Slog
News & ArtsFriday, May 18, 2012
2012 The Banker's Candidate
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM
According to the Boston Globe, Mitt Romney is the guy the big banks are backing for president:
The top five donor groups in Romney’s campaign are individuals and political action committees associated with large financial institutions, led by Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, according to information compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group that tracks campaign donations.
A number of Democrats—myself included—are mad that Wall Street reform wasn't as strong as it needed to be. But anyone who says that there's no difference between these two presidential candidates is crazy.
1
FTA:
"Campaign finance records also show that the financial services sector is, to some extent, hedging its bets by donating money to the Democratic National Committee. During the 2012 campaign, the securities and investment industry has donated nearly $10 million to the DNC, or about 10 percent of the total it has raised, and only about $4.5 million to the Republican National Committee - a disparity that could be explained by the fact that Romney only recently became the presumptive Republican nominee."
The final string is merely conjecture. Not exactly as you paint it Mr. Constant.
"Campaign finance records also show that the financial services sector is, to some extent, hedging its bets by donating money to the Democratic National Committee. During the 2012 campaign, the securities and investment industry has donated nearly $10 million to the DNC, or about 10 percent of the total it has raised, and only about $4.5 million to the Republican National Committee - a disparity that could be explained by the fact that Romney only recently became the presumptive Republican nominee."
The final string is merely conjecture. Not exactly as you paint it Mr. Constant.
2
And we have no shortage of crazy. The banks want to gamble with our money and Emperor Romney wants to let them. Because, afterall, it worked so well.
4
"But anyone who says that there's no difference between these two presidential candidates is crazy."
No, they're not crazy.
They're going for a "false equivalence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equiv…
No, they're not crazy.
They're going for a "false equivalence".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equiv…
5
Unless, Goldy, the person crowing about how there's no difference between the two, and that Obama is not liberal enough, or that he represents the same policies as Dubya, "extrajudicial assassinations," he let his base down, etc., is actually a Romney mole trying to disenchant liberals and drive down the Democratic vote. Hm...
6
Rmoney - Why, it's right there in the man's name! No wonder he's got the backing of the bankers...
7
Thank fifteen fucking seasons of 'South Park' for successfully poisoning millions of young minds into thinking there is no difference. Those fucking guys should be crowned the Libertarian Kings of False Equivalence.
'Douche' and 'turd sandwich' indeed.
'Douche' and 'turd sandwich' indeed.
11
I realize there indeed are some people who see no difference, and those people are stupid, but really, do you actually think that most of us people who have a problem with Obama think Romney would be AN EXACT COPY of Obama, or maybe we just don't consider them different enough in some very important policy areas and it's actually the Democrats who are saying we see no difference much more than we do, in an attempt to shut us and our valid concerns up?
Seriously, Paul, you're arguing with a strawman here, as you have continued to do, over, and over, and over again. Is it that hard for you to accept that there are people who see the differences betwixt the two major parties, acknowledge them, and yet still decide the differences aren't enough? I'd like to think you weren't so much of a partisan that you could make your argument for Obama w/o lying about his progressive detractors nearly ever time you mention us.
Seriously, Paul, you're arguing with a strawman here, as you have continued to do, over, and over, and over again. Is it that hard for you to accept that there are people who see the differences betwixt the two major parties, acknowledge them, and yet still decide the differences aren't enough? I'd like to think you weren't so much of a partisan that you could make your argument for Obama w/o lying about his progressive detractors nearly ever time you mention us.
12
There is a big difference for sure. If McCain was trying to cut Medicare and SS, there'd be millions of Americans in the street.
13
This table lists the top donors to this candidate (Barack Obama) in the 2008 election cycle:
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contri…
University of California $1,648,685
Goldman Sachs $1,013,091
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799
Citigroup Inc $736,771
Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contri…
16
@14, The problem is ~70% of people don't think it is good politics. When choosing between a turd sandwich and a booger sandwich, it's difficult to be motivated (aka 2010).
17
death drones
ndaa
more drug war bullshit
unconstitutional/republican based healthcare reform
these are the things that define baracks first term. the fact that you have to support him because the alternative is worse is a failing of the system. matt & trey were completely right, if you don't recognize that then you're delusional
ndaa
more drug war bullshit
unconstitutional/republican based healthcare reform
these are the things that define baracks first term. the fact that you have to support him because the alternative is worse is a failing of the system. matt & trey were completely right, if you don't recognize that then you're delusional
18
I understand the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy. I just wish Obama supporters would be honest enough to admit that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS