Journalists have to leave this kind of thing mostly implied for ethical reasons if nothing else.

The answer is clearly: because his research showed that this particular messaging (this story and the book) was the most advantageous to his political goals. If any part of it was literally meaningful then it would have the explanations you noticed were missing.

But you don't call out a Kock brother on his weak sauce image management in the WSJ, you just promote his book, do what you're told, and avoid making that kind of enemy.

He's got fairly conservative and finance friendly Democrats to influence right now and taking his money can't be too much of a public scandal.