Just when it seems like the primary elections cannot get any crazier, we see a longtime GOP supporter admit that he supports … wait, a Clinton?
Hillary Clinton and Koch Industries C.E.O. Charles Koch made news headlines across the Internet over the weekend after footage surfaced of a Koch ABC interview where he admitted that Clinton would be a better choice over some of the other Republican frontrunners.
Well, Mr. Koch—I’m not a huge fan of what you do and who you support, but I have to agree with you on this one.
Hillary, however, was not too thrilled about the official-unofficial endorsement. Her official campaign-managed Twitter account had this to say:
“Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote.”
Some might say she’s saying this to pander. And I’m not going to lie—this was my first “what if” thought.
Koch industries has actually donated funds to a handful of Democratic Senate and House representatives, according to 2008 donation information from OpenSecrets.org. Funny enough, Clinton received a small chunk in the sum of $3,500 from Koch Industries.
Though this is nothing compared to other politicians. Wisconsin’s GOP Governor Scott Walker, for instance, received $43,000 during the 2010 election, according to a Feb. 18, 2011 article from Mother Jones. The story goes on to mention how a Koch Industries PAC donated more than $1 million to what’s known as the Republican Governors Association.
More specifically, Bloomberg News reported that these governors have famously done everything in their power to “take away bargaining rights of state workers.”
Clearly, Koch Industries has a thing for big money and doesn’t care much for labor unions—this is probably why they often side with the right.
That’s what makes this Clinton selection odd for multiple reasons.
Many anti-Clinton voters would likely see this as an excellent opportunity to say that Clinton represents big money and Wall Street interests.
With that in mind, the Hillary Campaign probably realize how bad this would look.
I honestly want to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, considering she’s likely—assuming if Bernie Sanders cannot win the Democratic primary—the left’s only hope from keeping Trump away from the White House.
Other sides of the so-called “pander-verse” have just gotten … weird.
For instance, heard the so-called “hot sauce” story? Apparently Clinton keeps hot sauce on her person everywhere she goes, according to an April 19 article from TIME. In addition, she’s been into this personal craze since her own time as First Lady in the White House.
The so-called “con” is that she’s attempting to somehow “grab onto the African-American experience” and pander votes in this demographic, as listed in an April 18 article from Salon. The column, titled “If Clinton is pandering with this latest food revelation, it’s the most impressive suck-up ever,” further illustrates the absurdity of these “pandering” points with the premise of time travels.
That’s right—Hillary wants to wind up in the Oval Office so bad that she specifically altered the space-time continuum to make it only seem like she’s a fan of hot sauce.
Or, you know, she could just be a hot sauce enthusiast.
It’s like we’re losing site of the real issues at hand (again), which is why this election continues to get more and more ridiculous.
It seemed like we were well on track with problems related to voter disenfranchisement, healthcare reform, income inequality and foreign policy.
You know, the kind of things presidential candidates should probably worry about.
Right now, if we’re not careful, these constant disagreements on what appears to be a series of huge non-issues could place us closer to the reality of a Trump presidency.
And, as it stands, that’s a lot scarier than someone allegedly faking hot sauce interests or switching their stance on who they accept money from.
The opinions expressed in Bassinger’s column do not necessarily reflect those of The Daily Barometer staff.