"I'm GGG and I approve this message."

[Not Bob]

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If Hillary had any fucking guts she'd come right out and say "This man is Jimmy Carter II. You're fucked if you elect this guy. Fucked."

I'd borrow from lewis Black to describe this election. "Keep false hope alive!"

Elect him. Lets see if he can invent a new form of math. That seems to be the aim of every new President.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/o...or_obama_1.php

Someone did the analysis on how Obama could rape you, come tax time.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
The central legacy of the Clinton administration is that Wall Street now supports the Democrats more than the Republicans. It's not much of a legacy, but they will bequeath it to Obama. The i-Bankers, in particular, show up at the top of both Clinton's and Obama's fundraising rosters.

You're a government lawyer, aren't you?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Comrade, please. Spanky knows that this is no mere co-inky-dink:

[Pictures]

The red, white and blue color scheme is a dead giveaway.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is going to be a weird election. there will be lots of people who just can't vote for a black guy, or not for a woman, or not for a really old guy. those factors will drive more votes than any issue.

but the weird thing will be that no one will admit any of that in public, so you'll see people getting attacked for other reasons.

I think that's true to a large extent -- the "awkward election."

There is still room for a new line in the I Have A Dream speech, version 2.0: "I have a dream, that one day a man of color running for the Presidency of this great land will be savaged unfairly just as if he were a white man. I have a dream."

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/o...or_obama_1.php

Someone did the analysis on how Obama could rape you, come tax time.

I read about the SS cap removal, but I don't think that's get through in an pure form. Maybe someone will raise it $30k or something.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
http://www.abovethelaw.com/2008/02/o...or_obama_1.php

Someone did the analysis on how Obama could rape you, come tax time.

I have no doubt he'd cost me thousands of dollars per year. But we all have crosses to bear.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You're a government lawyer, aren't you?

I have seen some low blows here. But that is the lowest

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You talked to anyone on Wall St lately or are you just reading the papers? I don't have a single friend there who's voting for Obama. They were all voting for Hillary, and only then because it seemed an inevitability. Obama is not Hillary. Now they're voting for McCain.

Actually, I was paraphrasing Robert Rubin, but admitted from several years ago. And, of course, commenting the the links that GGG* provided.

As for talking to those who actually inhabit wall street, I try to avoid it as much as possible.

As to interest rates staying low, have you looked at them in the last seven years that we've had a proactive Fed?

I am not sure what you are getting at here, but at the risk of quoting Spanky, and it was not about short term interest rates, and it was not about the last seven years.

*Calling him GGG makes me think about Dan Savage's use of that acronym, which is not necessarily the best association.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What we need:

Manlove for Congress. He's running as a "rock-solid conservative."

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I'm puzzled. If the business community is so frightened of Obama, how come they keep sending him so much money?

Or is it not Wall Street you're after, but these guys?

They seem to like the Democrats, too.

The central legacy of the Clinton administration is that Wall Street now supports the Democrats more than the Republicans. It's not much of a legacy, but they will bequeath it to Obama. The i-Bankers, in particular, show up at the top of both Clinton's and Obama's fundraising rosters. But its the big reason why Dems now outraise Republicans.

Is this web page reliable? Is that what you have seen? I am just reporting what I saw at the convention. Usually the business community in California is like, you guys are too stupid to run competitive candidates so we are just going to buy off the Democrats. But these guys, most of them in the Chamber of Commerce, were all asking about what needed to be done to defeat Obama. I have never seen anything like it. But again, it was just an observation in one hotel during one weekend.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I don't get that.

I don't get it to begin with, but even if I did, seems to me that Obama would have several months after nomination to convince business leaders that he's not the Antichrist as you've described above. After all, I don't see how McCain is the safe harbor - he repeats Republican bromides, but IIRC his tenure in Congress reveals an absence of economic philosophy.

I don't know the answer to that. McCain is clearly not businesses choice but I have never seen the California Chamber so worked up at a Republican Convention. Usually they just stay away.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't know the answer to that. McCain is clearly not businesses choice but I have never seen the California Chamber so worked up at a Republican Convention. Usually they just stay away.

I don't know anything about that site in particular, but it really isn't that surprising when you think about it. For most of the cycle so far, the assumption has been that it is the Dems race to lose, so the money has favored the Dems.

Although I think that perception is starting to fade some, but because it is no longer the Hillary coronation parade and because the Rs were smart enough to pick McCain, who is probably the only one of them that has a chance in the general election.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I take it that they're worried that he'll repeal the Takings Clause and then nationalize key industries? If not that, then what?

Revoking NAFTA, massively increasing corporate taxes, trying to find some way to prevent compannies from moving stuff overseas, weakening the value of US assets by weakening the economy etc.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is this web page reliable? Is that what you have seen? I am just reporting what I saw at the convention. Usually the business community in California is like, you guys are too stupid to run competitive candidates so we are just going to buy off the Democrats. But these guys, most of them in the Chamber of Commerce, were all asking about what needed to be done to defeat Obama. I have never seen anything like it. But again, it was just an observation in one hotel during one weekend.

That site is very heavily relied on - they have simply taken the FEC data and assembled it in a structured data base. It should be as accurate as the FEC data.

The enormity of the money raised by Democratic candidates this cycle skews comparisons - the Democrats have simply raised more money. But if you go mine the parts of the site focused on soft money, you'll see there that Democrats now win on Wall Street by something like a 60/40 margin; Republicans still win among old economy CEOs; the high tech industry goes to Democrats, but doesn't give very much in any event. Around here, Republicans are few and far between, and usually apologetic about it - not representative of much more than Massachusetts. Romney gets a certain amount of money for being local, but his givers are pretty reluctant.

(To check accuracy - look yourself up).