Rand Paul won't attend Koch Brothers 2016 summit

[pacodever]

Thoughts?

A stellar performance at the conference can provide a huge boost for a candidate, as demonstrated by Rubio’s well-received January appearance. The Florida Senator aced his appearance at a joint forum with rival White House prospects Cruz and Paul. Rubio gave crisp and detailed answers to policy and political questions posed by the session moderator, ABC’s Jonathan Karl.

Afterward, Rubio won an informal straw poll of attendees, and impressed a number of donors in one-on-one interactions and a speech. And he got a boost from media coverage of his performance at the forum, which marked the first session ever streamed live to the media from the long-running series of twice-a-year Koch seminars, as the gatherings are known in conservative politics.

Since then, Rubio has made significant headway with the donor class, raising a total of more than $40 million into his presidential campaign and a pair of supportive big-money groups, including a super PAC and a non-profit.

By contrast, Paul – who had worked to cultivate a relationship with Charles Koch based on their shared appreciation of libertarian philosophies – was widely seen as having bombed at the January seminar. And, though there’s not necessarily a direct causal link with his seminar stumble, super PACs supporting Paul have thus far failed to keep up with the big-money fundraising operations of his rivals.

During the forum, Paul, at times slouching in a cushy arm chair with his legs crossed, gave rambling and sometimes unpopular answers. At one point, he opposed eliminating tax benefits to the oil and gas industry — from which Koch Industries, the brothers’ multi-national conglomerate, benefits but which the brothers philosophically oppose. And, in a speech, he raised eyebrows among even some of his ardent supporters by touting tax breaks to spur growth in blighted inner cities. The idea is anathema to the brand of small-government conservatism espoused by the Kochs and many of their network’s donors, who object to marketplace interference.

Paul’s attire didn’t help, either. Some in the buttoned-down crowd remarked later that his boxy blue blazer, faded jeans and cowboy boots gave off a “cavalier” vibe.

Of the $889 million in planned spending, Charles Koch has indicated that only about one third will go to direct spending in state and federal elections

htt p://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/koch-brothers-wealthy-donors-gop-2016-freedom-partners-seminar-california-120663.html

[Uriah]

//

[hells_unicorn]

The Koch brothers through their proxy Reason Magazine have made it fairly clear where they stand on Rand, as they did with his father. I would have liked the notion of winning their support, but I don't know that it was ever possible and don't really think that more time should be wasted on currying favor with them. It's possible to secure the nomination without them, and if Rand does, they'll fall in line out of necessity.

[eleganz]

A conflicting article stated that Sergio Gor (Rand's media spokesman) said that Rand is going to try to make some time to stop in (something to that tune).

[Ronin Truth]

Geez, they hate Ron, so of course Rand will not be attending. DUH! Was he even invited?

[Badger Paul]

"At one point, he opposed eliminating tax benefits to the oil and gas industry — from which Koch Industries, the brothers’ multi-national conglomerate, benefits but which the brothers philosophically oppose."

Yes, what stalwart libertarians and defenders of freedom the Kochs are. If it wasn't for the government, how could they be such patriots for less government?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Rand's pandering doesn't seem to be paying off.

[Dianne]

This doesn't sound good:

"During the forum, Paul, at times slouching in a cushy arm chair with his legs crossed, gave rambling and sometimes unpopular answers. At one point, he opposed eliminating tax benefits to the oil and gas industry — from which Koch Industries, the brothers’ multi-national conglomerate, benefits but which the brothers philosophically oppose. And, in a speech, he raised eyebrows among even some of his ardent supporters by touting tax breaks to spur growth in blighted inner cities. The idea is anathema to the brand of small-government conservatism espoused by the Kochs and many of their network’s donors, who object to marketplace interference."

[hells_unicorn]

Rand's pandering doesn't seem to be paying off.

The 5-7% of the electorate that supported his father doesn't win elections, so not pandering is an automatic loss.

[William Tell]

He went to the last one, I'm sure he would go if the thought it would help his campaign. Seems pretty clear he knows he can't win their support, the only other real option is he knows they already support him. But that is apparently not the case.

[AuH2O]

It's not just Charles and David he is skipping out on. Maybe he's not going to get any cash directly from/through the Koch network, but this is an opportunity impress a lot of libertarian-leaning major donors who could donate to him/his SuperPAC independently.

[Occam's Banana]

The 5-7% of the electorate that supported his father doesn't win elections, so not pandering is an automatic loss.

It certainly is if we won't even try growing that 5-7% of the electorate by - among other things - not pandering. But that would not be a short-term strategy, and it would not be compatible with indulging fixations on "bright, shiny objects" (such as POTUS) and "instant gratification" (election wins today).

In any case, I've never understood the claim that pandering is necessary in order to win just because winning so often correlates with pandering. It's a one-sided perspective that completely ignores the other side of the same coin - namely, that the vast majority of losing pols are also panderers ...

[NewRightLibertarian]

The 5-7% of the electorate that supported his father doesn't win elections, so not pandering is an automatic loss.

And the 5 to 7 percent that Rand is polling at in the GOP field will barely get him in the debates. So, as I said before, his pandering isn't paying off. Not by a long shot.

[eleganz]

Actually it was politico (don't forget who their allegiance is to) who first claimed that Rand Paul lost the "informal straw poll" at the initial Koch Brothers Freedom Partners conference, which Frank Luntz (who was there and running that specific meeting corrected and said there was no straw poll formal or not, just a few people discussing their opinions in a casual setting.

Politico wants everything to turn into a juicy story, they're a left-wing organization and they've been running with Rand losing the "informal" Koch Brothers straw poll ever since and the majority of the RPF fell for it when they pulled the wool over our heads.

[nikcers]

Here's a good perspective on why this is a good thing, I think its always good to read news from all different points of view and sources.. Suffice it to say Rand Paul's view on the border will forever distance himself from being the Koch brothers lap dog.

Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal.
Ezra Klein: Really?
Bernie Sanders: Of course. That's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. ...

Ezra Klein: It would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it?
Bernie Sanders: It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.