Wall Street Protesters are demanding a change to the fact that Wall Street owns all the politicians. Now Democrats want to stay as slave for Wall Street while they want to own Wall Street protesters. This is how bad is politics! I put two pieces showing this.
Democrats Seek to Own ‘Occupy Wall Street’ Movement
By ANALYSIS By RICK KLEIN— | ABC News – 44 mins ago
Elise Amendola, File – FILE – In this Oct. 5, 2011 file photo, Occupy Boston protesters gather outside a building in the Financial district in Boston. The group is part of a nationwide grassroots movement in …more support of the ongoing Wall Street protests in New York. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File) less
Occupation can lead to ownership, whether or not you want it.
The spread of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement was met with initial hesitation in both the Democratic and Republican parties. That might be an appropriate response to any protests that aim themselves squarely at the establishment, particularly those with goals that are diverse and diffuse as the current protesters’ are.
But a consensus is emerging among Democrats that the “Occupy” movement is worth tapping into, even helping along and joining with in some instances.
“I support the message to the establishment,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said on ABC’s “This Week.” “Change has to happen. We cannot continue in a way that does not — that is not relevant to their lives. People are angry.”
To Democrats eager for a liberal antidote to the Tea Party energy that lifted Republicans to power last year, the “Occupy” rallies that started in New York last month and have spread to cities nationwide are tempting to embrace.
In their broadest focus, the protesters channel the indignation Democrats are trying to stir up in the year before the presidential election. The Obama White House is seeking to rally the public for a jobs package and deficit-reduction ideas that argue for the rich and corporate America to pay more — goals the protesters largely share.
“The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works,” President Obama said last week when asked at a news conference about the “Occupy Wall Street” events.
It may be that occupiers wind up playing a role for the political left that tea partiers did for the right. But Republicans had one significant advantage in taking ownership of the Tea Party phenomenon: they were entirely out of power in Washington when the movement took root.
To occupiers, at least some of the blame for their perceived lack of accountability in corporate America rests with the current Democratic administration. A persistent liberal critique of Obama administration has been its coziness with Wall Street, and the lack of more drastic actions to repair the economy after eight years under George W. Bush.
In that sense, the protests may highlight divisions inside the Democratic Party even more than they motivate the party faithful.
The tea party faced major internal rifts — including some that almost certainly cost Republicans Senate seats last year — in its infancy. But most of those divisions have long since healed, as tea partiers work almost entirely in concert with Republicans, with the prospect of defeating Obama next year serving as a unifying influence.
The movement has some Republicans concerned — worried enough to start swinging back.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has expressed concern about the “growing mobs” that are engaged in “the pitting of Americans against Americans.”
Cantor’s condemnation of members of Congress who are rooting the protesters on echoes conservative commentators who are belittling and delegitimizing the protests. “Occupy Wall Street” hasn’t matched the Tea Party when it comes to numbers, or to concrete goals, though neither movement could ever boast of being monolithic.
Others have gone farther in denouncing the current round of protests. Tea Party Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., last week labeled the “Occupy” protests as an “attack upon freedom,” and suggested that labor unions have hijacked the movement to boost the president’s reelection prospects.
“They don’t know why they’re there. They’re just mad,” Broun said of the protesters, on ABC’s “Top Line.”
Anger, of course, respects no political boundaries these days. Many of the Republicans who are now critical of “Occupy” were cheering the Tea Party movement on.
Now it’s Democrats who get to learn the lesson: Channeling the emotions of anger in politics is seldom as simple as it seems.
Obama attacks banks while raking in Wall Street dough
– Fri, Oct 7, 2011
Despite his rhetorical attacks on Wall Street, a study by the Sunlight Foundation’s Influence Project shows that President Barack Obama has received more money from Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years, including former President George W. Bush.
In 2008, Wall Street’s largesse accounted for 20 percent of Obama’s total take, according to Reuters.
When asked by The Daily Caller to comment about President Obama’s credibility when it comes to criticizing Wall Street, the White House declined to reply.
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer says the distance between the president’s rhetoric and actions makes him look hypocritical.
“It’s almost as if President Obama won’t cross across a Wall Street picket line except to get inside with [his] hand out, so he can raise money,” Fleischer told TheDC, referring to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators who the president has been encouraging over the past week. “That sort of support causes him to look hypocritical.”
Fleischer continued by saying that President Obama and Democrats, such as New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who has received approximately $8.7 million from Wall Street since 1989, should stop taking campaign donations from Wall Street banks if they are so offended by their actions.
“They can’t say we hate Wall Street, but we love their money,” Fleischer said. (RELATED: White House: Millionaire tax isn’t enough)
Being Wall Street’s campaign cash king is hardly the image President Obama has been trying to project in public, where he has been setting himself up as the champion of the progressive Occupy Wall Street movement and as the avenger of jilted Bank of America customers.
“Banks can make money,” Obama said last week, responding to questions during an interview with ABC News about Bank of America’s decision to levy a $5 monthly fee on debit card users. “They can succeed, the old-fashioned way, by earning it.”
In fact, the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks lobbyist spending and influence in both parties, found that President Obama has received more money from Bank of America than any other candidate dating back to 1991.
An examination of the numbers shows that Obama took in $421,242 in campaign contributions in 2008 from Bank of America’s executives, PACs and employees, which exceeded its prior record contribution of $329,761 to President George W. Bush in 2004.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wall Street firms also contributed more to Obama’s 2008 campaign than they gave to Republican nominee John McCain.
“The securities and investment industry is Obama’s second largest source of bundlers, after lawyers, at least 56 individuals have raised at least $8.9 million for his campaign,” Massie Ritsch wrote in a Sept. 18, 2008 entry on the Center for Responsive Politics’s OpenSecrets blog.
By the end of Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, executives and others connected with Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup, UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, poured nearly $15.8 million into his coffers.
Goldman Sachs contributed slightly over $1 million to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, compared with a little over $394,600 to the 2004 Bush campaign. Citigroup gave $736,771 to Obama in 2008, compared with $320,820 to Bush in 2004. Executives and others connected with the Swiss bank UBS AG donated $539,424 to Obama’s 2008 campaign, compared with $416,950 to Bush in 2004. And JP Morgan Chase gave Obama’s campaign $808,799 in 2008, but did not show up among Bush’s top donors in 2004, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama’s close relationship with JP Morgan Chase was highlighted earlier this year when he tapped Bill Daley, a former top executive with the bank, to replace Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.
Wall Street’s generosity to Obama didn’t end with his 2008 campaign either. Wall Street donors contributed $4.8 million to underwrite Obama’s inauguration, according to a Jan. 15, 2009 Reuters report.
So far Wall Street has raised $7.2 million in the current electoral cycle for President Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama’s 2012 Wall Street bundlers include people like Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs CEO and former New Jersey governor; Azita Raji, a former investment banker for JP Morgan; and Charles Myers, an executive with the investment bank Evercore Partners.
“When he calls Wall Street bankers fat cats, then his base cheers, so you’ll see him constantly trying to shift back and forth, and keep Wall Street happy at one point and his base happy at another point,” Jim Moorehead, current crisis adviser at Steptoe & Johnson, LLP and a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, explained in a July interview with FoxNews.com.
The Republican National Committee echoed Fleischer’s comments in a statement to TheDC, similarly accusing the president of Wall Street hypocrisy.
“The president wants his cake and eat it too,” RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski wrote in an emailed statement. “It’s the height of hypocrisy for President Obama to demonize Wall Street on the stump while looking the other way as they line his campaign coffers.”
Politcal analyst Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics sums up Wall Street’s 2008 infatuation with Obama as having been more about wanting to back a winner than anything else.
“Two things have changed that. First, the economy is still rotten. Obama’s policies just haven’t worked — or at least not so anybody can tell,” Sabato said. “Second, Obama has to direct the public’s anger and frustration somewhere if he’s to have a decent chance of reelection.”
“There is a great deal of animosity still present in the general public about Wall Street and the banks,” he continued. “The more Obama scapegoats them, the less inclined they are to back him this time. You don’t get the votes and money of people you insult.”