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.

Matthews to Wall Street: No money unless you can explain why you have it

First, I am sure this is my last Matthews post for a while. Well I am pretty sure.

But, I … well I just could not stop laughing. Chris Matthews and guests Pat Buchanan and Ron Brownstein kick Wall Street around (deserved) but then demean the entire system. Paraphrasing now but it boils down to … these guys on Wall Street produce nothing … and thus deserve nothing.

Oh, and stick around long enough for the Matthews, Brownstein hypocracy hit … they love the money we make on Wall Street … just not the people who make it happen. Perfect view from the left.


It really shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the capital markets. I won’t defend the size of the bonuses these guys get but I will defend what they do. They generate the “paper” as Brownstein puts it … that builds the buildings that house the people that work the machines, that make the products that raise the standard of living that capitalism built.

As for explaining why you deserve the money? Matthews reportedly makes $5 million?

The NBC cable network refused to share salary details with the New York Times, save for the most humiliating one: Matthews is still making more or less $5 million per year. In October that would have been 25 percent more than Olbermann made. Now it’s roughly 33 percent


Wall Street … You might as well use a Ouija Board

Today’s weekend funny … but seriously folks. Our good friend Jonathan Hoenig is a bright man and his advice here is real good … plus he’s backed by Wayne Rogers who has a great track record himself. Update below. Read more

Wall Street’s Passive Aggressive Lover

I hate you Wall Street … but I need you. I need you more than want you … but I want you for all time. Read more

Kroft to Obama: Are you punch-drunk? Video Update

I am glad Politico caught this because frankly, I had seen enough of the President for one week. Read more