Wall Street Democrats tell Democratic Party: “You can’t support the Occupy Wall Street protesters, and expect to have our support—and our money.”
As Politico reports
, Wall Street bankers who have been funders of the Democratic Party are vociferously complaining to the Demmocratic Congressional Campaign Committee about the party’s support for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
“They were livid,” said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.
- end of initial entry -
The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.
Democrats’ friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you can’t have it both ways.
Joe M. writes:
Obama demonized the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, then (simplifying a bit) the Democratic Party brought them on board as rent-collecting clients. Those industries will be reliable Democrats from here on in. The Democrats may assume they can do the same with Wall Street. They’re probably right. Stimulus funds were a carrot, and now we see the stick. There’ll be more carrots by and by, and more sticks. Anybody can see where the main chance lies. Wall Street is not run by brave or principled men.
The only reason they may prefer not to play ball is status: The Masters of the Universe find it degrading to truckle to a mere president, and a cheap bully of a president at that. But if they start to believe that Obama really can take their money and their position away, they’ll eat the s**t sandwich and smile. They didn’t get where they are by picking fights they can’t win.
I don’t know how Obama’s people plan to make this happen in time to get Wall Street’s money and support for 2012, and I may be wrong about precisely what their goal is, but they aren’t amateurs at politics. The guys running this show have a long history of very effective astroturfing and mau-mauing. This isn’t the McCain campaign. Don’t assume Obama’s people are acting idealistically or biting off more than they can chew. Stupidity or incompetence is not the least hypothesis with these guys, not when it comes to power games. They save their B game for the little jobs that bore them, like running the country.
The only hope is that OWS spins so far out of control that it hurts the Democrats more than it helps. Then, I guess, we get Romney: Robama Jr. Oh, what treats are in store for us.
D. Edwards writes:
Joe M. wrote:
“I don’t know how Obama’s people plan to make this happen in time to get Wall Street’s money and support for 2012…”
From Washington Post:
By Dan Eggen and T.W. Farnam, Wednesday, October 19, 3:32 PM
Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.
Obama’s key advantage over the GOP field is the ability to collect bigger checks because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort.
As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all the other [sic] GOP candidates combined , according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data. The numbers show that Obama retains a persistent reservoir of support among Democratic financiers who have backed him since he was an underdog presidential candidate four years ago.
Julia P. writes:
You wrote: “Incredible.”
Do people believe that conservatism and the market place are synonymous? My experience, having worked for over thirty years in the corporate world, is that major business and financial organizations are quite liberal in nature. They have embraced multicultural values, affirmative action and diversity programs quite readily. Most human resource departments have policies in place to reflect such initiatives. That they have become major contributors to the Democratic Party is not an accident.
Conservatives have to consider whether the business world actually aligns itself with traditional values and conservatism. How for example is a gay consumer different from a straight one to a company? The assumption that the business world is what drives conservatism has to be reconsidered. Is a Wall Street financier family oriented—think again. From experience, knowing such people personally, most Wall Street workers in fact have sexual morays quite at odds with traditional morality.
Conservatives have to rethink the proposition that economics and finance are the determinative components of a conservative constituency. Is it really “all about the economy?”
You will look through almost ten years of VFR discussions and not find anyone here, least of all me, describing the corporate world as conservative. What I said was “incredible” was the report that Wall Street donations to Obama were greater than donations to all the Republican candidates combined.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 19, 2011 12:26 PM | Send