Althouse: "The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is..."

April 28, 2014

"The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is..."

"... that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be [Hillary] Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation."

52 comments:

Revenant said...: That Wall Street loves crooked insiders from both parties is no secret, "dark" or otherwise.; 4/28/14, 5:32 PM
David said...: What about her career suggests to them that she has actual principles?

I have watched this woman for over 30 years and don't know what she actually believes. She believes what she needs to believe, and does what she can get away with. She is also just as smart as and considerably more ruthless than this so called elite. She will protect their interests to the extent that protection furthers her interests, and no more.

Once she is elected President, how will she define her self interest (other than re-election?) She will have a very exalted sense of her own importance if she becomes President. That can lead to all kinds of nonsense.; 4/28/14, 5:35 PM
Illuninati said...: This article is no surprise. The base of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party is the middle class. They appeal work to better the lives of common working people. The Democrat party is the party of the very rich who exploit the very poor while they screw the middle class. The big money in the Republican Party is apparently not much more principled than the Democrat plutocrats and will switch their loyalty to the Democrats if the Republican party addresses the needs of the middle class.; 4/28/14, 5:38 PM
n.n said...: Oddly enough, it has been Democrats, in the majority, who have been caught with their hand in the public and private "cookie jar". It has been Democrat policies which inflated the bubble economics, locally, nationally, and globally, and sponsored a progressive corruption of markets. I would not presume to ignore exceptional corruption, but credit must given where it is due.

As for Clinton, she should enjoy the inspiration of Creation with her first grandchild. Perhaps she will experience an epiphany, and will be worth considering in a decade or so.; 4/28/14, 5:39 PM
Michael K said...: Only Politico could call Hillary "moderate." I can believe the "Republican coastal elite" is sucking up to her as they cannot imagine a real Republican beating her. That's what the Tea Party was formed to oppose.; 4/28/14, 5:41 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: How is that a dark secret? Hillary's almost certainly more moderate personally that Pres. Obama, and the Clintons are firmly ensconced in the pan-political world of the big $ elite. Coastal Repubs aren't as sensitive to the sickening and ridiculous media push that will assuredly accompany another Clinton campaign. Even they have to worry about a Supreme Court nomination or two, though...; 4/28/14, 5:48 PM
JackWayne said...: What a ho-hum blog post. You need to step up the shock factor by a truck-load of magnitudes.; 4/28/14, 5:50 PM
wildswan said...: They used to call them "country-club Republicans". Nothing changes except the names.; 4/28/14, 5:51 PM
James Pawlak said...: What were they smoking (Or, blowing up their noses)?

She should "set a (sex)life" and not push her incompetence further into our lives.; 4/28/14, 5:57 PM
Anonymous said...: That is why Republican leaders cave to Obamacare and immigration: to suppress Republican voters turn out, and may be get rid of Cruz with the influx of Hispanic Democrats in Texas.

Democrats are Republican leaders' opponents, conservatives are their enemies.; 4/28/14, 5:58 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: I've got some news for the folks at Politico. If you're for Hillary, you're not a Republican.; 4/28/14, 6:01 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Republican Coastal Elite would be the Bush Dynasty of Connecticut.; 4/28/14, 6:09 PM
Anonymous said...: The ONLY thing I liked about that article was the phrase: Republican Coastal Elite.

I am personally pulling for Susana Martinez (R, NM) to win her re-election as governor of NM this November and win it BIG.
She appears to be VERY competent at governing, actually LOVES the USA, would beat the bejeebus out of Hillary and is not a member of the Republican Coastal Elite.; 4/28/14, 6:15 PM
Unknown said...: Moderate views on taxation? Please.; 4/28/14, 6:16 PM
Anonymous said...: How does one get in with the 'Republican Coastal Elite' anyways?

For years I've beggared the streets of Greenwich and Westchester, looking to mingle with old-money WASPs and ascotted bluebloods to maybe talk about Federer's backhand or something.

Young Republican conventions, Off Wall Street pubs, yacht clubs, the Senior PGA, foxhunting expeditions....

What am I doing wrong?; 4/28/14, 6:28 PM
Titus said...: I love anything termed coastal elite. It is such a nice separation between the flyovers.

tits.; 4/28/14, 6:29 PM
Meade said...: "What am I doing wrong?"

chris, Titus. Titus, chris.; 4/28/14, 6:31 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not sure Titus is what I meant...

No offense buddy.

Keep livin' that fab life.; 4/28/14, 6:40 PM
Chef Mojo said...: That there was some funny shit.

Wall Street has no scruples, and neither does Hillary. The mutual attraction is no surprise. Wall Street has long ceased being an extended arm of the Republican Party. Nothing terrifies them more - both of them - than the Tea Party wing of the GOP gaining more traction.

See, they know Hillary can be bought; that she'll deal, just like Obama has. Party affiliation is no longer meaningful with Wall Street. Only the deal.; 4/28/14, 6:56 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: I think some other posters hit it on the nose. The Dems have long been the party of the very right buying the votes of the very poor with publicly supplied benefits, and expect to get special benefits as a result. In short, they are the party of Crony Capitalism. And, rich Republicans are probably almost as interested in Crony Capitalism, and getting special benefits, privileges, and advantages, through influence buying as are Democrats. Money is money, and if you can make a lot more through essentially bribing politicians to tilt the playing field in your direction, it is just good business. The money sloshing around DC these days is frankly obscene, with one company (Google) allegedly spending close to $10 million a month.

Of course, the middle class doesn't have the money to buy politicians, and so is more interested in clean government and an even playing field. They are the ones who are hurt by Crony Capitalism, and pay for the goodies that the Dems supply the poor for their votes.

Hillary!, of course, has shown herself, probably even more than her husband, willing and able to play the game of Crony Capitalism and trading influence for money. In the 14 or so years since moving out of the White House, they have become centimillionaires (apparently, their VP, AlGore, is even better at playing the game). Rich Republicans, just like rich Democrats, know that the government would be open for business, trading special deals and treatment for wads of cash, if Hillary! wins the White House (her supposed replacement, if she doesn't run or make it, Fauxhauntis Warren, is almost as good at this as Hillary!).; 4/28/14, 7:15 PM
Bob R said...: From a libertarian perspective, divided government is our friend. The crippled Clinton administration had the smallest government growth since Reagan.

The danger of Hillary is the SCOTUS. Another bunch of baby boomer liberals on the court could be awful. The law prof left is no friend of the constitution - or any part of the country but the narrow class that they represent.; 4/28/14, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Another take is that there is a natural tendency towards mercantilism, or economic nationalism in which a few winners emerge.

More akin to Hamilton's vision rather than Jefferson's.

The progs will attach themselves to any host, and the dangers of majortiarianism and mob politics and all the trouble they have with individual liberty are on clear display.

Cronyism is kind of a good outcome for them.

Jeffersonian liberalism isn't a bad retort to the natural mercantilist tendencies. After all, there were some loyalists and folks doing well enough in pre-Revolution in America to not want to rock the boat.

Some of them fled to Canada.; 4/28/14, 7:33 PM
somefeller said...: It's always fun to watch the subset of conservatives who turn into big class warriors when they see more well-heeled people turning away from them. Well, at least among the subset of conservatives with no class. Or no thoughtful class analysis.; 4/28/14, 7:35 PM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: "From a libertarian perspective, divided government is our friend. The crippled Clinton administration had the smallest government growth since Reagan. "

Oh, the yawning chasm of decades between!; 4/28/14, 7:44 PM
Carl Pham said...: “If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer...

Uh huh. A Republican-"leaning" Wall Street lawyer? Sounds a lot like those "life-long Republicans" quoted on the TV news about how the party has just become so racist these days...who turn out to be SIEU officials or people who, tee hee, donated $12,000 last year to MoveOn.org candidates.

I also love the setup: if nobody you like can win the Republican nomination, would you prefer a known banality like HRC or...Attila the Hun, R-Tx? What about Grendel? Or someone with PTSD, a twitchy eye, and a garage full of AR-15s? OMFG! Really? Republican "leaning" moneybags prefer Democrats! Film at 11.

Suuuure. I think the assumption of the modern media is that it is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of the typical news junkie. Of course, the evidence does suggest that that is entirely correct.; 4/28/14, 8:40 PM
Phil 314 said...: Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent

So how many of the two dozen were financial executives, how many were lobbyist and how many were GOP donors? And what was the definition of "GOP donor"? Someone who's given money to a GOP candidate (whether or not they've also given money to Democratic candidates.

Is it really surprising that businesses hate uncertainty, whether from the left or right. Likewise, since they're the easy target regardless of party, is it any wonder they like the candidate who won't rock their boat.; 4/28/14, 9:05 PM
Jay Vogt said...: . . . chrisnavin.com said...How does one get in with the 'Republican Coastal Elite' anyways?

For years I've beggared the streets of Greenwich and Westchester, looking to mingle witht old-money WASPs and ascotted bluebloods to maybe talk about Federer's backhand or something.

Young Republican conventions, Off Wall Street pubs, yacht clubs, the Senior PGA, foxhunting expeditions....

What am I doing wrong?

Ha! Try the Signature Flight Support terminal at HPN. Oh, and one must never "beggar"; 4/28/14, 9:55 PM
Unknown said...: OWS had a point.

They just had the wrong solution. They wanted to make government bigger to reduce Wall Street's power.

This shows that Big Government and Big Wall Street are friends and answer is to make government smaller.; 4/28/14, 10:13 PM
gadfly said...: Politico has done it again. We have an entire article complete with quotations and not a single direct attribution to a real Republican Wall Streeter. I am convinced that this is the style of progressive Politico reporting - make it up as you go.

It is really hard to swallow that Republicans on the Street are so stupid that they believe their party was responsible for the government "non-shutdown" last year that crippled only the few agencies who serviced walk-around citizens.

And it is equally stupid to believe that these same Republicans don't understand that Hillary can only be trusted to look after Hillary.; 4/28/14, 10:34 PM
Guildofcannonballs said...: Teh darkest secret is that you can never know.

You can't.

Teh knowing and canning are teh twain not meeting.; 4/28/14, 11:41 PM
mccullough said...: Wall Street people seem apolitical. They've owned both parties for the last 30 years.; 4/29/14, 12:11 AM
Anonymous said...: These are the reasons why the tea party was started. Because the Republicans are in bed with the liberal media just as much as the Democrats.

Does anyone believe this is a real story? Instead, it's a planted story meant to send the message, "Elect who we want, or else."

I hear all the time from the moderate Republicans, "If your tea party candidate loses, will you support the moderate?" and duh, over and over again, we support the Mitt Romney's and the John McCains.

But do they support the Tea Party candidate if he wins?

Of course not.

It's time for the right in this country to stand on principle and stop electing liberal Republicans because our betters told us to.; 4/29/14, 12:24 AM
rcommal said...: Ted Cruz v. Elizabeth Warren.

Now, there's thought experiment.; 4/29/14, 12:29 AM
hombre said...: Regardless of registration the oligarchs of Wall Street are non-partisan. They are also amoral. A perfect fit with Hillary and most of the ruling class.; 4/29/14, 12:41 AM
Illuninati said...: somefeller said...
"It's always fun to watch the subset of conservatives who turn into big class warriors when they see more well-heeled people turning away from them."

You have apparently misunderstood the Tea Party argument. Tea party conservatives have no problem with fabulous wealth honestly earned. They oppose people who use Crony Capitalism to advance their wealth through government intervention rather than through fair competition in the open market.; 4/29/14, 3:53 AM
Jaq said...: I would rather see a straight up Warren v Cruz battle royale for the future of our democracy than another kick the can down the road election between Hillary and Jeb.; 4/29/14, 6:13 AM
Brando said...: I wouldn't be too surprised by this--the big money men are more concerned with protecting what's theirs than with any conservative (or liberal) principles. And who better to reflect that than a woman who would sell out anything for her own advancement? Her reaction to her husband's many "bimbo eruptions" was the perfect demonstration that she can be bought.

I don't think her or her husband were ever liberals for anything more than convenience. They've managed to sell out their "side" on pretty much every occasion--welfare, gay rights, capital gains taxes, war--they've only stayed true to the abortion lobby because they hadn't yet seen any profit in selling them out yet.; 4/29/14, 6:30 AM
Bob R said...: "Oh, the yawning chasm of decades between!" Not just between, but since. In particular, during the W years, a red-all-over government spent like drunken sailors.; 4/29/14, 6:32 AM
tim maguire said...: Seems more like Hillary's darkest secret to me.

(In truth, it's the Democratic Party's darkest secret that they are the party of giant corporations and the super rich, wheeling out the class war rhetoric only around election time to get the rubes to the polls.); 4/29/14, 7:00 AM
damikesc said...: So, basically, fuck both parties. Let the whole damned country burn. It isn't worth saving any longer.; 4/29/14, 8:15 AM
RecChief said...: The big money in the Republican Party is apparently not much more principled than the Democrat plutocrats and will switch their loyalty to the Democrats if the Republican party addresses the needs of the middle class.

You're thinking of it in the wrong historical context. Look up Boyars in Russia, French Aristocracy in the decades prior to 1789, Soviet Politburo members, etc.

I think the Soviet example is on the mark: Party apparatchiks from one power center or another squabbling with other power centers to maintain and enlarge their own power, while the peasants are fed propaganda about "progress". I've come to the realization that, once they actually get to DC, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Although, with all the hoopla surrounding Jeb Bush running, and Chelsea's pregnancy, there are elements of a European dynastic system.; 4/29/14, 8:53 AM
Illuninati said...: RecChief said...

"I've come to the realization that, once they actually get to DC, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between Republicans and Democrats."

I'm not that fatalistic. The fact that some wealthy Republican donors, who are into the Washington corruption, are talking about switching to the Democrats shows that the Tea Party candidates are beginning to bite. Now is not the time to give up.; 4/29/14, 10:25 AM
RecChief said...: "Now is not the time to give up."

Who said anything about giving up? but you have to recognize who the opponent is in order to keep from getting stabbed in the back (Republicans are pushing Amnesty at the moment, and "reform" rather than repeal of Obamacare is being hinted at)

the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party

Please don't align me with the Republican party.; 4/29/14, 11:11 AM
Mitch H. said...: "Republican Coastal Elites", but the only person named in the article is a Goldman Sachs parasite, the firm which the Democrats have been using as a plutocratic farm team for the last two decades, with the occasional Hank Paulson thrown in to steady the waters in Republican administrations, and keep the capitalism cronied.

But hey, somefeller, go ahead and bite at that Clintonite dangle. Prove that you have no principles whatsoever, and will willingly let the corporatist scum shit all over you, the country, and the future if they will only leave that (D) brand on the placard out front.

Robert Cook may have lunatic principles, but at least he has them. You're just up for sale.

Seriously, though. The big-bucks Wall Street crowd is scared that the Tea Party will take the Republicans free-market and populist instead of pro-business and business-as-usual. Pro-business is their whole bag, and business-as-usual is the feed trough open for dinner. Free-market and populist potentially means a more-leveled playing table, and smaller government means fewer levers to tilt the table their way. Wall Street, after all, is where "regulatory capture" was perfected. Regulate the hell out of them! It just gives them more regulators to co-opt and put to good use stacking the deck against anyone likely to disrupt their big, happy Manhattan family.

Cynically speaking, I think they're jumping at shadows. Populist politicians are too easily co-opted or side-lined. Rauch's Government's End really depressed the hell out of me. It's real fall-of-the-Roman-Empire Toybneean fatalistic concern-porn.; 4/29/14, 11:13 AM
Rusty said...: The fact that some wealthy Republican donors, who are into the Washington corruption, are talking about switching to the Democrats shows that the Tea Party candidates are beginning to bite. Now is not the time to give up.

Yep. Now is the time to up the pressure.; 4/29/14, 11:22 AM
n.n said...: Illuninati:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. The Party members who do not represent Party principles need to consider more suitable accommodations. The Democrat Party is perfect for anyone with a "burden" to sacrifice.; 4/29/14, 12:09 PM
Strelnikov said...: Exactly what I would expect Politico to say.

Also, NBC/CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC etc. etc. ad nauseum.; 4/29/14, 1:29 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: n.n said Oddly enough, it has been Democrats, in the majority, who have been caught with their hand in the public and private "cookie jar".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Democrats, Republicans, ...ANYBODY to whom you delegate power and neglect to supervise.

How about keeping the power closer to home where it's easier to supervise? Might work for ya.; 4/29/14, 6:20 PM
rcommal said...: Get it done, guys! Seriously: Get. It. Done.

Those for Warren: Go. All. Out.

Those for Cruz: Go. All. Out.

Both: Do. It. Now.; 4/29/14, 9:56 PM
rcommal said...: I'm thinking of starting a crusade.

And here's my crusade:

Warren vs. Cruz, 2016.

I'm going to start promoting that.

That contest would be a useful thing.

I'm for that. Let's do it! I hope it happens: Clarification is long overdue.; 4/29/14, 10:07 PM
rcommal said...: Stark-choicers: Step up! If you do, I will support you in your endeavor.

Warren vs. Cruz, 2016.; 4/29/14, 10:45 PM
rcommal said...: Stark-choicers:

Stand up and follow through. Unite among yourselves--if that's possible--and make sure that there is a stark choice, that stark choice that will make reality clear.

I'm all for clarification. Clarification is long overdue.

I'm looking at YOU, partisans. Put your partisanship to the test. Be willing to put that to the test.

Pick a side, and go for it: Surely you have have the balls (on account of being so sure about everything) to do that.

Warren vs. Cruz, 2016.; 4/30/14, 12:09 AM