Libertarian Party

Web Ads Tell North Carolina Progressives That They Must Vote Libertarian Sean Haugh for Senate [UPDATED!]

|

The American Future Fund, a generally pro-Republican group with connections to the Koch brothers*, have put out a series of short, rather absurd, online ads pushing Libertarian Party North Carolina Senate candidate Sean Haugh, in what is clearly an attempt to pull a certain class of possible Democratic voters away from incumbent Kay Hagan, and thus likely help the chances of Republican Thom Tillis.

[*UPDATE: Received this statement this morning from James Davis of Freedom Partners Action Fund, the Koch-associated group that has funded American Future Fund in the past and earned it its reported Koch connection: "Freedom Partners has not given American Future Fund any grants in the last two years and has no involvement with their current campaign in North Carolina. Our focus continues to be on holding Sen. Kay Hagan accountable for her failure to fight for North Carolina's veterans, how her family profited off of her vote for the stimulus and her rubber-stamp support for President Obama's failed policies."]

Here's the "Get Haugh, Get High" spot. The "Oh Yeah" at the end is the kicker, the painful jokey heart of a painful jokey ad:

And this one tells potential Hagan voters to "Stop!" and consider that "Sean Haugh shares our progressive values" re: pot, war, and, it asserts, the environment:

More of the 16 second ads can be found here.

The Washington Post noted the ads today:

American Future Fund, a tax-exempt organization based in West Des Moines, has been frequently used as a pass-through for political money on the right. In the 2012 campaign, it was a major player in a network of politically active nonprofits supported by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch and other conservative donors.

Nick Ryan, AFF's founder, declined to say who was supporting the campaign. "As a practice, we don't comment on who does or does not contribute to our organization," he wrote in an email.

He added that the goal of the pro-Haugh campaign "is straightforward — share information with voters about where Sean Haugh stands on a variety of issues."

Ryan said the campaign is now generating so much buzz that AFF plans to expand its initial $225,000 buy.

"The response has been incredible online," he wrote. "We are going to re-double our efforts and expand the program next week."

The Post straightfacedly quoted a Tweet from Haugh about the ads: "While I appreciate the support, I now have a whole new reason to despise Koch brothers & their dark money." Haugh tweeted to me later that it was meant "more as absurdity, like I'm a character in a Camus novel."

[UPDATE: On further Twitter-talk with Haugh after I first posted this, the Post was right and I was wrong. Given that worrying about "dark money" isn't usually something one hears from Libertarians, I read some dark irony in Haugh's tweet, but he clarifies that he does indeed think the Kochs' political influence these days is baleful. Specifically, Haugh wrote, "I detest their ways of influencing elections and policy at all, very corrupting & anti-republic…."]

The ads were uncoordinated with him, and he knew nothing about them, and recognizes their intent to help Tillis secondhand.

NPR also reported on the ad campaign today:

Haugh is drawing about 6 percent in public polls, with some analysts believing his support is coming equally from those who would otherwise vote for Hagan or Tillis.

The $225,000 is nearly 30 times more than the $7,744 Haugh said he has spent for himself.

To put that in perspective, the two main party candidates and outside groups have already spent $85 million on the North Carolina Senate race in advertising that directly tells voters to support or oppose a candidate. Nonprofit political groups that are allowed to keep their donors secret, including the Koch brothers-founded Americans for Prosperity, have spent tens of millions of dollars more in so-called "issue" ads attacking Hagan.

I interviewed Haugh earlier this month. Nick Gillespie wrote earlier this month on how it's a myth to assume that Libertarian candidates only siphon potential votes from or harm Republicans.

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.

124 responses to “Web Ads Tell North Carolina Progressives That They Must Vote Libertarian Sean Haugh for Senate [UPDATED!]

  1. Q: When does Reason oppose voting Libertarian?

    A: When it takes votes from Democrats.

    A joke? I wish.

    1. Must be a joke, because the article doesn’t say anything like that.

  2. Nonprofit political groups that are allowed to keep their donors secret, including the Koch brothers-founded Americans for Prosperity, have spent tens of millions of dollars more in so-called “issue” ads attacking Hagan.

    And presumably no nonprofit groups that are allowed to keep their donors secret have attacked Haugh.

    1. And presumably no nonprofit groups that are allowed to keep their donors secret have attacked Tillis.

    2. […]including the Koch brothers-founded Americans for Prosperity

      Sounds like it’s not so secret then.

  3. This thread isn’t crazy. At all.

    1. I’ll just assume E-bowler has a bunch of windows open at once and as reading something, somewhere, that opposed voting Libertarian and confused it with this post.

    2. “Nothing really healthy about bowling. It has to be the germ-a-phobes nightmare. Here, put on these moist shoes 10,000 people wore. And stick your fingers in these dirty holes. Now you have the flu. How dirty are those holes. It’s not like those balls wear out. They probably haven’t manufactured a bowling ball in a 1,000 years. Someone is out there using Fred Flintstone’s right now. That is preposterous.”

      1. “Wii-bowler” would have been more witty.

        Jus’ sayin’

        1. Maybe, he’s a fan of the hat?

          1. If there’s one thing The Jacket needs it’s The Hat.

        2. I’m not about being witty, I’m about spreading the thruth.

          1. e-bowler|10.23.14 @ 11:58PM|#
            “I’m not about being witty, I’m about spreading the thruth.”

            Uh, yeah. What about that guy on the grassy knoll?

  4. “The ads were uncoordinated with him, and he knew nothing about them, and recognizes their intent to help Tillis secondhand.”

    Well yes, because that’s a legal requirement of the current law. Outside groups are legally prevented from coordinating with the Candidates and/or directly endorsing candidates.

    1. They can directly endorse candidates as long as they (and their donors) pay taxes.

      1. So if you pay a penalty you can endorse a candidate?
        “Congress shall make no law…” (Amendment 1)

        1. No, you just don’t get to use a govt-granted privilege to go out and endorse candidates.

          1. The government-granted privilege of GIVING PEOPLE THEIR MONEY? Somewhere, a village is missing the idiot it raised.

  5. Reason must be pissing their pants in terror at the thought of a l candidate taking votes from a Democrat. Pathetic

    1. The reading comprehension level here is so high and acute that people can read things that are in absolutely no way contained in the post.

      1. Brian,
        All we’re missing is some Koch-heads screaming about buying an election!

      2. There was a tone.

        1. e-bowler|10.23.14 @ 11:48PM|#
          “There was a tone.”

          That only the paranoid can hear!

        2. Or perhaps a dog whistle?

          1. A millenial-whistle. The range of hearing decreases once you pass 30.

            1. I smell Tulpa. And it stinks.

              1. You are correct. I’m able to change my handle to what he’s been using recently (Patrick Smash).

      3. They’re assuming a Nick Gillespie byline.

      4. John’s gone off the deep end lately, just ignore him.

        1. He wasn’t the only one to blow the whistle.

        2. I am begining to wonder if someone hasn’t hacked his name.

          To many typos earlier in his posts, not of the usual sort. Maybe Jack Daniels hacked his account……

        3. Like completely off his meds, batshit Mary fucking crazy!

      5. i think you need the special decoder monocle to read into it

      6. On further Twitter-talk with Haugh after I first posted this, the Post was right and I was wrong. Given that worrying about “dark money” isn’t usually something one hears from Libertarians, I read some dark irony in Haugh’s tweet, but he clarifies that he does indeed think the Kochs’ political influence these days is baleful. Specifically, Haugh wrote, “I detest their ways of influencing elections and policy at all, very corrupting & anti-republic….”]

        So how long till you move up to Salon Brian?

        1. Yes, because conveying what someone thinks is the same as agreeing with them. I suppose you’ll be moving up to Salon as well, since by repeating Dougherty’s words you too agree with Haugh’s viewpoint? Truly, your brilliant reading comprehension in this thread is second only to John’s.

        2. For fuck’s sake, the whole point of this clarification is that Doherty thought Haugh was joking about Kochs’ “dark money.”

    2. John|10.23.14 @ 11:28PM|#
      “Reason must be pissing their pants”…

      John, are you really trying to oust turd as the TEAM CHEERLEADER!?
      ‘Cause it sure looks like at least a silver medal try…

  6. BTW, the top add seems to have cast PJ-Guy in a new role!

  7. In Virginia, voting for Sarvis was a vote for libertarian conscience; why vote for the lesser of two evils? If you’re a libertarian, vote for what you want, what you believe in!

    In North Carolina, voting for Haugh is a waste of a vote, just another Koch Brothers dastardly scheme to take votes away from viable, electable, realistic candidates.

  8. My sense is that generally Lib candidates do syphon votes from Reps, which also only seems natural. Many Rep voters are inherently more Libertarian than Dem voters and many Rep candidates are not libertarian enough. We have such a case currently in the Louisiana senate race.

    Also, on several occasions I got the very distinct feeling that some Lib candidates were actually Dem operatives lying their asses off in order to throw the race for the Rep.

    If anyone knows of a case or cases were Rep operatives have done the same, please let me know.

    The level of deception at work in the realm of politics tends to make me cynical and extremely wary.

    1. I’m sure you’re right but I don’t worry about it or these ads. Caring about it being a “dirty trick” steers too far into “people owe their votes to one part or the other” territory.

      1. See, that never occurred to me, but you are right. However, I wasn’t suggesting how people should vote. I am not familiar enough with that race to say anything other than DONT VOTE FOR HAGAN.

        Right now my main concern is local, that Mary Landrieu gets her ass fired. I would almost vote for Satan if it got her out of there. It is starting to look like I won’t have to, which, if I had a heart, would warm it.

      2. Caring about it being a “dirty trick” steers too far into “people owe their votes to one part or the other” territory.

        Which is what this piece implies.

        1. There is almost no original content in this article, I don’t see where people are reading all these implications. Do people seriously believe that Doherty doesn’t want the LP candidate to get as many votes as possible, whatever the reason?

          1. I don’t see where people are reading all these implications.

            Here is the opening paragraph. Reread it as though you haven’t laid eyes on it before –

            The American Futures Fund, a generally pro-Republican group with connections to the Koch brothers, have put out a series of short, rather absurd, online ads pushing Libertarian Party North Carolina Senate candidate Sean Haugh, in what is clearly an attempt to pull a certain class of possible Democratic voters away from incumbent Kay Hagan, and thus likely help the chances of Republican Thom Tillis.

            Then tell me: did this come from Red State, Reason, or The Huffington Post?

            1. That’s just factual reporting. And you don’t need to bother reading implications into anything when you can read Doherty’s words themselves:

              Brian Doherty|10.23.14 @ 11:07PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

              I’ll just assume E-bowler has a bunch of windows open at once and as reading something, somewhere, that opposed voting Libertarian and confused it with this post.

              1. Selectively-chosen facts can be even more misleading than outright lies are.

              2. Let me highlight the key words and phrases for you:

                The American Futures Fund, a generally pro-Republican group with connections to the Koch brothers

                The Koch Brothers are red meat to leftists.

                have put out a series of short, rather absurd, online ads

                “Just the facts, ma’am” does not include loaded language like “absurd”.

                pushing Libertarian Party North Carolina Senate candidate Sean Haugh, in what is clearly an attempt to pull a certain class of possible Democratic voters away from incumbent Kay Hagan

                See those votes that belonged to the Democrat? The Koch Brothers and their billions are trying to steal those votes! It’s “clear”.

                and thus likely help the chances of Republican Thom Tillis.

                They couldn’t possibly be trying to help the Libertarian candidate. No sir. The Kochs would never try to help libertarian candidates. Just more diabolical necromancy from the Dark Bretheren.

                1. Note that I screwed up the quoting, but you get the idea.

                2. Hi, is it not possible that they’re accomplishing both tasks? Supporting the Libertarian candidate and undermining the Democratic candidate both seem like wins for those wiley Kochs. Realistically, the L candidate has no chance of winning but siphoning D votes could make the R win while making the narrative more about L ideas.

                3. So it’s impossible to mention the Koch brothers without being a leftist shill? Nowhere does Dougherty say it’s a bad thing, or criticize them. He notes this just as he does with pretty much everything else in the article, with an eye to explaining what’s got people’s panties in a twist. It’s easier to laugh at the issues involved (which I most certainly did; the content of the article is much funnier than the “Serious Business” tone of this thread) when you know why people are freaking out.

                  1. Yes, yes it is impossible. The leftists are trying to use the Koch brothers to remove everyone’s first amendment rights.

                    I consider any mention of KOCH brothers to be shilling for leftists. period.

                4. The Koch Brothers are red meat to leftists.

                  How many leftists do you think are reading this right now?

                  1. Well if current trends are an indication, Reason is trying to increase their leftist readership.

          2. If we are to believe his articles, Mr Doherty does not think anyone should vote, LP or otherwise.

  9. Having viewed those YT clips, it’s possible that these ads were designed to stealthily make Haugh look stupid.

    If I were a Millennial, I would reject Haugh on then basis of those stupid ads alone. That is, if I had any time to myself what with Reason polling me every five minutes.

    1. Nothing wrong with voting to get high. No more idiotic of a reason than everyone else.

      1. No, but it comes off as pandering.

        1. All political ads are pandering.

          1. Disagree. Some political ads are pretty boring and straightforward “Here’s my plan, here are my qualifications, I ask for your vote.” types.

            1. That’s still pandering.

              1. What do you have against panders? They’re cute and make great kung fu movies.

          2. Someone woke up on the cynical side of the bed this morning.

  10. supported by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch and other conservative donors

    I mean one of them was a fucking VP candidate for the L party. I mean even ignoring their support for libertarian groups and positions (as opposed to conservative ones), isn’t that enough to use the correct label?

    1. How many Libertarian candidates have also been Republicans? Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, that Amash guy.

      How many have been Democrats?

      1. Mike Gravel was a Dem who became LP.

        Was Amash ever an LP candidate, btw? You could add in Bob Barr.

      2. The word Republican doesn’t appear in my post.

  11. The first anthropogenic global warming, 10,000 years ago

    We hypothesize that Betula [birch tree species] increased due to a combination of a warming climate and reduced herbivory following the extinction of the Pleistocene mega herbivores. The rapid increase in Betula modified land surface albedo which climate-model simulations indicate would cause an average net warming of ?0.021?C per percent increase in high latitude (53?73?N) Betula cover. We hypothesize that the extinction of mammoths increased Betula cover, which would have warmed Siberia and Beringia by on average 0.2?C, but regionally by up to 1?C. If humans were partially responsible for the extinction of the mammoths, then human influences on global climate predate the origin of agriculture.

    1. “If” we were responsible? You can bet your pink shirt we were responsible for killing off those oversized pests. And we can do what we want, because we humans are awesome.

    2. Crock of shit.

      The end of the ice age ended the mammoths, not the other way around.

      If primitive humans were a serious threat to elephants then the asians and possibly the africans would be long gone also.

      1. No, no, no. Changing the climate is our selective advantage. It’s how we rose to the top of the food chain.

        1. Tell me how high we are on the food chain when polar bears and coral refs are extinct.

          1. You want to know the real reason that extraterrestrials don’t visit more often?

            Hint: they’re delicious.

            1. “It’s ironic… Spewey used to melt my heart, now he melts in my mouth.”

          2. The exact same place as we are now : The Fucking Top!

    3. John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.

      Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.

  12. This looks like a better Koch-funded campaign of “progressive outreach” than stodgy old Reason Magazine.

    1. Yeah. I can hardly wait for the prolonged “give us money” campaign that will closely follow the Koch brothers telling the everyday more progressive Reason to fuck off.

      Something about biting the hand that feeds you.

      But I do understand the Reason writers see all the cool kids out there bashing the Kochs and want in.

      The day they post the story “Libertarian Reasons we need an amendment to roll back Citizens United” is the last day I show up here.

      1. But I do understand the Reason writers see all the cool kids out there bashing the Kochs and want in.

        Most of them seem to see Reason as a second or third rate gig that they’ll bail on as soon as possible So sucking off the cool the kids in journalism is career necessity.

        That, and you can’t be a Cosmo if you get kicked off the cocktail circuit.

        1. Weigel’d again!

  13. And meanwhile in St. Louis, Michael Brown’s family gets into a fight over who can sell Michael Brown T-shirts

    http://fox2now.com/2014/10/22/…..relatives/

    It’s Grandma vs Mother. But the mother wins, since she had a friend with a metal pipe.

    1. See, this makes me believe even more that Michael Brown was just a nice, innocent kid gunned down in cold blood for no reason at all.

      1. *Snort* But someday, eventually, these progressives will find a nice, innocent kid who was gunned down in cold blood for no reason at all. I mean, they can’t all be numbskull thugs like Trayvon and Mike Brown, can they? And then they can retroactively justify all the rioting.

  14. Georgia sushi restaurant gets a health inspection score of 28. That’s even less than the low 40s awarded to a Chamblee/Doraville dim sum place I used to eat at. I’d give it a try but I only go to Stockbridge for the end-of-year inventory clearance sale at Ed’s Pawn

    1. It’s been a few years, but I used to go to the southern buffet in downtown Stockbridge whenever I was working in the area. I only ate at one of the Asian buffets a couple times, but I’m sure you’ve noticed how it works with those places; they’ll open up, make everything good to impress the public, then a new set of cousins will rotate in and cut corners left and right.

  15. Are the ads worth 47 seconds of my life?

    1. Since no one would answer, I watched them. Mildly amusing. Needs more cat eating its own snot.

  16. OT:
    First Lady Michelle Obama has done it again, flubbing a major biographical detail of the Democratic Senate candidate she was stumping for, less than two weeks after she called Iowa Senate candidate Bruce Braley the wrong name ? seven times. (RELATED: Michelle Obama Stumps For Candidate, Calls Him Wrong Name SEVEN Times)

    In a speech extolling the virtues of Colorado Democratic Senator Mark Udall, Obama called him a “fifth-generation Coloradan.”

    “As a fifth-generation Coloradan, Mark understands what makes this state special,” she said. “He understands the values of independence and fairness, all the things the folks here believe in.”

    Udall was actually born and raised in nearby Arizona, where his father was a member of the House of Representatives. He didn’t move to Colorado until after he earned his degree at Williams College, located in Massachusetts.

    It’d be an awkward enough gaffe in normal situations. But being a fifth-generation Coloradan is actually a key part of Udall’s opponent’s biography.

    1. Oops! I’m sure the media will just tear into her for these flubs, right?

      1. Well, Fox Snews and the Daily Caller will. NPR will talk about Obesity.

  17. Who made these ads again? “More weed, less war”? Is this supposed to attract progs or repulse socons?

  18. OT:
    Just when I think media coverage of Amazon/Hachette can’t get any worse, Rob Spillman gets everything wrong in today’s Salon.

    Seriously. Everything. Doesn’t anyone fact-check at Salon? Are there editors?

    Rob in bold italic idiot font, my responses in plain reasonable text.

    If you are an author, how can you possibly defend Amazon?

    Because Amazon is responsible for tens of thousands of authors making money, many for the very first time?

    Is that a decent reason?

    Here’s another: I published with Hachette, and they suck. Poor royalties, shitty one-sided contract clauses, mediocre distribution, short-sighted editorial decisions.

    Want more reasons to defend Amazon? Read my blog. Since May, I’ve been detailing how Hachette and its defenders have been morons, and Amazon has tried several times to end this dispute.

    But don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.

    1. Salon’s Response:

      One thing I want to make clear: I believe that Jeff Bezos is a genius. He has single-handedly changed the way the world shops.

      His hero, Sam Walton, was also a genius. Bezos’s bible is “Sam Walton: Made in America,” Walton’s autobiography. Walton’s legacy is the big box store where very cheap products, many made in China, are readily available. His other legacy is the destruction of small town America and family-owned businesses. When I drove back roads across the U.S. last summer, small town after small town had boarded-up downtowns with a Wal-Mart and perhaps a Costco on the periphery. Those people lucky enough to have jobs were working for half the wages they used to under dehumanizing conditions (you have to purchase a uniform, at your own cost, to begin with)

      1. You know who killed Mom & Pop retailing?

        Monkey, Ward, Sears & Roebuck

  19. “The Post straightfacedly quoted a Tweet from Haugh about the ads: “While I appreciate the support, I now have a whole new reason to despise Koch brothers & their dark money.” ”

    Wait, what?

    “Haugh tweeted to me later that it was meant “more as absurdity, like I’m a character in a Camus novel.” ”

    So he was being sarcastic, right?

    I think the DNC will get more scared if Haugh and his LP friends sihpon more minority votes.

    1. OK, so the guy was being serious after all.

      What the hell, why would a libertarian diss the Koch brothers and free speech? Who cares about who this ad helps, libertarians can’t win if they don’t get crossover votes anyways (not that he’ll win).

      This is why you have to vet your candidates. Sarvis was a teacher and a small business man. Go to the pizza delivery man’s site, click on “About me”, and you find gems like this –

      “My hobbies besides politics are cooking and baking, studying food as medicine, reading philosophy and history, listening to music, taking road trips across America, and fantasy football. I don’t align myself with any particular religion, but I am an Oklahoma Sooners football fan, which is pretty much the same thing.”

      1. I knew Sean Haugh when he was a NYer. However, I didn’t recall him being this much more interested in making enemies than friends. A previous campaign statement of his quoted here seemed calculated to make enemies & no friends. I don’t remember it, except that it was supercilious.

  20. Tulpa has once again vomited all over this thread as e-bowler. He relinquished his previous handle (Patrick Smash) to do so.

    1. So you admit you’re using a sockpuppet.

    2. Sorry, I don’t get it. How does one “relinquish a handle”? Once a name and email are registered for commenting here, don’t they belong to that email from then on?

  21. Mark my words…

    Mark. My. Words.

    They’ve got a foothold.

    Gaming Is Least Welcoming Online Environment for Women, Study Finds
    Pew study says online gaming is less welcoming to women than online dating sites, social networking channels, and comments sections.

    http://www.gamespot.com/articl…..0-6423135/

    1. The study surveyed around 3,000 Internet users (both male and female), and only 3 percent of respondents said that online gaming was more welcoming toward women, compared to 44 percent who felt it was more welcoming toward men.

      And 51% who felt that Online Gaming was equally welcoming to both men and women.

      1. The Pew, did a study… and they found another front on the war on wimmenz! A study! S-T-U-D-Y!!!

    2. RC-Sev 4 hours ago
      3000 subjective opinions, cool.

      willamwallace 4 hours ago
      2990 were womenm

    3. Can’t this thing just. Fucking. Die. Already? Pretty much the only bright spot in this whole shitshow is the fact that we all live in a country where feminists and fanboys can have life or death arguments over video games and video game journalists (don’t tell any of them about Variety or Rolling Stone which are over 9000 times worse) and not worry about food or shelter.

      1. It’s the best pushback there’s been against political correctness in a long time. Let’s hope it goes on for a while and damages the entire bullshit concept of “social justice.”

        1. And destroys Gawker

        2. Notawoman is a pretty big fan of PC, so that should illuminate his “exhaustion” over the issue.

          When he says he wants it to die what he’s really saying is that he wants gamers to roll over to SJWs.

    1. only to have him shove her to the ground, then drag her by her feet while calling her an obscene name I cannot republish here that refers to the female anatomy.

      Costello commented, still grinning, after the audio that “the long bleep” was her favorite part. She ended the segment by saying “you can thank me later.”

      Nice.

      1. What scum bag (the CNN reporter), but I bet she doesn’t get cut out of the cocktail circuit.

  22. Dafuq is up with the comments tonight? Must be a Halloween thing.

    1. It’s late, and this is the most recent blog post to comment on.

    2. At this hour, you need to think of it like Fight Club, but with more retards.

      1. “The third rule of Fight Club, is that you always want cake. The fourth rule is that yes, we DO rule the night.”

  23. Read the update, iceholes. And tell me again that I have hearing beyond normal human frequencies.

    1. Meh, that makes you at best a blind squirrelBot

    2. His update confirming that Haugh believes what he said proves that Doherty is trying to sink a Libertarian candidate? Wow, you really are a moron.

  24. The 1st video, esp. with that “oh, yeah”, is ridiculous if it’s not ironic. And it’d better not be ironic. So it’s ridiculous.

    It doesn’t look calculated to make Haugh look stupid (as guessed above), but rather to make his voters look stupid.

  25. I don’t know what the point of this is.

    It DOES seem to be lamenting the fact that these ads might take votes from the Democrat. There isn’t a whole lot lauding the idea of the Kochs’–and their “dark money”– appealing directly to the idiot faction of progressive dem voters in order to get more votes for the guy who’s running as a Libertarian.

    And that is perplexing.

  26. What I don’t get is how he’s supposedly “pro-environment.” There’s one ad that says “Sean Haugh thinks pollution should be illegal”. I actually clicked on the ad when it showed up in my facebook feed, just out of curiosity, but there was of course no explanation whatsoever.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.