Can Øbama and the Democrats legitimately support Occupy Wall Street?

While we watch the protesters of Occupy Wall St. march to the houses of prominent bankers (but not prominent Democrat financiers like George Soros), whining about, well, something, we need to let recent history be our guide.

I looked through my archives and found this little tidbit from the 2008 LA Times: Democrats are the Darlings of Wall St. in which they note donations from the denizens of Wall St. to both Øbama and Hillary outstrip contributions to McCain.   To wit:

Sen. McCain of Arizona got off to a slow start in presidential campaign fundraising. Having clinched the Republican nomination, he could gain momentum in attracting Wall Street money.

For now, though, Sen. Clinton of New York is leading the way, bringing in at least $6.29 million from the securities and investment industry, compared with $6.03 million for Sen. Obama of Illinois and $2.59 million for McCain, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Those figures include donations from the investment companies’ employees and political action committees.

You could really sum thing up with this statement:

The flow of campaign cash is a measure of how open-fisted banks and other financial institutions have been to politicians of both parties. Concern is rising that “no matter who the Democratic nominee is and who wins in November, Wall Street will have a friend in the White House,’ said Massie Ritsch of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. ‘The door will be open to these big banks.”

Reuters was out there as well, with Wall Street puts its money behind Obama wherein we discover that

Overall, Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from the securities and investment industry. If that trend continued through November, it would mark the first time since 1994 that they have drawn more Wall Street cash than Republicans in a presidential election year, according to the data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Let’s not leave out the NYTimes.  In July of 2009, in the article In Washington, One Bank Chief Still Holds Sway they reported

[Raum] Emanuel’s appearance would underscore the pull of Mr. Dimon, who amid the disgrace of his industry has emerged as President Obama’s favorite banker, and in turn, the envy of his Wall Street rivals. It also reflects a good return on what Mr. Dimon has labeled his company’s “seventh line of business” — government relations.”  [Jamie Dimon is the head of JP Morgan Chase -ed]  And this: “Yet Mr. Dimon helped persuade Mr. Frank and Congress to ease the terms for banks, allowing JPMorgan to repay $25 billion in bailout money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. He did so by complaining publicly and privately that JPMorgan only reluctantly took the money last year from the Bush administration to avoid stigmatizing more needy banks, and now was being hit with new limits — on hiring skilled foreigners, executive pay and more.


There’s lots more, but why belabor the point?  We all know about Øbama’s links to GE, Geithner’s, Orzag’s, and Summers’ connections to prominent Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs etc., etc., etc.

I think Herman Cain has it right: OWS should become OTW (Occupy the White House).  This is where the real problem lies.  Doubtless, Øbama and the Democrats are biting the hands that fed them but using Wall Street as a scapegoat for the liberal’s economic ineptitude, but if Øbama even looks viable next November, you can be sure these guys will be right there again, feeding the beast and garnering favors in the process.

All while reflexively pointing fingers at Republicans.  Let’s look at a more recent article from US News and World Report, titled “Øbama, Democrats Plan to Tie GOP to Wall Street” wherein we learn

The Democratic National Committee is starting what a spokesman called a coordinated attack with the Obama re-election campaign and state parties designed to link Republican presidential candidates to Wall Street.

It’s not so much that they can do this with a straight face, but that a group of “protesters” that claim to be so connected to the real world via the internet are stupid enough to swallow this crap.

Let the games begin.

Posted in ,


A TEA party partisan, guerrilla fighting in the trenches of liberal Massachusetts.


  1. ricbee on October 13, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    Legitimately? What’s that supposed to mean? The Dumocrats can do whatever they like….

    • Dimsdale on October 13, 2011 at 11:09 pm

      I chose definition 3 below (possibly #4 as well):

      le?git?i?mate ?(l-jt-mt) adj.

      1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.

      2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.

      3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.

      4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.


    • Dimsdale on October 13, 2011 at 11:10 pm


      5. Born of legally married parents: legitimate issue.

      6. Of, relating to, or ruling by hereditary right: a legitimate monarch.

      7. Of or relating to drama of high professional quality that excludes burlesque, vaudeville, and some forms of musical comedy: the legitimate theater.

  2. crystal4 on October 14, 2011 at 8:49 am

    I’m sure the Dems would love to co-opt OWS as the GOP was so successful in overtaking the original grass roots movement of the Tea Party. Notice the demonstrators refused to allow those pols who went down there (LIKE LEWIS) an opportunity to talk.
    I see you went back to 2008 to make a point. You fail to mention that corporations tend to back whatever group seems to be winning.
    Case in point: before the healthcare bill was passed a little over 50% of the health industries money went to the D’s.? After the votes were counted, $25.7 million of their? $$ went to the R’s and $17 million to the D’s. (Cantor got $487K and Boehner $386K).
    And you wonder why the members of the house (R’s) brought up 19 bills with the word repeal in it. Instead of focusing on the “jobs ,jobs, jobs” they promised to work on when they ran in 2010, they are? solely focused on political payback.
    Now the R candidates for president are crying for deregulation!!! Deregulation of these banks that are sitting on, not lending out, tons of $$$. Are you kidding me? Talk about whoring for that corporate cash.
    By the way, after Obama decried BOA’s new…

    • Dimsdale on October 14, 2011 at 11:00 am

      Now your story has changed: before, it was the TEA party that was running the show for the Republicans.? Now, the Republicans have “overtaken the TEA party”??? So which is it?
      If “corporations tend to back whatever group seems to be winning”, then why do Democrats persist in associating big business with Republicans, when the evidence proves otherwise? You make my point (the point of the article) for me.
      As for healthcare industry support, who supported Martha Coakley over Scott Brown?

      Where does ?bamacare mean “jobs”?? It should be repealed, if for no other reason than the way it was rammed through the Congress.

      Republican “cries for deregulation” are linked to lowering taxes and creating jobs vs. the Democrat method that does quite the opposite.

      Did you check out the last link, describing how the Dems are pulling out the old playbook again??

    • Dimsdale on October 14, 2011 at 1:05 pm

      Oh, and 2008 is the most relevant indicator.? I will use the 2012 election data when it is generated.

  3. crystal4 on October 14, 2011 at 11:36 am

    ?? I said from the beginning that the TP grass roots was overtaken by the GOP.
    “As I have demonstrated, Republican ?cries for deregulation? are linked to lowering taxes and creating jobs vs. the Democrat method that does quite the opposite.”
    Dimsdale, the recession cause by wall st antics caused the country 14 million jobs. How will repealing bills like Dodd-Frank create jobs.? Banks are recording record profits and are hoarding that money , not loaning to businesses….after we bailed them out.
    I still laugh at that “healthcare rammed through congress” righty talking point that people bought. It was debated for over a year! And a lot of R ideas that were brought forth during the debate were incorporated into it.
    Anyway, new poll 54% support? OWS 27% support Tea Party.

    • Dimsdale on October 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm

      Sorry, that was more of a generic liberal “you” as opposed to a specific “you”, but I will go back and review and amend as necessary.
      The real basis for this recession is the collapse of the housing market, and the Dems were primarily responsible for that.? The fact that the banks screwed up is actually secondary and they should be prosecuted as necessary.? That included the people at Fannie and Freddie and those that supported them.? It was the forced regulations of the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to give economically unsound loans.
      Do you seriously think that ?bamacare was debated?!?!? I suggest you review the facts.? I will leave you with this: how do you debate a bill you haven’t even read?? Or worse, how do you vote for it?
      And as for you offhanded reference to that Time poll that has brought such glee to the liberals (I will link it for you: ), you might look at the internals before you get too giddy.? In a nutshell, the test was weighted towards liberals (look at questions 5 and 6: they show that most of the interviewees (roughly 30% more) self…

    • Dimsdale on October 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm

      … self describe themselves as Democrats).? Compare questions 9 and 11 and tell me that there was no difference in how the two groups were presented.?? The real “take home message” from this is that support for ?bama is waning among liberals (q’s 25a to the end).

    • crystal4 on October 14, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      LOL …was waiting for that. We only like the polls that we agree with.

    • Dimsdale on October 14, 2011 at 6:53 pm

      No, you miss the point: I am taking advantage of this skewed poll to show you that it can be revealing in ways that were unintended by the authors.? Normally, you would expect a poll that is biased towards Democrats to skew ?bama very high in the “who would you vote for” categories (and skew Republicans low), but he stays within the statistical margin of error.
      It is your poll: I am just taking the time to interpret it for you.? Pro OWS types are being too quick to latch onto this poll, and it will come back to bite them. ? Rasmussen says that OWS is 36% favorable, 41% unfavorable, by the way.? This is not in comparison to the TEA party, apparently.? He has an excellent track record of successful prognostication.

  4. crystal4 on October 15, 2011 at 7:32 am

    You talk about skewed polls and then run to Rasmussen!!??
    Anyway, I wouldn’t usually check your work but the Raz poll says:

    Thirty-three percent (33%) have a favorable opinion, (and a plurality of)

    Twenty-seven percent (27%) hold an unfavorable view,

    Forty percent (40%) have no opinion one way or the other,
    Dimsdale you are skewing the numbers here, not the polls.

    • Dimsdale on October 16, 2011 at 10:39 am

      This is an October 5 poll.? I referred to an October 12 poll.? Newer is better, or at least shows trends.

  5. crystal4 on October 15, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Shame on you..I usually take your word for thing you gleaned from the net to prove a point, but I checked this 1.
    The right wing pollster, Scott Rasmussen got these results:

    Thirty-three percent (33%) have a favorable opinion, (and a plurality of)

    Twenty-seven percent (27%) hold an unfavorable view,

    Forty percent (40%) have no opinion one way or the other

    • Dimsdale on October 15, 2011 at 11:17 am

      I went to the Rasmussen site after a Google search for OWS vs.TEA party, and it was one of the few not based solely on the Time farce:?
      Note that this is dated October 12, 2011.??
      If you have something more complete, then by all means LINK to it!? I would love to read it.
      Now if only you had taken the time to analyze the poll you presented…..??? 😉

    • Dimsdale on October 15, 2011 at 11:46 am

      Oh, and if you must use labels like “right wing pollster”, I insist that you use the same terminology for your polls, i.e. “left wing poll by Time” or something similar.
      What really needs to be done is a poll of WHY somebody supports OWS.? Given that the participants of OWS can’t even come up with a cogent or supportable reason, it should be interesting to see what polling will reveal.?? And the internals need to be released simultaneously, to eliminate both the leading questions and the disproportionate representation by Democrats.? The Time poll fails the sniff test miserably.

  6. Dimsdale on October 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Here’s a more reasonable poll that even ThinkProgress quotes in an attempt to demonstrate some public approval of OWS ( ; their graph on this page is ludicrous by statistical standards, but not TP ((pun intended)) standards):
    Please note the source.? Comparisons of OWS and TEA are not direct nor conclusive.? You have to wade through 23 pages of really bad news for ?bama to find questions Q29b and Q30 which ask questions about OWS, and deeper, to page 28 to find questions QF4a and QF4b about TEA.? The TEA and OWS questions are not related and do not directly compare the two, although ThinkProgress tries to make it so, counting on the fact that few will actually read the poll.


The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.