What’s The Difference Between Wealthy (Koch) Republicans And (Soros) Democrats?

The billionaire Koch brothers have been corrupting democracy for decades. Their labyrinthine web of front groups toil 24/7 to distort the facts on issues like climate change, voter suppression, gun control, and taxes. And if that collection of topics sounds familiar, it’s because the Kochs almost single-handedly created the Tea Party (with PR help from Fox News) to push their views on those subjects unto a gullible sector of the American populace.

Koch Bros. Fatcat

AT&T and Verizon users: Stop funding the Tea Party.
Switch to CREDO Mobile, the progressive cell phone company, today!

One of the right’s favorite knee-jerk responses to criticisms of the Kochs is to point to wealthy Democrats who contribute to candidates and causes that lean more to the liberal side of the political spectrum and claim that the Koch’s critics are hypocrites. However, there have always been some obvious distinctions between the right and left wing upper-crusters. The false argument of equivalency falls flat when given scrutiny.

For one thing, the Republican rich can usually be found bankrolling people and projects that benefit them personally or professionally. Thus the Kochs’ fixation on opposing unions and denying climate change is closely aligned with their exploitative and polluting business interests. Well-off Dems, on the other hand, commonly finance more philanthropic endeavors (civil rights, environment, aid to the poor) that aim to improve the quality of life without necessarily enriching themselves.

It is also notable that conservatives advocate for less regulation of money in politics, creating an environment where the rich get ever more power to bend society to their will. Liberals, conversely, spend more of their cash on trying to remove money from politics. As an example, it was conservatives, including the Kochs, who pushed for Citizens United so that they could fund their self-serving projects without restrictions or even identification. But Jonathan Soros, the son of the right’s favorite wealthy liberal George Soros, created the Friends of Democracy PAC, a SuperPAC aimed at ending the influence of SuperPACs.

A new survey was just published that affirms these distinctions between the rightist rich and the lefty leisure class. Conducted by the Spectrem Group for CNBC (Wall Street’s cable news network) the Millionaire Survey “polled 514 people with investable assets of $1 million or more, which represents the top 8 percent of American households.” Among the sometimes surprising findings was that more than half of the respondents agreed that “inequality of wealth in our nation is a major problem.” Also, 64% favored higher taxes on the rich. A similar number (63%) support an increase in the minimum wage. And only 13% said that unemployment benefits should be reduced. Remember, these are all millionaires in this survey.

Digging a little deeper into these numbers, another interesting trend takes shape. It turns out that there is a marked difference in the views expressed by the millionaire class depending on their political affiliation.

“Democratic millionaires are far more supportive of taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage. Among Democratic millionaires, 78 percent support higher taxes on the wealthy, and 77 percent back a higher minimum wage. That compares with 31 percent and 38 percent, respectively, for Republicans.”

CNBC Millionaire Survey

So the breakdown reveals that it is the Democratic wealthy who are the most conscientious and concerned about their country and their fellow citizens. While the Republican rich are selfishly and characteristically concerned mainly with themselves. It’s the difference between Patriotic Millionaires and Ayn Rand sociopaths. That’s not a particularly surprising revelation, but it is nevertheless useful to see it validated by hard data.

Fox News: Fair And Balanced? A Great Point If It Were True

Every now and then Fox News blurts out tiny, but perceptible, snippets of truth, often when they don’t even realize it. Such a moment occurred yesterday on The Five as Eric Bolling (of the Bloody Hand) launched into an error-riddled tirade against the Obama administration’s remarks following the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

Fox News Great Point

Shameless self-promotion…
Get Fox Nation vs. Reality. Available now at Amazon.

In the course of Bolling’s frothy outrage, he sought to illustrate his point that Obama, whose administration is responsible for capturing or killing more terrorists than Bush ever imagined, is weak on terror with a reference to the deadly raid on Osama Bin Laden. Here is the delightfully loopy exchange between Bolling and his co-host Dana Perino:

Bolling: There’s one more piece of this. Don’t forget this was prior, PRIOR, to Osama Bin Laden being taken down. And the thought was, is President Obama going into the election soft of terror or not? And a lot of people are saying [to Perino] It was after?
Perino: Much after. Yeah, a year.
Bolling: OK, I take it back.
Perino: A great point if it were true.

Indeed. What a great point that would have been if hadn’t been made up by an imbecile who doesn’t even bother to check the most basic facts. This was not a careless mistake in the course of an unrehearsed discussion. Bolling was reading from a prepared text. And the casual dismissal of his flagrant blunder, that he would simply “take it back,” demonstrates the lack of seriousness he has for factual reporting. It’s that cavalier attitude that Stephen Colbert highlighted last night (video below) when addressing the same segment and Perino’s odd compliment that the point would be great, but for the triviality that it was false:

Colbert: That’s undeniable. A great point and a fantastic new motto: Fox News. Fair and balanced. A Great point if it were true. Still I’ve gotta give a wag of my finger to Dana Perino. Why did you correct him? Bolling was pulling a passionate heartfelt conspiracy theory straight out of his ass. You don’t interrupt a man in mid yank. That’s rude.

Ordinarily, no one on Fox News is corrected that quickly (or at all) when they make ridiculous mistakes or tell obvious lies. That’s because their mission is to spread disinformation, not to inform. Bolling’s commentary was a part of Fox’s standard operating procedure and, if anything, Perino was off script and likely rebuked for her correction after the show. But Fox has recovered their composure and restored their focus on defaming Obama and the Democrats. As evidence of this, note the segment that aired this morning that brought all of the current Fox-hyped pseudo-scandals together in one package:

Fox News GOP Links Dems

And here, for your viewing pleasure, is the segment from the Colbert Report: