August 23, 2012

"In an interminable article on the president's fund-raising problems, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer puts it down in part to his aversion to schmoozing."

James Taranto quotes Mayer quoting a "a frustrated Obama fund-raiser":
"Unlike Republicans, they have no business interest being furthered by the donation — they just like to be involved. So it makes them more needy. It's like, 'If you're not going to deregulate my industry, or lower my taxes, can't I at least get a picture?'"
Taranto paraphrases: "[T]he claim is that whereas billionaires who support Romney are greedy and selfish, those who back Obama are altruistic — or, to the extent they have a selfish motive, it is a relatively benign one, a simple desire to be in the presence of the Dear Leader."

89 comments:

Chip S. said...

Of course.

"Please leave me alone" = greed and selfishness

"Please force taxpayers to buy my solar panels" = public spirit

Got it.

pm317 said...

Solyndra!!

(What did they give Obama in 08 and before?)

Altruistic, my foot.

Tim said...

"In an interminable article on the president's fund-raising problems, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer puts it down in part to his aversion to schmoozing."

Schmoozing requires the skill that you find other people interesting.

Obama, author of two auto-biographies before accomplishing anything of note beyond birth, obviously (as has been obvious to any casual observer since his speech to the DNC in '04) finds no one nearly as interesting as he finds himself.

Lem said...

no link?

Revenant said...

I'm sure it is just an eeries coincidence that so many of Obama's millionaire and billionaire supporters got handouts, bailouts, and sweetheart deals from the government after they made those campaign contributions.

Really, Obama must be cursing his lousy luck that all those rich campaign donors just happened to get a bunch of money from the government. Why, imagine how that looks to voters! They probably think there was some sort of quid pro quo!

Jay Retread said...

There is every reason to believe that Obama is going to lose this November.

Also, there is every reason to believe that over the past three decades the progression of our politics and the laws that govern them have led us to the point where we for the most part now have a one party system.

We now have a system that is almost wholly shaped by large campaign contributions. This obviously gives the Republican party an over-whelming advantage. When Democrats try to compete for these large contributions from the most wealthy it separates the party from its base. Also, as this article points out, these large contributors no longer need to buy off the Democratic Party. The drift in our political system has made the Democrats irrelevant.

The Republican Party has been using the advantage described above to undercut the Democratic Party at every turn. Whether it is the direct voter suppression of Democratic voting demographics or undermining institutions (unions being a major one) that the party relies on, the Republicans have done an amazing job in neutralizing the assets of the Dem party.

I would add the continuing consolidation of media under corporate control and gerrymandering as further ways the Democratic Party is being pushed out as a competitive party in the U.S. political system.

I predict that with the coming Obama loss the next few years it will become glaring apparent that we have drifted into being a one party state. It will be interesting to see what the ramifications of that change will bring.

ricpic said...

Right, like there's no commercial advantage to be gained by those who fill Barry's coffers. Believe that and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sellya.

It's touching that Jay Retread buys into the Dem propaganda that its base is the poor. Its base is the chattering class and the underclass joined in a gleeful pincer assault on the middle/working class. Lampreys on a lake perch.

Carol said...

Doesn't like schmoozing? Good God, how did he get this far?

Maguro said...

We now have a system that is almost wholly shaped by large campaign contributions. This obviously gives the Republican party an over-whelming advantage.

This year the Republicans have an advantage, but who had the "over-whelming" monetary advantage in 2008, Jay? Who got the big Goldman Sachs bucks then? Surely you were here decrying Obama for rejecting public funding after he had promised not to.

Riiiight...

lemondog said...

Solyndra!!

(What did they give Obama in 08 and before?)

Altruistic, my foot.


Oh!, you are just such a negative Nelly. After all the Administration was cleared of any wrongdoing....
Investigator Who Cleared Obama In Solyndra Scandal A Top Donor

What's that? He was schmoozed out of $52 G's?!

bagoh20 said...

Yea Jay, that's pretty funny, as is this article when you realize the widely known fact that Obama blew all the records out of the water for fundraising last time. What changed? Did he forget how to schmooze? Did the Republican donors suddenly get richer since then?

dbp said...

Jay's right, this is why we haven't had a Democratic president in 50 years. Unless you count Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama. But other than those anomalies, there have been none.

lemondog said...

BTW, does hanging with the Hollywood set not count as schmoozing?

Rabel said...

Taranto Link

Jay Retread said...

Maguro wrote "This year the Republicans have an advantage, but who had the "over-whelming" monetary advantage in 2008, Jay? Who got the big Goldman Sachs bucks then?"

And it is no surprise that there were no reform of Wall Street over the past four years.

Maguro and others are making my point. BOTH parties are now creatures of the wealth few. The difference is that the Republicans are happy to do so while for the Democrats it has distorted them, separated them from its base and now has made them irrelevant.

But please don't be so angry. You won.

cold pizza said...

Gag. -cp

Aridog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Jay Retread said...
And it is no surprise that there were no reform of Wall Street over the past four years.


You mean other than Dodd-Frank, right?

Jay Retread said...

I was critical of Obama rejecting public financing in '08.

Over the past thirty years we have had two Dems as president. Clinton was especially a whore for Wall Street. Obama unfortunately also could not break free from the forces that now distort our political system.

Aridog said...

Obama-san can't help himself, even when he is schmoozing happily...as he was at an NYC fund raiser with some ex-jocks of note. The Abiding Dude said:

“It is very rare I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person,” ... “Usually the folks want to take a picture with me, sit next to me, talk to me. That has not been the case at this event and I completely understand.”

It must be tough to be so important and just know it! Cue giggle & snicker track about here.

Jay said...

Jay Retread said...

We now have a system that is almost wholly shaped by large campaign contributions. This obviously gives the Republican party an over-whelming advantage


Obama, even to today, has raised more money from Wall Street than any candidate in the history of America.

Obama raised more money in 2008.

You are incoherent.

Jay Retread said...

Dodd-Frank was a joke. Dodd in particular is a bidder for Wall Street and other big money interests.

garage mahal said...

But please don't be so angry. You won.

Oh Christ, stop being a chicken little. Republicans aren't trying to suppress the vote because they think they already won. Romney isn't out lying his ass off because he thinks he already won. Demographics don't favor Republicans in the long haul, it might be the reason we've seen all the smash and grab policies the past two years.

Amartel said...

"You won."

Just so, old sort, just so.
[Twirls mustache, whacks poor person on the head with shiny solid gold walking stick, grins in evil corporate businessy manner.]

Jay said...

Jay Retread said...

Dodd-Frank was a joke.


How would you know?

That's not what Obama & Barney Franks said.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Republicans aren't trying to suppress the vote because they think they already won.


There isn't a singular Republican anywhere trying to "suppress" any votes.

Idiot.

Jay Retread said...

So,

Jay and others, what is it?

Is Obama reigning in Wall Street with Frank Dodd? Or is he the biggest tool of Wall Street of all time, raking in mega bucks?

It seems you are all "incoherent."

Marty said...

I'm curious. Is "garage mahal" Obama's unleashed id? Just askin'.

yashu said...

Demographics don't favor Republicans in the long haul, it might be the reason we've seen all the smash and grab policies the past two years.

"Smash and grab policies"? Please elaborate.

Lem said...

Thanks Rabel.

Marty said...

Jay Retread wrote: "Is Obama reigning in Wall Street with Frank Dodd? Or is he the biggest tool of Wall Street of all time, raking in mega bucks??

Gotta love the Freudian slip of that misspelling, no? Oh, and who is
Frank Dodd?

John DeTombe said...

Jay Retread said...

We now have a system that is almost wholly shaped by large campaign contributions.


This is a direct result of 'progressive taxation'. The rich have the most skin in the game since they pay the vast majority of taxes.

What incentive does the non-income tax paying populace have to pay attention to politics?

With nearly half of the working populace paying no income taxes at all, what incentive is there for politicians to listen to them? The politicians will pay attention to those that spend their money to elect them, and since the policies of progressive taxation make the rich shoulder the majority of the burden, they are the group that has the most to lose.

Want to get rid of the influence of the rich in politics you must take away their incentives. To whit, tax everyone at the same rate (flat % income tax on all earners), and restrict the power of the government to influence business outcomes (crony capitalism, regulatory capture, etc).

Until these steps are taken, the rich have the most skin in the game, thus spend their money, thus the politicians bend to their wishes.

Jay said...

Jay Retread said...
So,

Jay and others, what is it?

Is Obama reigning in Wall Street with Frank Dodd?


You're the one who brought it up and said is sucked.

So why don't you tell us with facts?

Note: the White House & media told us Dodd-Frank was a sweeping reform of Wall Street.

Sweeping.

Jay said...

Though it is interesting to see an Obama voter trash one of his biggest legislative achievements.

It is also interesting to watch said Obama voter not the failure of massive, complex, and ineffective legislation only to bemoan that there isn't more government.

Howard said...

Listened to Terry Gross' breathless interview with Jane Mayer on Fresh Air today. What dreck. Quite unintentionally, his girl-fans make Obama sound like the out of touch, cold, incompetent politician he has proven himself to be.

Jay: if you are correct that Obama loses this November, he only has himself to blame. America does not want to elect a creepily robotic Mormonchurian Candidate. However, Obama is making every mistake to hand it to Romney.

The Dems are up to their eyeballs in dirty money just like the Reps. Hell, many of the big-time wall street scumbags are democrats.

Mayer inadvertently points out how Obama completely miss-played the CU decision. First, he pretended to claim the high-ground. Once he started listening to his advisers, he scrambled for the handfuls of sweaty money remaining on the sidelines. His failure to stroke the donors is his monumental vanity so he can tell himself that he is above it all.

Jay Retread said...

Amartel wrote "Just so, old sort, just so.
[Twirls mustache, whacks poor person on the head with shiny solid gold walking stick, grins in evil corporate businessy manner.]"

I don't think any of you here are "evil rich people." Far from it. I think you are just tools that that have had your brains deformed by Rush Limbaugh.

The Republican Party that is coming to dominate our political system is not going to deliver limited, smaller government.

But lets wait and see. I suspect that I will at least get the enjoyment to see the looks on your faces when you come to realize you have been "had."

Jay Retread said...

Jay, what makes you think I am an Obama voter?

Frank Dodd was designed to give the appearance of massive sweeping reform. No such thing happened. Hence, Obama and other Democrats can still try to get their money. And for now they will still have some success. But I predict those days are coming to an end.

Wall Street needs Dems less and less.

Jay Retread said...

BTW, has there ever been a candidate that looked more like Wall Street than Mitt Romney?

Life is truly stranger than fiction.

The Crack Emcee said...

Howard,

"A creepily robotic Mormonchurian Candidate."

Great minds think alike,...

chickelit said...

lemondog said...
BTW, does hanging with the Hollywood set not count as schmoozing?

I doubt he sought that money--it sought him. He loves that.

Jay Retread said...

You hags here at Althouse know deep down that the "competition" between the Wall Street Republicans and the Wall Street Democrats is phony.

But you play along anyways.

furious_a said...

Good God, how did he get this far?

Affirmative Action, followed by the Cook County Machine, followed by more Affirmative Action.

chickelit said...

Jay Retread insults: You hags here at Althouse know deep down that the "competition" between the Wall Street Republicans and the Wall Street Democrats is phony.

So if some hero could just crash or otherwise occupy Wall Street we all would be better off?

You need to distinguish yourself from anarchists.

Amartel said...

Great, Jay Retread. Just what we need around here. Another* holier-than-thou preachy scold who's constantly lecturing everybody about his unique gift of foresight and wisdom. Because Romney, gasp, loooooks like a baaaaanker. OMG!!! The scales have been lifted from my eyes, the clouds have parted, only now can I SEE that the Republican Party establishment is a less messianic but equally bumbling and entirely self-interested bunch of jagoffs.

*Maybe the two of you can get together and form a cult.

furious_a said...

This obviously gives the Republican party an over-whelming advantage.

Hogwash -- Trial Bar, Hollywood, Unions. And Taxpayers, where compulsory union dues are laundered through taxpayer-funded wages and salaries into contributions to Democratic candidates.

Paul said...

"This obviously gives the Republican party an over-whelming advantage."

Yeah the fact that almost the entire media is shilling for the Democrats is such an insignificant factor.

traditionalguy said...

Obama thinks all money is his for what he wants to spend it on be it reelection, redistribution, Windmill Farms. and Death Panels.

The Crony angle in current financial areas is the monopoly Obama is using to make that come true.

No business has mega borrowing power other than friends of Obama.

OTHER than a few private capitalists in rebellion that he keeps sending horses heads into their bedrooms.

Where do you think Occupy Wall Street comes from. It's not a grass roots operation. It's ChiTown Brown Shirts.

kcom said...

"Surely you were here decrying Obama for rejecting public funding after he had promised not to."

But the Republicans made him do it. Never forget that.

In becoming the first major party candidate to reject public financing and its attendant spending limits, Mr. Obama contended that the public financing apparatus was broken and that his Republican opponents were masters at “gaming” the system and would spend “millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations” smearing him.

furious_a said...

The difference is that the Republicans are happy to do so while for the Democrats it has distorted them, separated them from its base and now has made them irrelevant.

Please, G-d, not another $38,500plate fundraiser! Make it STOP!

Carnifex said...

I agree with Jay retread if you can fathom that. There is not a whiskers worth of difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Both are made up of money grubbing media whores.

But there is one, count 'em (1), difference between the parties. The Republicans have the Tea Party trying to reform them. Democrats just have anarchists and socialists.

So, my question to you Jay Retread, what Tea Party candidate are you going to support this election? Or will you vote Democrat again hoping that they will change just because? Or not vote at all?

Show the money machine you aren't for sale, Jay! Vote Tea! You know it's the right thing to do.

Ps.

The R's are dividing into 2 parties. The "moderates", and the conservatives(the Tea Party). That will be your choices afterwards. America is not a leftist country. Not yet at least. Not ever, I hope.

The thing is Jay, the Tea Party is still in a state of flux. You can join and influence it if you wish. Make it softer on social issues, harder on monetary(the stance the neocons bragged about but never succeeded in achieving). But really, it's up to you big guy.

Maguro said...

You hags here at Althouse know deep down that the "competition" between the Wall Street Republicans and the Wall Street Democrats is phony.

But you play along anyways.


If they're both more or less the same, I guess your 300 word screed at the top of the page about the evil, rich Republicans oppressing the poor, innocent Democrats with their filthy, ill-gotten campaign contributions was all wrong.

Shocking.


Jay Retread said...

You mean corporate owned media shrills for corporate owned Democrats and corporate owned Republicans.

furious_a said...

Retread: has there ever been a candidate that looked more like Wall Street than Mitt Romney?

Now that you mention it, yes there has.

You're a target-rich environment, Jay Retread.

Eric said...

[T]he claim is that whereas billionaires who support Romney are greedy and selfish, those who back Obama are altruistic — or, to the extent they have a selfish motive, it is a relatively benign one, a simple desire to be in the presence of the Dear Leader.

Yeah... I'm sure that's why Goldman ponied up so much cash.

Roadkill said...

Howard said "Obama is making every mistake to hand it to Romney."

Concur. And there have been a hell of a lot of mistakes in the last 4 years.

Right is right! said...

I hope the Democrat-communist Party is outlawed for being the traitors they are. As some one has pointed out the Tea Party should replace the Dems as the second party. If God still blesses American then the Tea Party will become the ruling party.

Eric said...

Hell, many of the big-time wall street scumbags are democrats.

Name one that isn't.

And by the way, how is it Corzine is still a free man?

furious_a said...

Retread: Whether it is the direct voter suppression of Democratic voting demographics...

...because certain demographics need all the help they can get.

wef said...

Jane Mayer is such an industrial-strength, power-worshiping lewinsky - makes your skin crawl sometimes.

But as to writing an interminable article, .... well, I refuse to go to the lickspittles at the nyorker, so... well, didn't it, sortof, finally terminate? Fizzle out, perhaps?

Jay Retread said...

Furious_a
You are making my point again. Both parties look like Wall Street.

For that reason, I don't resale care that the Democratic Party will fail after this election loss.

People will finally see that we are really a one party state and have been so for many years.

AprilApple said...

Comcast Disney NBC ABC CBS Hollywood Costco.. there's more.

I'm thinking of big corporations that give money to Obama.

Chip Ahoy said...

That locution, millionairesandbillionaires, I am instantly dismayed whenever I encounter it. It's like a mist of dismay spssssst right at the phrase. The phrase comes with a spray of dismay. It says, along with other things it doesn't intend to say, "someone else did my thinking here."

Synova said...

Wow.

How embarrassing for Jane Mayer.

Howard said...

Eric

1: Paulson
2: Because we live in the United States of Goldman Sachs.

Synova said...

"The Republican Party that is coming to dominate our political system is not going to deliver limited, smaller government."

Maybe not. But the Democrats don't even pretend to want smaller government. We've at least a *chance* of making some progress in the direction of holding government back by voting for those who would like to get the votes of the Tea Party and libertarian social moderates.

Will it work that way? We can *try*.

Would we get what we want from the Democrats?

You get the choices you've got, not the choices you want. The important thing isn't that the Republicans need to be brought into line, it's that the alternative doesn't even pretend to offer that possibility.

furious_a said...

Retread: I would add the continuing consolidation of media under corporate control and gerrymandering...

Yes, because the xNBCs and the corporate parents of CBS', and ABC are so deep in the tank for the RNC.

"I would add" that your unsupported assertions can't withstand the least scrutiny.

furious_a said...

Here's Jane Mayer's piece in the New Yorker, and here is Taranto's deconstruction of it.

America's Politico said...

I just finished, Obama's last stand (ebook from Politico). It is brutal, the man has so much hatred towards Romney, it is incredible. There is no hope or change. I cannot believe I spent the entire summer in Madison in 2008 working for him and Biden, who I did not vet nor did the media.

BUT, GOP is no better. The Atkins, The Qualyes, etc. are really there to hurt.

There needs to be two wings of the GOP. The smart wing (made of people like Romney) and stupid wing (made of people like Santorum, Newt, Atkin, etc.).

GOP will lose this year. Perhaps, it will be 2016 or 2020.

BUT, the Obama hatred, the media love for him, etc. will be brutal.

DO you know Paul Begala runs the PAC against Romney (according to this book), but also comments on GOP race on CNN.

Is this possible? How? Is Howard Kurtz from CNN with his flawed Reliable Sources not realizing?

Revenant said...

The Republican Party [...] is not going to deliver limited, smaller government.

Smaller and limited, no. Smaller and limited compared to what we'll end up with under Democratic governance, yes. 2009 and 2010 showed us that much.

Anyway, one enemy at a time.

Synova said...

"It's a leftist cliché that money corrupts politics. These leftists, however, believe that their politics somehow purifies money--that writing a check to Obama for America is an act of moral money-laundering."

This is also a primary belief related to research and everything else. Government money is pure, so those working for government are never corrupted by that money, even when they have to produce particular results or aim their research in particular directions to get it.

YoungHegelian said...

Mayer's assumption that the wealthy class have a vested financial interest in Republican policies but only altruistic interest in Democratic policies is right out of the crudest marxist agit-prop and has no relation to economic reality. To give a basic example, a financial services company could make a killing building a carbon offsets market on top of a government carbon tax, while for a gas-drilling firm, the same tax regimen is a recipe for disaster. The rich compete against other rich people. That's where the money is! Just like companies compete against other companies.

I can't understand how arguments like this that have no basis in empirical reality get published over & over. There are lots of poor & lower middle class people that vote Republican (just look at the South). While folks who have between 1 & 15 Million dollars tend to be fairly solidly Republican, over $15M the D/R split is no different than the general public. I guess because over 15M, you just have so much "fuck-you" money that you don't care how much taxes you pay.

Once again, I ask, how do you get published when you're just so wrong? Couldn't someone have edited out the moralistic Democratic nonsense and just have gone with how Obama hates schmoozing?

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Big money pays only to have a place at the table. It is simply that. The richest have decided Obama is toast and therefore are not giving like they did in '08. It's not really complicated.

Chip Ahoy said...

Taranto is awesome in writing, less so in interviews. When I see him I think, "you're the guy who writes like that?" He's a bit tricky and sometimes I have to look things up. He makes odd connections that remind me of crossword puzzles. You know how they reach, but the rule is, reach as far as you like but stay valid.

Chip Ahoy said...

Similar to that elevation exercise. Everybody drives away thought and concentrates on a mantra, the mantra of counting like a march from 1 to ten to 1 then lift, it's practiced, the liftee planks and up he goes uplifted on fingers. For as long as they sustain it.

And then they stop lifting.

Chip Ahoy said...

I tell you when they lifted him up last time it was impressive. A steady stream of helicopters, back and forth, big ones, little ones, military, civilian, I never saw so many helicopters in one place and I lived on AF bases, they totally outdid the touch-and-go exercises at Barksdale. It was amazing. The stadium is nearby, and that got a lot of it, but honestly, I have no idea where they were all landing. If it was a shuttle services or what. It was like a salmon run. Frenetic.

I wonder if that'll happen now or if it happens in Tampa. A steady stream of helicopters.

Quaestor said...

Jay Retread wrote (seeding the post-November "we got robbed" Democrat bleat):
Whether it is the direct voter suppression of Democratic voting demographics...

By this he means person unwilling to identify themselves by the means common to nearly every important transaction we as citizens, businessmen, salary earners, wage earners, Social Security recipients routinely submit to... in other words criminals intending to defraud the electoral system for money or other considerations, i.e. the natural constituency of the Democratic Party.

[Or] undermining institutions (unions being a major one) that the party relies on...

Unions meaning the SEIU, AFGE and NEA, all living high on the hog at taxpayers' expense. UMWA? Never heard of them.

I predict that with the coming Obama loss the next few years it will become glaring apparent that we have drifted into being a one party state. It will be interesting to see what the ramifications of that change will bring.

Blithely ignoring the fact that we were a "one-party state" from January, 2009 to January, 2011 -- and hailed as such by many a gleeful pundit.

Synova said...

"UMWA? Never heard of them."

Oh, oh! I have!

On account of I've read _1632_ by Eric Flint.

yashu said...

I can't understand how arguments like this that have no basis in empirical reality get published over & over.

It's amazing and amusing to see ostensibly intelligent people engage in the most absurd, primitive, magical, cargo cult thinking when they theorize about politics. And I'm not talking about deep, complex, incomprehensible political phenomena, but the most ordinary political phenomena, apparent to anyone (you'd think) who's moderately informed.

This kind of thinking goes on across the political spectrum, but I find it especially prevalent (or maybe just especially amusing) among the liberal bien pensant elite. Liberal "intellectual" pundits' explanations of political phenomena have all the perspicacity of Akin's theory of rape sperm repelling vaginas.

For example, a few days ago, I came across this tidbit:

Today’s New York Times Book Review features an interview with NPR’s Ira Glass, who was asked, “What’s the one book you wish someone else would write?” He gave the following answer:

“Could someone please write a book explaining why the Democratic Party and its allies are so much less effective at crafting a message and having a vision than their Republican counterparts? … I remember reading in The Times that as soon as Obama won, the Republicans were scheming about how they’d turn it around for the next election, and came up with the plan that won them the House, and wondered, did the House Dems even hold a similar meeting?”


LOL

Pogo said...

""In an interminable article on the president's fund-raising problems, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer...."


All articles in the New Yorker are interminable.

It's a rule.

Original Mike said...

"Unlike Republicans, they have no business interest being furthered by the donation — they just like to be involved. So it makes them more needy. It's like, 'If you're not going to deregulate my industry, or lower my taxes, can't I at least get a picture?'"

I want to sell this person my share of the Brooklyn Bridge.

Kirk Parker said...

"you are just tools that that have had your brains deformed by Rush Limbaugh."

That's exactly what happened to me. I was a pretty normal lefty, hold all the right positions, and so forth, and then one day I accidentally heard a bit of Rush's monologue and--bam!--it all fell apart and right-wing thoughts grabbed hold of my mind.

It's really a terrible tragedy, though I have no idea what to do about it now...

Kirk Parker said...

"All articles in the New Yorker are interminable."

I only read it for the cartoons.

ampersand said...

Penny Pritzker packs her parlor with pickled plutocrats aplenty.
How many pickled plutocrats pockets did the present president pick?

Eric said...

The Republican Party that is coming to dominate our political system is not going to deliver limited, smaller government.

That's the real fight this election, and it's not over yet. Of course there's no functional difference between big government Republicans and Democrats.

yashu said...

Of course there's no functional difference between big government Republicans and Democrats.

Except big gov Republicans can occasionally be shamed... or more accurately, threatened (and sometimes ousted) by a tough primary challenger.

Big gov Republicans voted against Obamacare, and will most likely vote for its repeal.

yashu said...

By the way, I don't accept the premise that "Wall Street" per se and in general is the enemy, the antagonist to "Main Street" in a zero sum game. That doesn't make any sense.

Matthew Sablan said...

So... in 2008, Obama was a schmoozer par excellance, and now, he has gained an aversion to it?

Man. He's changed -a lot- since becoming president!

Rusty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...


Surely the UAW got a good return on their investment.