[ebbv]

I made the point you made in my comment and then addressed why I think it's not good enough, so I'm not sure what your point is in rehashing it?

As far as why I think badly of Mr. Rowe, it's not because he took a donation from Charles Koch but that he's actually written a fluff piece about Charles Koch here. If he said "Hey the guy pushes some terrible stuff, but I took his money and put it to good use." I'd say fair enough. But he's saying "Hey Charles Koch isn't a bad guy." which is baloney.

[cperciva]

It's possible that this was a well-crafted fluff piece, but it seems far more likely that Mike Rowe is being honest and he wrote it in response to the vitriolic messages he received.

[ocdtrekkie]

I didn't get the impression so much that "Mike Rowe thinks Charles Koch is all around swell", but more "Mike Rowe found some points of commonality with Charles Koch and is perfectly fine working with him on those common goals". And of course, it seems he got pelted at with enough messages about how horrible he is for associating with Koch, that he clearly saw fit to explain.

[orangecat]

But he's saying "Hey Charles Koch isn't a bad guy." which is baloney.

It really isn't. The Kochs are libertarians who genuinely believe that smaller and less intrusive government would benefit everyone. You can disagree with that theory, and you may even be correct, but it's not obviously stupid or evil.

(If your response is "they're climate change deniers", see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20.... There's still plenty you'll disagree with, but if anything they're to the left of the average conservative).