Those Evil Koch Brothers

John Hinderaker at Powerline relates a hysterical little email that he got from the Democrats via Barney “Why, No I Didn’t Know My Boyfriend Was Running A Gay Escort Service Out Of My Townhouse” Frank:

You can tell that Paul Ryan really stung the Democrats last night, by what the party’s leaders are telling their faithful. This is from Barney Frank, in an email titled “clever:”

John –

Paul Ryan is a rigid far-right ideologue and a clever politician.

That’s a dangerous combination — especially in an election where ultraconservative billionaires like the Koch Brothers are spending millions to ensure that their extreme right-wing agenda becomes a reality.

The Democrats can’t get through an email without mentioning the Koch brothers. Can these ritual references possibly have any effect? You wouldn’t think so.

Unlike some of these Tea Party Republicans, Ryan understands that much of what he wants to do is very unpopular with the American people. He’ll do everything he can to avoid the specifics of his plans to end Medicare, privatize Social Security, and give Mitt Romney a 1% tax rate.

So wonder what Barney would make of this:

Billionaire industrialist David Koch, who is helping steer millions of dollars to elect Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans, on Thursday told POLITICO he disagrees with the GOP’s stance on gay marriage and believes the U.S. needs to consider raising taxes to balance the budget.

Koch, who is serving as a delegate to the Republican National Convention from New York, spoke to POLITICO after delivering brief remarks at a reception held in his honor by Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group he chairs and has helped fund.

The 1980 vice presidential nominee for the socially liberal – but fiscally conservative – Libertarian Party, Koch told POLITICO “I believe in gay marriage” when asked about the GOP’s stance on gay rights.

Romney opposes gay marriage, as do most Republicans, and when that was pointed out to Koch, he said “Well, I disagree with that.”

Koch said he thinks the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East and said the government should consider defense spending cuts, as well as possible tax increases to get its fiscal house in order – a stance anathema to many in the Republican Party.

“I think it’s essential to be able to achieve spending reductions and maybe it’s going to require some tax increases,” he said. “We got to come close to balancing the budget, otherwise we’re in a terrible deep problem.”

As for whether military spending cuts should be on the table, Koch said, “I think to balance the budget, probably every federal department has to take cuts in my opinion. We have to spread it around.”

The point being is that the Republican Party isn’t quite what the media portrays it to be.

42 thoughts on “Those Evil Koch Brothers

  1. It is funny to hear people who benefit from George Soros’ largesse complain about somebody on the other side doing essentially the same thing.
    The Koch brothers, as you have shown, are not monolithic right-wing monsters who cackle with glee as they drive past the desperate, starving throngs lining the street leading to their twin palaces. Generally, they take a chopper. (that was a joke)
    I voted for the Clark-Koch ticket in 1980; this will be the first time since then that I have voted Libertarian.

    • It is funny to hear people who benefit from George Soros’ largesse complain about somebody on the other side doing essentially the same thing.

      I don’t remember the Koch brothers openly stating that they intend to use their money to destroy the U.S. I HAVE read Soros saying essentially this.

      It bothers me that you are so willing to overlook this distinction. It’s even more so that you actually consider what Soros is doing a “benefit” to America.

      And you have the nerve to question why I say you are not aligned with the ideals and principles embodied in the term “American.”

      • just because you have a grudge against Soros doesn’t make him un-American, and your ‘essentially says this or that’ means that he didn’t say it, it just seems easier for you to enemize* everyone who disagrees with you.

        *patent pending

        • Grudge?


          I have a problem with Soros because he has written that he intends to use his wealth to remove America as a world leader and make us just one voice in the rest of the rabble.

          I have a problem with Soros because HE ADMITS HE IS A SUBVERSIVE!

          I have a problem with Soros because THAT MAKES HIM AN ENEMY OF THE NATION!

          And I have a problem with anyone and everyone who supports him because it makes them an enemy to the nation, as well. THAT MEANS YOU TOO!

  2. Isn’t it interesting how something that just 50 years ago was seen as evidence of intelligence, ingenuity, hard work, savvy and success – the accumulation of wealth – is now only used as a yardstick to measure some sort of supposed evil?

    I don’t advocate worshiping wealth but we have even lost the capacity to celebrate success and now try to tear down people who have accumulated wealth as if they took it at the point of a gun…especially if it isn’t the “right kind” of success.
    There is quite a contrast in the treatment of Mitt Romney and the Koch Brothers versus someone like George Soros, Warren Buffett or even the owner of the Dallas Mavericks and frequent Bill Maher guest, Mark Cuban.

    If you have the “right” political positions and say the “right” things (and you never actually do what you are professing that “we” should do), then it seems being rich is a sin that is easily forgiven. None fo the left’s favorite rich people has ever changed their behaviors one iota – Buffett whines about his secretary’s tax rate when he has the resources to pay her enough that it is a non-issue but doesn’t, Soros pumps money into politics, funding entities like the Open Societies Foundation and Media Matters for America, entities that decry the Koch brothers for pumping money into politics, Maher and Cuban bitch about “the rich” while continuing to do anything they can to accumulate more wealth.

    These are crazy times.

    • True, these are crazy times. Success has always been admired, but extreme success (Bill Gates, Soros, Koch bros., Jobs, etc.) has always been criticized, even back to the Rockefellers, Kennedys, Bushes, etc,. because at some point the jealousy factor kicks in (in the lower and middle classes) and people begin to question where the money came from and what the uber-rich are doing with it.

      Buying political influence? Sure, this from old reliable Wikipedia;

      “Soros says that the principle underlying the philosophy of the Open Society is that there can be no absolute answers to political questions because the same principle of reflexivity applies as in the Financial Markets.”

      Also this;

      “Soros very much seeks to “influence the future of the newly democratized Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union…[through] educating librarians about how to improve their libraries and assist the policymakers of their countries..[in order to] provide a strong foundation for democracy”.[3] Another example of Soros’s commitment to the development of Eastern Europe in particular is his pledge of $206 million to the endowment of Central European University.”

      And this;

      “In 1997 George Soros received the James Madison Award from the Coalition on Government Information.[3] He has also been compared to Andrew Carnegie by Barabara Ford, president of the American Library Association, in honor of his philanthropy, implying that its influence on the world’s libraries rivals that of the Carnegie family on the United States’. ”

      When you reach the rarified atmosphere of the 1%, the scrutiny of your actions becomes extremely intense. All of them have foundations and trusts (tax breaks are a good thing!) and they all support the causes they believe in. Their actions affect the lives of many people.

      • FC,

        I have no quarrel with you on this, my friend. So I’ll just suggest that people (you included) be VERY cautious about accepting this word “democracy” — especially when people like Soros use it.

        It does NOT mean the same thing to them as it does to the average American.

        • Absolutely! Just trying to demonstrate that the uber-rich can use their money to do as they please, or finance who/what they please. On one hand, Soros is buying influence (his own personal style or beliefs) in “emerging democracys of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union”. On the other hand he endows $206m to Central European University. While his philanthropy primarily extends to his home country (Hungary and Europe), his efforts in the US seem to be to support Obama’s progressive agenda. He supports Obama and deserves be closely scrutinized.

          • Ah, but we can’t do or say whatever we want, can we? Aren’t there limits?

            I am not directing this at you, FC, but it seems to me that too many people in this country today have developed this notion that freedom means we can do or say anything we want — or spend our money however we wish. But this is not the case. I believe that a large part of our society’s problems have come from the fact that — as a society — we have forgotten this.

            Let’s look at Soros: can he spend his money to destroy this nation? Is that “free speech” or is that subversion? Had a German immigrant spent billions to help Germany in WW II, would that have been “patriotic free speech?” Or would it have been subversion? Or what if it were a Russian immigrant who had been spending billions to turn the U.S. Communist? Would that be “patriotic free speech?” Or would it be subversion?

            In the case of George Soros, what he is doing is designed to destroy our system of govt. Greg objects to this, but Soros is the one who has said this — not me. I am just being labeled as a “hate monger” simply for repeating what Soros has said. And — at least to my way of thinking — there is no natural or social “right” to destroy the nation outside the constitutional process.

            • hmmmm – Are there limits? On one hand we defend successful people as intelligent, hard-working, and savvy. We believe they build businesses through their success and support the middle class (and indigent) by providing jobs through the business they create. We believe they are taxed enough and to increase taxes on the uber-rich will solve nothing, then we want to tell them they can’t spend the money they make as they please? Where does their right to earn their money, and our right to tell them how to spend it begin and end?

              • Well, first, this is one of those areas where my reading into the founders has put me at odds with modern conservatives. The founders argued that corporations are a threat to society as they are not real people and can be harmful to the society that created them. Many today do not even realize that the founders made corporations illegal and only allowed charter companies for set periods of time, for narrowly focused purposes and they still remained tightly controlled by the govt. So we have to differentiate between the individual who becomes wealthy and the person who does so through a corporation.

                Next, if you make your money through a corporation, then you owe your money — IN PART — tot he society that made this possible. ON THIS POINT, the left has a point.

                Next, if you are going to take the money that society allowed you to make and then use it to destroy that society, then NO, you do not have a “right” to harm others — especially those who made you. Here again, the left has a point here — it is in their solutions where they go wrong.

                FC, natural law does NOT grant us the “right” to do whatever we wish. We are not endowed with ANY right to harm others, and when it comes to a republican govt., destroying it by using its privileges against it represents an attack on that society — not free speech.

                • “We are not endowed with ANY right to harm others, and when it comes to a republican govt., destroying it by using its privileges against it represents an attack on that society . . .”

                  For the 1% it’s quite the conundrum, isn’t it. I work hard, become successful beyond my wildest dreams, disagree with the direction I believe my country is heading, and have the resources to perhaps change it, only to be told (by some) that I can’t spend my money as I please, because they don’t agree with my position or beliefs.

                  On a much smaller scale; My wife and I attend a non-denominational church. We tithe beyond 10% because we are able. Are we subverting the accepted Protestant (Baptist or Methodist or God forbid, Lutheran) religions?

                  • FC,

                    So, sticking with Soros: do you believe that I should — if I can earn enough money to buy/force it — I should be allowed to make myself the “conscience of the world?”

                    There is a word for someone who thinks he should be the only person to decide right/wrong for the world and you are defending a man who has said and desires to be such a person.

                    Just saying.

                    BTW: your tithing example is flawed: you are not the one directing how that money is spent, Soros IS directing how his money is spent.

                • I support the right of the earner to spend his money as he pleases. It is up to the world to decide if the spender (Soros) is going to be their conscience or not. Soros backs Obama, we need to decide (at the polls) if we want to buy into the Obama/Soros philosophy of government. Soros, and by extension, Obama, needs to be revealed as the progressives they are. I would ask you, if Bill Gates threw his vast financial support into the Romney/Ryan platform (or pick the candidate of your choice) would you support his right to do so? That’s what these huge political PACs are doing now and the only difference is who is funding them and the agenda they are driving.

                  As a note, I feel my tithing example is valid. I financially support an organization (my church). My church/pastor supports a conservative (Romney/Ryan) platform as well as an anti-abortion agenda. I know, for the most part, what my tithes are being spent on. The church elders and pastor (the government leaders if you will) publish a report for this. Our church, being non-denominational, is considered non-mainstream (speaking in tongues, apostolic, etc. – not snake-handlers!), therefore we are considered a threat to the local, established mainstream churches. (We’ll leave this discussion for another thread though! 🙂 )

                  • I am not making a political point or arguing because of Soros’ political orientation. I am arguing natural rights and natural law and Soros has violated both — which means he is violating the SPIRIT of our founding documents.

                    As for your illustration: that you miss the fault is reflected in your defense of someone who spends money to overthrow the govt. behind the scenes. Just remember, the next time there is a financial attack against wall street that costs you money, you just defended the right for those who carry it out to do so…

  3. While I admire Warren Buffett (he uses his secretary’ salary as an example of tax inequity), his investments of late have been tailored to him, and the average investor cannot participate in private bond auctions and special ‘preferred stock’ treasury sales. The size of Soros’ trade influence the market. The Kochs, by a large margin, provide more employment than either of the other two.

    Do you ever watch ‘Shark Tank’? Cuban is on the show, where entrepreneurs pitch their ideas to several investors; Cuban is the best-known, but not the smartest.

    • Nor can the R’s fail to mention Soros in the same sort of malevalent context, and they’ve been doing it longer. Your selective blindness and faux outrage is very amusing to watch.

      • Have the Koch brothers said the U.S. is the world’s biggest obstacle and openly declared that they are using their money to destroy it and bring about a 1-world government? If you can show me where they have said this, then I’ll turn on them, too. But — so far — Soros is the only one between them who has said this.

        I think there’s a difference. Apparently, you and Greg do not.

  4. B, do you mean this quote from Soros, as UNEDITED by Beck,

    SOROS: Look, I think — I think you put your finger on a very important flaw in the current world order, and that is that only Americans have a vote in Congress. And yet, it is the United States that basically determines policy for the world. That is a flaw in the current setup.I DON’T THINK YOU CAN CORRECT IT BY GIVING TH CHINESE GOVERNMENT A VOTE IN CONGRESS. But it is a flaw, and I think this is where AMERICAN LEADERSHIP is needed, to take into account and respect the interests of others as well, in order to RETAIN THE DOMINANT POSITION we currently enjoy.

    or this quote as UNEDITED by Beck?

    “A global society does not mean a global state. To abolish the existence of states is neither feasible nor desirable,..”

    go to the source B, go to the source

    • Greg,

      I DO go to the source. That you think I would simply accept Beck’s word on this is an example of the 180 degree rule. Just because YOU accept the word of those you trust does NOT mean everyone else does.

      Also, I find it interesting that you only bother yourself with research when you want to “disprove” my position on something. But even then, you go just as far as you think you need to go to make your case and stop — something you accuse me of doing. Again, 180 degree rule. So, let me help you with the rest of the story, because, if you are going to rely on Soros or Soros-funded sources for your info on the man, then no wonder you’ll end up liking him:

      “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

      “My goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

      “Pure reason and a moral code based on the value of the individual are inventions of Western culture; they have little resonance in other cultures….The Western intellectual tradition ought not to be imposed indiscriminately on the rest of the world in the name of universal values.”

      “When you try to, let’s see, improve society you affect different people and different interests differently and they are not actually commensurate. So you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So I had to experiment. And it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity, disrupting repressive regimes. That was a lot of fun and that’s actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise. Seeing what worked in one country, trying it in the other country. It was kind of what developed a matrix in fact that we had, national foundations, and then we had certain specialized activities.”

      “I became concerned with the problems of globalization. They have global markets, but you have politics based on the sovereignty states. So how do you deal with that issue. And then I came to the realization that open society is in danger by our current leadership in this country. And that is when we focused my attention on the United States.”

      “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States…”

      ALL George Soros

      But it isn’t just the Blaze that has exposed this:

      Soros: Republic Enemy #1

      It’s just that the Blaze has let SOROS explain it — in his own words and with his own voice (see video):

      OPEN SOCIETY: Soros Explains The Anti-Capitalist, Pro-Marxist Tactics He Uses to Fundamentally Transform Countries

      So you support a man who DOES want a borderless world order/govt. and who thinks America is basically immoral because it prevents him from getting what he wants. You support a man who thinks he is a messiah and who wants to be the world’s conscience. That is another way of saying world dictator.

      And you wonder why I say you are not any sort of “American” I recognize…

      • B, I just provided the Complete quotes, quotes that you deliberately truncated in order to make it appear that Soros is saying something he did not intend.

        “I think this is where American leadership is needed, to take into account and respect the interests of others as well, in order to RETAIN THE DOMINANT POSITION THAT we currently enjoy.”

        I can only assume that you are so wedded to a fallacious argument, that you find the truth inconvenient.

        • NO, Greg, you have fallen for the sales job. If you’d bother to read Soros’ books, you’ll find I am presenting him accurately.

          For as much as you claim to be the one presenting this man “in context,” you are very adept at avoiding the central thrust of his man, many books. It’s like how you quote one early passage about peace from the Qur’an to “prove” it is a religion of peace while totally ignoring the central theme of violence throughout the entire religion. You see only what you wish to see — even when people are telling you otherwise.

          You are falling for the “nice face” of the man. Watch, and try to grasp the message this man is actually presenting to the world — because it is alive and well among the American Left today:

          Would you have changed your mind about Hitler if you met him AFTER you’d read Mein Kampf? If you don’t understand the thrust of this comment, then you simply cannot see your reflection in the morality mirror.

          That would bother a moral person.

          • What bothers me is your smearing of an anti-communist freedom fighter in whom you should see a partner, if only you’d take off the blinders. To wit:

            This is from Soros’ book Ahead of the curve

            “Ideologies like fascism or communism give rise to a closed society, in which the individual is subjugated to the collective, society is dominated by the state, and the state is in the service of a dogma that claims to embody the ultimate truth. In such a society, there is no freedom.”

            dang it, B you could have written that, I know you agree with Soros on this point

            Why do you ignore these quotes? Why is it that only Your quotes matter? Answer to the first-because they don’t fit your BS. Come to think of it, that is the answer to the second question, too.

            And quit playing the morality card, you are no better than I; it is only a dodge to be used when you have no other recourse, such as a valid argument.

                  • You have yet to address the fact of your truncating quotes, taking them out of context, and just generally being a really bad liar, B.
                    I suggest that you try another line of work, your character smears are vicious, but easily torn apart.

                    • I have addressed it. There is no context in which a “decent” person utters these words. You have admitted he uttered them. Now you are defending the camouflage in which he wrapped them/excuse he used to sell them.

                      That’s all this boils down to — that, and your refusal to put what you call context into the context that is the larger picture of his life. Do that and your objections must fall away (that is, if you are intellectually honest, that is)

                    • Right just ignore the fact that you are completely wrong, and that I have proved it. B, I destroyed 3 of your arguments with less than ten minutes of research. If you were the least bit interested in the truth, you would have done the same, and not looked like a partisan hack, which you have become, much to my dismay.

                    • Greg,

                      You have proven nothing. He said the words. They mean what they mean. There is no way to put them in any other context that means anything else but that the man is a megalomaniac. yet you defend him, which then means you are no different.

                    • I’ve proven nothing to you, because you allow nothing to get through.
                      I don’t defend his megalomania, it is a common enough condition, you have it.
                      you are a lost cause, B

                    • Greg,

                      You have proven nothing. He said the words. They mean what they mean. There is no way to put them in any other context that means anything else but that the man is a megalomaniac. yet you defend him, which then means you are no different.

                      BTW: that last line answers your question about “What am I.”

  5. way over the top,video didnt work, and a lot of stuff taken out of context. Obviously thats the kind of stuff that feeds you, but its very sad. I suppose demonizing everyone that doesn’t agree with you makes it easier to believe you’re always right.

  6. In all honesty, I am amazed you “socialists” do not aggrandize the Koch family, especially the dad.

    It was he that condemned the communist movement in Italy, and helped Mussolini’s suppression of communists.

    Soros – he just loves to topple governments for his own financial gains. 🙂

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.