Republican Convention 2012

People Seem Surprised Yet Again that David Koch Believes Libertarian Things

Media notices his disagreement with the GOP on gay marriage, defense spending.

|

Red meat to the right. Red cape to the left.

Politico took note Thursday that billionaire political bankroller David Koch – a New York delegate at the GOP convention – still believes libertarian things even while steering money toward GOP candidates who might not feel the same:

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 shrugged when I saw the story yesterday, thinking this revelation is certainly not new – his view on gay marriage is in the guy's Wikipedia entry (though I didn't know his attitude about tax increases).  But today I've noticed the story bouncing around the gay blogosphere with typical comments from people who think he's lying or ask why he's not using his money to support the fight for marriage recognition.

Koch is notably on the board for the Reason Foundation (which publishes this site and Reason magazine) and lately rather infamously on the board for the Cato Institute. Both Reason and Cato have published a significant number of statements and arguments positive of government recognition for gay marriage (while getting government out of marriage entirely is preferable, it's not likely). Ted Olson, one of the attorneys who represented the American Foundation for Equal Rights' lawsuit to overturn California's Proposition 8 gay marriage ban, also happens to be the counsel for Koch Industries (and a board member at Cato).

Clearly – and unfortunately – the anti-gay elements of the GOP won the day when writing the Republican Party's platform for 2012. But while their talking heads were extremely disciplined at staying on message in front of the cameras, we know just from the way the Ron Paul delegates were treated, that the Grand Old Party is not in the lockstep the left thinks it is.

Advertisement

NEXT: Apple Sues Again After Losing to Samsung in Tokyo Patent Trial

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If Rand doesn’t run in 2016, he should give it another shot.

    Elizabeth Warren has showed that when the other side demonizes you enough, all you have to do is put your hand in the air and people fall all over themselves to give you a shot.

    This guy gets as much hate as Palin, so he should be as big as Palin. Maybe more and bigger.

    But of course Rand is going to run so it doesn’t matter.

    1. If Romney does get elected in 2012, Randal Paul will not be running as a republican in 2016.

      1. Unfortunately, I see Obama losing the popular vote and winning the electoral vote this time.

        1. And then the left will promptly shut up about getting rid of the electoral college.

          1. Doubt it. Any system that would let Chicago contribute ten times its population to the vote tally is the holy grail for the left.

  2. Democrats and MSM have been too busy demonizing Koch to take the time to find out what he actually thinks. Nothing new there.

    1. Anyone’s whose watched Tony in action here knows the drill. The Left whips itself up into a mindless Two Minutes Hate over anyone who stands in opposition to its relentless push toward collectivization. They’re not unlike the villagers in “Holy Grail” that dressed the woman up as a witch so they could burn her.

      1. If she floats, she is a witch.

        If she sinks, she wasn’t a witch.

    2. The important point is this:

      …ask why he’s not using his money to support…

      As long as one decides what one spends one’s money on, collectivists will never be happy.

  3. …government recognition for gay marriage (while getting government out of marriage entirely is preferable, it’s not likely).

    Thank you for wording it (more) correctly and throwing many of us a parenthetical bone on the more libertarian of the positions on marriage licensing.

    1. I wish people would take it as a given, though.

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

    This actually seems like an honest, reasonable, and straightforward answer.

    But today I’ve noticed the story bouncing around the gay blogosphere with typical comments from people who think he’s lying or ask why he’s not using his money to support the fight for marriage recognition.

    Hmmm, maybe your niche issue isn’t his priority, even if he agrees with you?

    1. why he’s not using his money to support the fight for marriage recognition.

      Yeah, spending millions on cato, reason, et al, isn’t doing enough.

      Anything short of him waving a rainbow flag while prancing through the castro in hotpants would fail to satisfy those for whom this is less an issue of principle than personal identity affirmation.

      My own feelings re: gay marriage are much the same – i support it, but its not like i’m agitating out in the street for it like a goddamn freedom rider in Alabama circa ’62. I think a lot of it gives the GOP an easy Red Herring to make a big stink about, distracting people from their lack of ideas for sound fiscal policy or any quasi-logical foreign affairs stance.

      1. Yeah, spending millions on cato, reason, et al, isn’t doing enough.

        But he’s still got some money, so he hasn’t spent enough!

  5. does not compute…does not compute…whirr click whirr…grind click shudder whirr…The Koch Brothers are against gay marriage and only subsidize pro-gay-marriage people as part of some bizarre fake-out to conceal their evil Kochness!

  6. It’s funny that they think he’d lie about the issue. To what end? It surely won’t help his standing with Republicans. Do they think he wants a hookup or something?

    1. It’s funny that they think he’d lie about the issue. To what end?

      It’s all part of a decades-long master plan.

    2. You simply fail to understand the depth of the conspiracy.

    3. He’s just lying to get the fags to vote for Republicans, and then he and his golf buddies can take their gay marriages away. It’s the Riechstag Fire all over again.

      1. Serious question: Did Hitler ever have gay sex?

        The evidence:

        * Gays all over the place in the early Nazi movement.

        * Hitler had weird relationships with women.

        * Hitler was a hipster in Vienna and an artist.

        1. Who cares?

          1. I don’t care, particularly, it just occurred to me that it’s not unlikely.

            1. The real question is did Caeser give it up to the King of Bithynia in exchange for a fleet for Rome. And would you take one for the team in a similar situation.

              1. Nah, I think that’s just the usual propaganda. I think he was a whore, either way.

          2. Queer for Hitler cares you skinny jeans wearing buffoon.

        2. It’s why Ernst R?hm had to be killed. Seriously who knows. It’s possible and it doesn’t really matter in the long run of things.

        3. It seems highly likely.

          In 1915, the young Hitler was a dispatch rider at the front in France. Years later, yet before Hitler became infamous, one of his fellow soldiers, Hans Mend, wrote in his memoirs: ‘At night, Hitler lay with Schmidl, his male whore.’ Schmidl, otherwise known as Ernst Schmidt, and Hitler were ‘inseparable lovers’ for five years, according to Machtan.

          At least five of the women he banged at least attempted suicide. That’s an impressive record.

          Also, handsome puppies!

          1. Having male whores seems suspicious to me.

          2. In 1915, the young Hitler was a dispatch rider at the front in France. Years later, yet before Hitler became infamous, one of his fellow soldiers, Hans Mend, wrote in his memoirs: ‘At night, Hitler lay with Schmidl, his male whore.’ Schmidl, otherwise known as Ernst Schmidt, and Hitler were ‘inseparable lovers’ for five years, according to Machtan.

            In late 2009, the commenters known as “SugarFree” and “Episiarch” engaged in numerous “flame wars” that were popularly characterized as lover’s spats. Commenter Warty called them both “cum-soaked faggots” and implied two had given each other AIDS at the same time. The available historical evidence points to all three in a quadratic relationship with “Pro Libertate,” who was described repeatedly as an emetophiliac.

          3. GUA
            Gay until armistice.

          1. Well, that’s proof right there. Whoa.

          2. Almost forgot–Hitler has the same birthday as George Takei, a known gay person and secret Nazi. Well, maybe.

            1. Takei’s not gay, you moron. Sulu was.

              1. I thought it was the other way around. Though there is that whole shirtless with a sword business, which seems a little. . .well, it’s either very manly or very homosexual. I guess we need a ruling. Who is the gay arbiter here?

                1. Tonio or Shackford, I imagine. Is that a paid position?

                  1. Oh, sure. How else will we label people?

          1. Starts out funny in concept, and gets annoying fast. Like hipsters.

  7. “…from people who think he’s lying…”

    I don’t get it. Why would he be lying, and to what purpose would it serve?

    1. If he were in favor of gay marriage, he would be an Obama supporter. Duh!

      1. I mean, I just saw a hilarious movie where the Koch stand-ins were villains who were trying to sell the country to China. Do you think people like that could possibly support such a progressive and compassionate cause as gay marriage?

        1. Obviously it’s because the Koch brothers buy the right-wing propaganda that gays undermine American society. So they’re trying to use that to destroy us from within. It won’t work of course, what a ridiculous idea. Silly authoritarian Rethuglicans.

      2. Gee, maybe he’s not a TEAM player and is more interested in working to spread support for gay marriage beyond the confines of the Democratic machine.

  8. Koch said he thinks the U.S. military should withdraw from the Middle East and said the government should consider defense spending cuts

    TYPICAL RIGHT-WING CORPORATE SHILL!!! 1%!~~~~

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

    But he wants to keep the troops in 130 countries, just like Obama! “Well, I disagree with that.”
    But he wants to keep the war on drugs, just like Obama! “Well, I disagree with that.”
    But he wants to keep the Fed in control of the money supply, just like Obama! “Well, I disagree with that.”

    So, why are you supporting Mitt, again? “Because, he’s not Obama!”

    1. I’ve seen some RLC fights along these same lines–most think (rightly, in my view) that libertarians have once again been screwed by the RNC; a few stalwarts argue that Obama and the Democrats are so bad that we just have to vote for Romney.

      I understand the view of the libertarians who are holding their nose and voting against Obama, but I think at some point you have to show that we need libertarian candidates, not more statist nonsense. Romney might make some improvements, maybe, but he won’t be putting the shackles back on Leviathan. We all know that. When do we say enough is enough?

      I’m voting Johnson. I admit that I’ll be a little relieved to see Obama go, but I’m just not comfortable with another vote for state-love according to the GOP.

      1. I live in Iowa, a swing state. Even if my single vote could sway Iowa, I won’t vote for Romama or Obamney. If it’s that close, the courts are going to decide anyway.

        The big problem is that two fine upstanding Iowans (who just happen to work on Romney’s campaign) filed papers to get Johnson thrown off the Iowa ballot. So I may be forced to write a name in.

      2. Well, a vote for Johnson is still a vote against Obama. And has the added benefit of being for someone I can actually support and not feel dirty. I hate the presumption that my vote somehow naturally belongs to one of the major parties.

    2. Close:

      “Because he’s on OUR TEAM”

      The same people will be supporting Huckabee when he gets the GOP nod in 2016 or 2020.

  10. Better caption:

    “This is the face of pure evil.”

    1. I like =

      “”The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force.””

  11. But today I’ve noticed the story bouncing around the gay blogosphere with typical comments from people who think he’s lying or ask why he’s not using his money to support the fight for marriage recognition.

    Hmmm, vexing. Let’s see if I can figure it out. Could it be that it’s because it generally might not be too productive to spend money trying to influence people that already agree with you?

    1. THat’s a good point. If you want to build support for gay marriage, you are going to need to talk to the people who don’t support it now.

  12. But while their talking heads were extremely disciplined at staying on message in front of the cameras, we know just from the way the Ron Paul delegates were treated, that the Grand Old Party is not in the lockstep the left thinks it is.

    When you’re a collectivist, you see everything in terms of collectivism. You are NOT CAPABLE of imagining a world where an individual disagrees with a larger group which is supposedly made up of people like said individual.

  13. I heard that he beat a public school teacher to death with a bag of krugerrands, then donated the resulting blood-money to Scott Walker to buy the election.

    1. Not true. The Koch Brothers don’t personally do that kind of thing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.