Are the Koch brothers political allies of Hillary?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

In this historic campaign cycle, and in a limited sense, I believe the answer may be “yes.”

Consider Charles Koch's recent response in this exchange:

Koch, in an interview to air on Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” program, said that in some respects Bill Clinton had been a better president than George W. Bush, who Koch said had increased government spending. Then when asked if Hillary Clinton would be a better president than the Republicans currently running, he said, “It’s possible, it’s possible.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/koch-clinton-president-republicans_us_571c35c5e4b0d912d5fee371

Also consider that the Koch brothers played a role in the DLC:

One member of the DLC’s executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively–meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms–though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included.

http://americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave-funding-to-the-dlc-and-served-on-its-executive-council.html

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” – Stephen Colbert

[silvershadow]

1. The Kochs helped found and fund the Third Way and the DLC. So, yes.

[RandySF]

2. Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right

The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.

I agree with him.

Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.

Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.

Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers. That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us. (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States.)

It may surprise the senator to learn that our framework in deciding whether to support or oppose a policy is not determined by its effect on our bottom line (or by which party sponsors the legislation), but by whether it will make people’s lives better or worse.

With this in mind, the United States’ next president must be willing to rethink decades of misguided policies enacted by both parties that are creating a permanent underclass.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-koch-this-is-the-one-issue-where-bernie-sanders-is-right/2016/02/18/cdd2c228-d5c1-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html

[beachbum bob]

3. honest assessment that hillary is way better suited than any current conservative running is

pretty much true....the wow is the fact its coming from chief financier of conservatives....which tells us how bad the conservative candidates are and how unsuitable they are to be president.......sanders supporters will say see. hillary is awful because a conservative acknowledges her to be more qualified than their own party's candidates....the fact is...she is more qualified and better suited

[That Guy 888]

4. The Koch brothers (among others) do want that pile of Social Security cash.

Last time a Clinton was in office his affair derailed their plans. I was reading another thread, and a post by clg311 and one curious google query turned this up:

How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security

by Robin Blackburn

Had it not been for Monica’s captivating smile and first inviting snap of that famous thong, President Bill Clinton would have consummated the politics of triangulation, heeding the counsel of a secret White House team and deputy treasury secretary Larry Summers. Late in 1998 or in the State of the Union message of 1999 a solemn Clinton would have told Congress and the nation that, just like welfare, Social Security was near-broke, had to be “reformed” and its immense pool of capital tendered in part to the mutual funds industry. The itinerary mapped out for Clinton by the Democratic Leadership Committee would have been complete.

It was a desperately close run thing. On the account of members of Clinton’s secret White House team, mandated to map out the privatization path for Social Security, they had got as far down the road as fine-tuning the account numbers for Social Security accounts now released to the captious mercies of Wall Street. But in 1998 the Lewinsky scandal burst upon the President, and as the months sped by and impeachment swelled from a remote specter to a looming reality, Clinton’s polls told him that his only hope was to nourish the widespread popular dislike for the hoity-toity elites intoning Clinton’s death warrant.

In an instant Clinton spun on the dime and became Social Security’s mighty champion, coining the slogan “Save Social Security First”.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/10/30/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security/

Only the republicans unbreakable racism kept "the Grand Bargain" from happening under President Obama's watch.

Third time's a charm with another Clinton I guess.

I think they want the Democratic party to be responsible for breaking Social Security because if the party that's been defending it for decades says it's broken and only privatization can fix it who would think they're lying?

[Scuba]

5. No surprise. Bill Clinton aligned with the Kochs to found the DLC which later became ...

... the "Third Way."


The Clintons have been aligned with right-wing power brokers for decades.

[speaktruthtopower]

6. It's about policy and interests, not labels

[uponit7771]

7. Hillary Clinton killed Abe Lincoln so ... why wouldn't they be? :rolleyes;

[Admiral Loinpresser]

8. She is unpopular for good reasons and bad.

Republicans don't like her for bad reasons. High information voters don't like her for good reasons.

[RiverLover]

9. Yes. And its my guess they do it through dark money contributions.

SuperPACs that don't have to reveal their donors give to her SuperPACs that do.

Its convoluted on purpose & explained here~

https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/12/01/super-pacs-dark-money-and-the-hillary-clinton-campaign-part-1/

[bvf]

10. I'll say it again:

The Republican establishment would be more than happy with a Clinton presidency.

[Blue_Adept]

11. Politics makes strange bedfellows

There's a reason that saying has been around for hundreds of years.

When your party is running freakin' nutjobs like Trump and Cruz, do you toe the party line and embrace them? Or do you say enough is enough.

And please, no comparisons that trump and cruz are the same as clinton. That's just the talk of assholes.

[mgcgulfcoast]

12. Clintons can be bought, thats no shock to anyone.

Koch has alot of money and he might want favorable treatment from Hillary.

[Chan790]

13. Bought?

They've already been paid-for for two decades and the goods delivered.

Hillary Clinton is the best Republican to run for the Presidency since Ronald Reagan was term-limited out of office.

[Sky Masterson]

14. Yes. For now.

Until she bags the nomination.
You haven't seen the shit-a-lanche they are going to bring out to keep H in the low 30's

[gollygee]

15. No

They wouldn't be saying anything like this if there were a non-scary as hell Republican candidate. A lot of Republicans will jump ship over Trump. This is much more about Trump than Hillary.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

16. I don't believe any Republicans will vote for Hillary.

Some may sit out or vote Libertarian if Trump is the nominee. But GOP voters will never vote for Hillary. They loathe her.