Is it just me, or does the push for Hillary seem to be starting in earnest? Political Punch, ABC News:
The group of private-sector business leaders advising President Obama on how to create jobs and grow the economy is full of deep-pocket Democratic donors and high-profile financiers of Obama’s re-election campaign, a review of Federal Election Commission data shows.
At least 10 members of the Obama-appointed Council on Jobs and Competitiveness gave the legal maximum contribution — $4,600 — to help get Obama elected in 2008, and they continue to write checks for the president in 2012. Several also serve as Obama campaign bundlers, top fundraisers who collect millions of dollars from their networks of well-to-do colleagues and friends to aid his re-election bid.
The bundlers — Mark Gallogy, co-founder of investment firm Centerbridge Partners, Penny Prtizker, president and CEO of Pritzker Realty Group, and Robert Wolf, chairman of UBS Americas — have raised as much as $2.7 million for Obama in 2008 and 2012 combined, according to estimates provided by the Obama campaign.
Pritzker served as the Obama presidential campaign’s national finance chairwoman in 2008 and co-chair of the Obama inaugural committee in 2009. Wolf is an occasional Obama golf partner and most recently played golf with the president during his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.
Other members of the council who have personally padded Obama’s election coffers include Xerox Corporation CEO Ursula Burns, TIAA-CREF CEO Roger Ferguson, MIT/Harvard Broad Institute director Eric Lander, Citigroup chairman Richard Parsons, Hooven-Dayton Corp. CEO Christopher Che, UC Berkeley professor Laura D’Andrea Tyson, attorney and Amazon.com/Google board member John Doerr, and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg.
Sandberg hosted an exclusive, star-studded fundraiser for Obama at her Palo Alto, Calif., home Sept. 25 that netted at least $2.5 million for the 2012 campaign.
What do the TEA Partiers and the Occupy Wall Street crowd have in common? A distrust of, and a distaste for, crony capitalism. Which way they veer — conservatives and classical liberals want reform and an end to the permanent political class that, through its “partnerships” with business, gave us the financial meltdown; Marxists want the government fully in control of all “the wealth” and an “equitable” dispersal — might just indicated which way independents fall come the 2012 elections.
Maybe the stupid snowbilly is on to something, after all.
(h/t Drudge)
Have you ever heard the phrase evolution in action?
What do the TEA Partiers and the Occupy Wall Street crowd have in common? A distrust of, and a distaste for, crony capitalism.
This is a point that’s been bugging me ever since I got back from vacation to find wall-to-wall coverage of OWS. The media narrative is that the Owwies stand in contrast to the TEA Party. This isn’t surprising, given that this is the narrative being promoted by the Machine that set up and pays for the protests. But it doesn’t really make sense if you spend any time looking under the surface messaging.
Setting aside for the moment the fact that the dirty hippies are protesting against everything under the sun — if you look at the central complaint they’re making, it’s about Big Business getting bailouts from the Strong Central Government, while 99% of us get saddled with the bill. This is a complaint that I’m totally down with, and I’d be happy to stand with these dirty losers if they’d just stop and think for a minute (and maybe take a bath): the solution to a government entirely captured by Big Finance and Big Business is not to increase the size and power of the corrupted government.
God help them if the rabble ever wrap their addled brains around that idea.
{Occupy San Diego spokesperson} Katt also released a statement in which the group expressed regret for the death, asserting, “Any loss of life is tragic.”
The crowd hanging the ‘bankster’ in effigy was unavailable for comment.
No.
TEA Party: Stop spending our money on bailouts!
OWS: Gimme a bailout too!
Their question, whether they know it or not, is: will we ever free ourselves of our own ignorant enslavement? For the most part, expectations cannot be high, to the extent that they’ve clearly already rejected the best answers given to a path out of the problem.
Looking at those signs it seems they’re mainly protesting against adulthood and Big Student Lenders.
Not sure what that has to do with Wall Street.
Politics in Ukraine.
Obversely related.
@#1:
#OccupyWallStreet – think of them as devolution in action.
For the OWieS teh cure for abnormally intertwined corporations and government is more government. For the Tea partiers it is less government.
So the OWieS have the insanity angle pretty well locked down.
#1 From your link:
“It isn’t just a nameless face,” said Rick Halsey, who attended the vigil. “It’s somebody that meant something to somebody and means something to all of us.”
That is the deep and lasting policy thoughts I expect to result from the entire Occupy Wherever movement.
Di’s comment distills the difference between the movement and the “movement” to it’s pure essence.
Nothing to this, sorry.
That’s pretty much exactly why you have these sorts of rubber-stamp councils: you reward influential (read: big $$ donors) and influencers, who are people that are smart, influential and capable of using the perch to implement POTUS friendly policy, as well as perhaps convince an on-the-fence donor or two to open the checkbook.
There is nothing especially Obama like about this as every POTUS does it. The news hook here is that any serious, capital-risking executive is willing to pound doors for him and that UBS’ Bob Wolf has a job, having built and run a unit that has taken north of $25 billion in credit losses from the crisis.
Owwwies get a visit from Tea Party fellas. Hilarity ensues.
Sweet Jesus can’t these protestors spell “Obama”?
“…Rustlers
Cut-throats
Murderers
Bounty hunters
Desperados
Mugs
Pugs
Thugs
Nitwits
Half-wits
Dimwits
Vipers
Snipers
Con-men
Indian agents
Mexican bandits
Muggers
Buggerers
Bushwhackers
Hornswogglers
Horse thieves
Bull dykes
Train robbers
Bank robbers
Ass kickers
Shit kickers
And Methodists!”
Re: #16
Double threaded.
And O’Keefe drops in for a few lulz.
Y’all know anything on this bit of confusion I have, namely, how come, in light of the impossibility of Obama’s Jobs Bill passing on its own merits, whether in terms of passage in the House as the back-up, or the political trump of its imminent failure in the Senate (there being sufficient Democrat opposition) that it can’t get 50 votes, why would the Republicans vote it down in a cloture call? Why not vote for cloture and put the opponent Democrats like Testor, Webb, Manchin, Lieberman, McCaskill, Landrieu, et al, on the hot seat? Make ’em cough up their votes, and put that vote to the test in the up-coming political season in 2012?
Otherwise, it seems to me like voting against cloture is like giving Obama’s Democrat opponents a freebie? Anyhow, I don’t get the strategic sense of filibuster here.
The modern Smoot-Hawley passed 63-35 (on final, I assume) by the way, according to the C-Span2 footer. The Senate website doesn’t have the roll posted yet, so far as I can see.