a firmer grasp on how they spend some of that money to makes friends and influence people.

Oh, cut the crap.

Koch Industries is a monster corporation that has and will continue to grease whatever palms it thinks might be useful on whichever side of the aisle.

Nice try at indignation. Not buying.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Koch funded echo chamber

By Creature

If I was still blogging, I'd so post this video. Well, since I still have the keys here at The Reaction, what the hell.


[Via Digby]

Koching up some trouble

By Capt. Fogg

"Good Lord. These are truly evil people"

says The Impolitic and it's hard to disagree. Of course the people that thought it would be a "conservative" thing to do; giving struggling Detroit homeowners fake foreclosure notices, don't think they're being vandals trying to destabilize civilization and built a "conservative" Utopia on the ruins. In fact the Koch brothers who seem to be behind this prank have a vision for the future that more resembles an Orwellian horror with the part of Big Brother played by corporate robber barons like them and the sinister, black menace portrayed by Barack H. Obama. Their lackeys see it otherwise, I'm sure. A step in the final solution of the "colored problem" that the Liberals and do-gooders brought upon Detroit and a reaction to the stunning affront of ACORN having forced a black president on us -- a man nobody voted for, of course. The new North. It's the old South without the sheets.

It's truly hard to describe this sort of thing in the way we describe rational human conduct, because it isn't any more rational than drunken football hooliganism or beer hall riot -- and a hell of a lot more dangerous. It's all the more dangerous for the lack of attention given. CNN.com today provides a bright colorful farrago of sex scandal, new Facebook features, the exploits of rappers and little else. Indeed what else concerns us?

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Birthers, Deathers, will the madness never end?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate certainly didn't silence the Birthers, but, regardless, there's room for many ridiculous conspiracy theories on the right -- not that Birtherism is a theory, it's more of a sickness of the mind -- and the killing of Osama bin Laden has produced a new one, Deatherism, with Deathers questioning the veracity of Osama's death.

(Sigh.)

Deatherism lies mainly on the right, where Obama's Republican opponents will do, say, and think anything that seems to discredit him, however insane, but it's not exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. Regardless, I doubt it will have much staying power, and certainly not nearly as much as Birtherism, largely because most of Obama's critics are criticizing him on other grounds -- a few on the left, like Michael Moore, criticizing him for acting illegally in "executing" Osama, many more on the right criticizing him for any number of ridiculous things, like being too slow to act, and/or, like David Koch, refusing to give him any credit at all.

I myself have been critical of the White House's handling of the post-killing spin, but on the basic fact of the incredibly risky, incredibly courageous action to raid Osama's hideout and, yes, kill the terrorist mastermind, Obama deserves enormous credit.

Not that the facts will do anything to convince those who prefer paranoia to reality.

Elephant Dung #29: David Koch, of Koch Brothers fame, smacks down Donald Trump

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

This is soft, mushy dung tied up in a bow.

On Saturday, David Koch told the New York Daily News that Trump isn't exactly his choice for the White House -- and doesn't exactly have what it takes to be president:

"Donald Trump is exposing himself to a lot of attacks," said Koch. "As much as I like Donald, he's sort of asking for it." He laughed again, then observed that "Donald's political positions over the last 10 years have been highly variable and unusual. He's a wonderful guy, but I don't think he should run for office."

Noting Trump's love of press, Koch said the "Celebrity Apprentice" host is "getting more publicity than he ever dreamed about right now." But, he added, "at some point I think he's going to drop out of the race when he realizes that he's really not qualified to be President."

Allow me to quibble:

First, "a wonderful guy"? I suppose right-wing billionaires who prop up the Tea Party and seek to turn government into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Corporate America have their own ideas of "wonderful."

Second, I'm sure Trump has dreamed of this much publicity before. He probably dreams of even more.

Third, this won't be about Trump himself coming to realize he's not qualified to be president. Assuming that he thinks he's qualified, and that's a fairly safe assumption, he'll never not think he's qualified. It's part of who he is, a megalomaniac who thinks he can do no wrong and that he's better than everyone else. He's not even running yet, but should he, if/when he drops out it won't be because he's come to some sort of awareness of his limitations but because he doesn't want to subject himself to the toil and travail, and spotlight, of a serious national political campaign, because he doesn't want the various skeletons in his closet to be brought to light, and maybe also because he knows/suspects he'd lose, however much that contradicts his overriding sense of superiority.

But who knows? Maybe he'll run and maybe he'll even do well. Would you really put it past the GOP to go with a loudmouth megalomaniacal celebrity businessman who panders to its extremism?

In any event, it may be helpful to remember what Koch said.