Does Wall Street Own Hillary Clinton?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
Does a bull shit bullshit?
Please!!!
Booman asks:
Does Hillary Clinton Own Wall Street?
Poor Booman!!!
Booman is conflicted.
He votes for Sanders, but believes that Clinton is the better…read “more practical”…candidate.
So…he dreams up the following script in order to make himself feel better.
…[Hillary has] lucked out in a variety of ways and now has Wall Street by the short and curlies.
Sorry, Charlie.
Star-Kist doesn’t play that game. It’s too busy playing the Multinational financial trade game. You know…like the other multinationals that pay the Clintons and their foundations millions to front for them?
Does the shit own the bear?
No.
AG
P.S. Read this article for a very clear précis of how things are working now. Very clear.
The real question should be:
And the correct answer should be:
AG
Does the Johnson/Weld ticket appeal to you?
Overlooked in Booman’s piece and the thread is the CGI or Clinton Family foundation (or whatever they call it these days). Its only worth billions if the pledges are counted. Tangible assets (including cash) put its worth somewhere in the $200-300 million range and most of that is the Clinton Little Rock library. Those pledges are supposed to be guaranteed donations in cash at defined future dates. But, good luck collecting them if President HRC doesn’t deliver for the donors.
Hmm. I see he has been a Governor and of a blue state. Might be better than Trump. I’ll have to follow the polls and see who has the best chance of beating HRC.
Interest in Johnson/Weld? No. I know very little about them, but they could be the second comings of FDR and Lincoln and they still wouldn’t have a chance this late in the game.
AG
It’s not that late in the general election game at all. But that does depend on the attention they could get from the MSM. Trump may fully satisfy the media for ratings and a freak show from now until November (as Perot did in 1992). Or they could get bored with him and HRC is cold mush level exciting; so they might want to spice it up. Not that charisma challenged and a faux libertarian Republican like Johnson offers much, but on a couple of points differs from both HRC and Trump. Weld is just another in the long line of Republicans that Massachusetts likes to elect as governor. Not as creepy and lame as Romney. Would have been a better VP choice for Dole than Kemp was.
I don’t think the MSM will strike the Johnson/Weld lure. They would have to explain all the nuances of libertarianism vs. neoliberalism vs. “conservatism” (their favorite word) vs. Rockefeller republicanism, etc. Heck, they’d have to study a little and so would their guests. I just don’t see it. Maybe I’m not giving the MSM enough credit. And you are correct–this ticket is not very flashy.
I forgot to add Ayn Rand libertarianism to the mix.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social
_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them
Oh! And I just finished breakfast!
The only reason that they might seriously “strike that lure” would be if it looked like either getting some votes for that ticket or preventing some would favor the designated winner of the PermaFix. So far, that appears to be HRC. Otherwise, it’s just another also ran.
AG
There are rumors that the Koch brothers are funding Johnson’s campaign, but Johnson is denying it. This could be an interesting development, if true. Koch’s are known for being “libertarian” so it may pass muster.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/libertarian-candidate-disputes-koch-funding-story/
“While Johnson is facing stiff competition from tech entrepreneur John McAfee and activist Austen Petersen for the nomination, a Fox News poll released Wednesday found Johnson with 10 percent support nationally in a match-up with Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.”
Research shows that historically, 3rd party candidates do not do well (1%). However, there is evidence for exceptions (Ross Perot). Libertarian candidates would appeal to some states and not the others. Of course, the MSM can attempt to make anything popular, even various STDs.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155537/little-support-third-party-candidates-2012-election.aspx
The idea that Hillary Clinton ‘owns’ Wall Street is incomprehensible. Hillary Clinton sucks up to Wall Street big time because it gives her what she wants—money—in turn for her political and social favors. The relationship is a chicken-and-egg thing which has evolved to the point that the link appears unbreakable. But it is in fact very tenuous. As soon as Hillary Clinton is no longer useful to Wall Street it will drop her like a hot potato (including hubby and daughter and all the sycophants surrounding her). When she loses in November the Democratic Party will be completely in the shit house because the Republicans will have control over all three branches of Washington government. Then Wall Street will own the Republicans and all the rest of us, which it already does. Yet think of the Supreme Court, they shout! Yes think about it now instead of later land realize the train wreck that the Clintons are. Even if she wins, Congress will not let her get her way no way. True to her triangular heart she’ll placate and pamper the Republicans. Yes, think how the Supreme Court will turn out. Well, that will be her progressive legacy: write it large over the entrance to her Presidential Library.