Crying Koch vs. Hillary’s Foreign Sugar Daddies

Crying Koch vs. Hillary’s Foreign Sugar Daddies

The over-vilification of the Democrats’ favorite boogeymen may have cost them the Senate last year. Turns out that crying “Koch” is not what voters want to hear. Who knew? Oh that’s right, everyone who was not Harry Reid.

Who can forget Harry Reid’s exceptional case of Koch Derangement Syndrome?

Among the many missteps in Democratic strategy, the perpetual whining about the Koch brothers was listed as a contributing factor to the Democrats’ subpar performance in last year’s midterm elections.

S.A. Miller of the Washington Times reports:

Democratic officials are second-guessing the party’s obsession with attacking the Koch brothers, saying it bears some of the blame for last year’s devastating election losses as the focus on the conservative billionaires diluted a party message already struggling for clarity.

Doubts about the relentless attacks on the Koch brothers surfaced as the Democratic National Committee held its annual meeting Thursday in Washington, where state party officials from across the country mulled what went wrong in 2014.

Led by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats repeatedly shifted attention during the 2014 election cycle to Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who spent more than $100 million supporting conservative candidates through their various political organizations, most notably Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Action Fund.

Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, accused them of “trying to buy America” and cited the brothers by name hundreds of times in speeches on the Senate floor. Democratic campaigns, meanwhile, begged supporters for donations to combat the Kochs’ money.

But some Democratic officials at the DNC meeting said the message doesn’t resonate with voters.

“It raises money for sure. But is it good to motivate a voter? No,” said a state party executive director who said he didn’t want to publicly criticize the national party leaders.

Democrats love to holler about “getting money out of politics” unless the money in politics is going to oh, say, Barack Obama, or even Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, who may as well answer to ‘Mrs. Wall Street’ given her donor base, is drawing ire (and rightfully so) after it was revealed she’s accepting money from foreign governments. Foreign governments like Saudi Arabia.

The irony is almost too delicious: The Democrats fronting the would-be First Woman President, bankrolled by the most anti-woman country on the face of the planet. Insert bellyaching about dependency on foreign oil, a few W. era “blood for oil” protestors, and this might be the best political hubris cocktail ever.

But back to the whole money in politics thing. Crying ‘Koch’ backfired for the Democrats in 2014, so should Republicans ignore Hillary’s foreign sugar daddies to avoid the same fate?

Heck no.

There’s a clear distinction between American entrepreneurs donating their money to politicians, would-be politicians, and political causes, and accepting financing from foreign governments. The most obvious being the exceptional conflict of interest that could occur if Madame President Clinton is indebted to those whose are ready to cash in their favors in exchange for what would undoubtedly result in domestic harm.

Bret Baier’s panel discussed the issue last night:

If acting like those pesky Koch brothers were trying to “buy America” raked in the dough for Democrats, just imagine the Republican and grassroots response to emails truthfully stating that Saudi Arabia is trying to “buy America” via Candidate Clinton.

Clinton’s road to the White House just got a little steeper.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.