Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DrFunkenstein

(8,745 posts)
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 07:33 AM Jan 2019

These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don't be fooled by their progressive veneer

It’s a framing that’s been everywhere over the past two years: the Resistance v Donald Trump. By some definitions that “resistance” even includes people like Mitt Romney and George W Bush. By almost all definitions it encompasses mainstream Democrats, such as the likely presidential hopefuls Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand.

In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic party. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
...
But outward appearances aren’t everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late – on Wall Street. According to CNBC, all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone’s Jonathan Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.

Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and Gillibrand weren’t far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and other powerful executives.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/15/democratic-2020-president-candidates-wall-street

97 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don't be fooled by their progressive veneer (Original Post) DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 OP
Why should JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #1
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ still_one Jan 2019 #2
I'm so tired of all these posts about Democrats getting money from "Wall Street". The fact is.... George II Jan 2019 #6
What really counts is where they stand on the issues, and how they voted still_one Jan 2019 #15
Thanks for a dose of objective reality. George II Jan 2019 #16
Thank you for that. True Blue American Jan 2019 #32
Right or Wrong I think the reality is that it takes money to win a Presidential election. It is still_one Jan 2019 #37
Yes, this. eom sprinkleeninow Jan 2019 #77
Senator Brown JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #90
Just read an article True Blue American Jan 2019 #92
I manage global trade compliance JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #94
Thanks for True Blue American Jan 2019 #96
Yep JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #89
Clerical workers, factory workers, maintenance, housekeeping, tellers, bookkeepers, etc..... George II Jan 2019 #97
Remember when we discovered that Russians were trying to divide the Democratic Party? pepperbear Jan 2019 #28
Yes! True Blue American Jan 2019 #34
Amen! N/T JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #88
The author of this piece is a radical democratic-socialist dhol82 Jan 2019 #3
He clearly has an agenda, and that agenda is not supporting the American Democratic Party. George II Jan 2019 #17
Totally! dhol82 Jan 2019 #62
yup, he also considers himself a Markist and an anti-capitalist. The Democratic party believes still_one Jan 2019 #22
Post removed Post removed Jan 2019 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author mountain grammy Jan 2019 #8
Another anti-Democratic hit piece. What's the point of this? Not only that, it's a week old.... George II Jan 2019 #5
No reply mcar Jan 2019 #64
Post removed Post removed Jan 2019 #7
Post removed Post removed Jan 2019 #10
yup jodymarie aimee Jan 2019 #13
The article from the Guardian is loaded with falsehoods. Nothing short of a Democratic hit piece. George II Jan 2019 #11
Indeed. KPN Jan 2019 #12
LOL Wall Street. betsuni Jan 2019 #9
So what? Is that your litmus test? The important thing is where do they stand on the issues? still_one Jan 2019 #14
One of our "leading" candidates has more than half of his reported net worth invested in.... George II Jan 2019 #20
yup still_one Jan 2019 #23
Hell, nearly all of my net worth is invested in mutual funds... does that make me bad? groundloop Jan 2019 #56
Not at all. Unfortunately many people think that everything or everyone.... George II Jan 2019 #57
Thank you! Hangdog Slim Jan 2019 #18
NO politician can accept money from the "financial system", fettered or unfettered. George II Jan 2019 #24
So kind of you to drop by radical noodle Jan 2019 #61
Look up "Dodd Frank" ehrnst Jan 2019 #87
No one is pushing back on the DU member JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #91
This message was self-deleted by its author Oneironaut Jan 2019 #19
They said the same about Hillary. How did that work out? IronLionZion Jan 2019 #21
Call them what they are Victor_c3 Jan 2019 #25
You can't serve 2 masters. If you solicit "big money", you take their interests. pdsimdars Jan 2019 #26
What do you think of a Representative with 99% of its contributions from outside the district... George II Jan 2019 #53
To those cheering the Guardian article: What are you doing to support these candidates so they have NBachers Jan 2019 #27
Sending my money to Elizabeth Warren HopeAgain Jan 2019 #29
It should be noted that the author of the article identifies as an anti-capitalist. Most of the still_one Jan 2019 #35
I understand the reality of a post Citizens United world HopeAgain Jan 2019 #38
I am not afraid of the words social Democrat either. still_one Jan 2019 #44
Does anyone doubt that the candidate against Trump will lack donations? DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 #83
I hope you are right still_one Jan 2019 #84
Exactly. It also ignores the most important question, where do they stand on the issues. still_one Jan 2019 #31
LOL ... You're going to catch hell DrFunkenstein .... erlewyne Jan 2019 #30
Did you complain about Obama being funded by Wall Street or Biden's delisen Jan 2019 #42
Even those who have income over $650,000 can't give more than $2,700 per year. George II Jan 2019 #49
Perhaps that is the limit for individual donors directly to candidates Fiendish Thingy Jan 2019 #65
Have any of those three candidates accepted any "dark money"? I see that in the 2014 cycle... George II Jan 2019 #67
The author of the piece is an anti-capitalist. Most of the Democratic party is not still_one Jan 2019 #43
"Wall Street Hillary"? George II Jan 2019 #51
Oh, you believed propaganda. betsuni Jan 2019 #54
The tricky part is that "Wall Street" could think that Democrats are good for the economy Renew Deal Jan 2019 #33
Yep, they are good for the economy. Tobin S. Jan 2019 #40
Thank you. Good to know. shanny Jan 2019 #36
Another thread for that "post removed" person to post in. n/t rzemanfl Jan 2019 #39
Post Removed is going to have a lot more posts as we get closer to the primaries. Tobin S. Jan 2019 #41
This message was self-deleted by its author. Also. rzemanfl Jan 2019 #52
Ain't that the truth? The primary wrasslin has begun irisblue Jan 2019 #55
We can't be anti big money anti religion etc lancelyons Jan 2019 #45
Thank you for this information. zentrum Jan 2019 #46
Robert Mercer funded Brexit JustAnotherGen Jan 2019 #93
This info is not helpful. louis c Jan 2019 #47
I don't care if they take money from Big Pharma, as long safeinOhio Jan 2019 #48
How they voted and where they stand on the issues. The debate on where ones political contributions still_one Jan 2019 #50
i think at this point i have come to realize there are a LOT WORSE things than appealing to... samnsara Jan 2019 #58
DrFunkenstein!!! ProfessorPlum Jan 2019 #59
ProfessorPlum! DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 #70
You flatter me ProfessorPlum Jan 2019 #73
Eight years of the Bush era was no picnic, either DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 #75
What does this article do to address the problem of money in politics? Absolutely nothing. Why... beastie boy Jan 2019 #60
It's good to know what the enemy is saying. dhol82 Jan 2019 #63
Thats right. If they can talk the talk, they should walk the walk. bahrbearian Jan 2019 #66
And now the impossible purity tests and self sabotage begins Blue_Tires Jan 2019 #68
LOL. Here come the Bros! Maven Jan 2019 #69
Okay, but let us not Freak, either Reasonable Doubter Jan 2019 #71
How did this become about Ocasio-Cortez? Voltaire2 Jan 2019 #95
The ever critical Obama bank regulations are no longer in place and the voting on that score is BeckyDem Jan 2019 #72
The More I Learn About Sherrod Brown DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 #76
Politicians and why they vote the way they do is not always obvious. BeckyDem Jan 2019 #86
The Original Impetus Behind Posting This DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 #74
Guess what it takes a ton of money to run a national campaign. redstatebluegirl Jan 2019 #78
I will be happy with - OhZone Jan 2019 #79
It's a little early to start setting our sights so low DrFunkenstein Jan 2019 #82
Or we can do the "perfection is the enemy of the good" thing again - OhZone Jan 2019 #85
This crap is starting earlier than usual. The GOP/GOP donors must really know they are in trouble. Freethinker65 Jan 2019 #80
They should be getting donations from every legal source, rwheeler31 Jan 2019 #81

JustAnotherGen

(31,686 posts)
1. Why should
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 07:45 AM
Jan 2019

I listen to the Editorial Board of The Guardian?

For a bunch of smarty pants they couldn't manage to influence the public of their country to vote "stay" in the EU.

They need to focus on hard or soft Brexit and give continuous updates to the global trade community on the massive issue their country created.

Funded by membership or not - why should I trust those people? There are no "experts" anymore. The only experts are the American voters and we don't need any media outlet to pat us on the head, give us a cookie, and tell us what to do.

George II

(67,782 posts)
6. I'm so tired of all these posts about Democrats getting money from "Wall Street". The fact is....
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:09 AM
Jan 2019

....NO ONE can give more than the FEC limit, not a bank executive, bank teller, maintenance worker, etc. NO ONE! That piece is loaded with falsehoods and incorrect innuendos. But I guess it served it's purpose.

Obviously the Guardian writer has very little understanding of American campaign finance laws.

True Blue American

(17,972 posts)
32. Thank you for that.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:10 AM
Jan 2019

The only one I watch personally is Sherrod Brown and it is clear he is for the worker.

I am not impressed with a British newspaper giving their version of our candidates.

https://www.ft.com/content/1c926794-ebf7-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57

still_one

(91,965 posts)
37. Right or Wrong I think the reality is that it takes money to win a Presidential election. It is
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:23 AM
Jan 2019

debatable whether individual contributions are enough, but unless the candidate of one's choice can win, and assuming it takes money to help achieve that goal, money in politics is going to be part of the process for sometime


JustAnotherGen

(31,686 posts)
90. Senator Brown
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 06:54 AM
Jan 2019

Has done nothing wrong. He's a man of the people. Yet - they will attack him for once saying hello to a bank teller.

Can't make this shit up!

True Blue American

(17,972 posts)
92. Just read an article
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:00 AM
Jan 2019

About how ignorant the ruling class in Britain really is. They have made ignorant decisions all the way down the line concerning whiteness. This latest, Bexitt is another example.

The New York Times has the article.

JustAnotherGen

(31,686 posts)
94. I manage global trade compliance
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:10 AM
Jan 2019

For a U.S. Manufacturer. I've been up to my eyeballs in Brexit for a while now. Between the 301 List (Chinese Tariffs) and this - I'm done.

No plan? I could ship to Netherlands finished product and pay the tariff. We have a small facility there. To get to my warehouse in Ireland I may now have to go through two customs points and pay two tariffs.

This is a U.S. Manufacturer who doesn't have a single employee making less than $20 an hour, full medical, dental, vision, paid time off etc etc.

They are Fucking my tribe over.


Those arrogant brats in the UK are hurting Americans who I know, interact with, and Dammit - care about.

True Blue American

(17,972 posts)
96. Thanks for
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 09:03 AM
Jan 2019

That from one who kmows.

I guess I had not paid much attention until this eye opening article about how long the ignorant ruling class had made so many bad decisions, beginning with Mountbatten and his handling of India. The arrogance of the limited intelligence of the Royal ruling class. All the way up yo May and her arrogance.

I have to find that article. It was in the New York Times. They match the ignorance of our ruling class.found it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html

JustAnotherGen

(31,686 posts)
89. Yep
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 06:53 AM
Jan 2019

How many times do I have to say it?

For the last God damn time - Finance, Telecom, and Pharma live in NJ.

That includes people like oh say - clerical workers.

If 100 people from these industries give $20 to Booker each - the idiot writer is too stupid to know that they have to provide their employer/sector with that donation.

The writer is an ignorant jackass who is trying to divide our party.

George II

(67,782 posts)
97. Clerical workers, factory workers, maintenance, housekeeping, tellers, bookkeepers, etc.....
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 10:03 AM
Jan 2019

I've mentioned that a hundred times in the last year or two.

In my family of 8 members, five of us at one time in our lives worked at a bank. That's how it is when you live in NYC. None of us were upper management (my father and sister were approaching "middle" management) Three were or worked in the back room. We all would have been categorized as part of the "financial industry"! One guy a couple of years ago on this site had the chutzpah to say that we were a family of "banksters"!! (he has since fled to JPR)

And yet people tout the beauty of "small donations" that are NOT itemized. If they're not itemized and no records kept, one person could give that $20 500 times for an aggregate of $10,000 - well over the allowable $2,700 maximum - and no one would know.

pepperbear

(5,648 posts)
28. Remember when we discovered that Russians were trying to divide the Democratic Party?
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:01 AM
Jan 2019

This is how it's done.

dhol82

(9,351 posts)
3. The author of this piece is a radical democratic-socialist
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 07:52 AM
Jan 2019

He considers himself radical left.
Interesting.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
22. yup, he also considers himself a Markist and an anti-capitalist. The Democratic party believes
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:43 AM
Jan 2019

capitalism needs regulation. The republican part has been whittling away at that regulation whenever they take control. It started with Reagan.

Response to DrFunkenstein (Original post)

Response to Post removed (Reply #4)

George II

(67,782 posts)
5. Another anti-Democratic hit piece. What's the point of this? Not only that, it's a week old....
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 07:57 AM
Jan 2019

...and has been posted on DU already.

Response to DrFunkenstein (Original post)

Response to Post removed (Reply #7)

 

jodymarie aimee

(3,975 posts)
13. yup
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:22 AM
Jan 2019

Manchin said proudly, "Donald Trump is MY President" on Fox TV....so we are supposed to support HIM...

still_one

(91,965 posts)
14. So what? Is that your litmus test? The important thing is where do they stand on the issues?
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:27 AM
Jan 2019

http://www.ontheissues.org/Cory_Booker.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/NY/Kirsten_Gillibrand.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Kamala_Harris.htm

Right or wrong, it takes money to win elections.

If someone doesn't want to vote for someone who takes political donations from corporations, then don't vote for them.


Nader made millions from Magellan Fund and other investments IN WALL STREET FIRMS. Over the years between speeches and book deals Nader also made a lot of money in royalties and honorariums.


Regulation is necessary, but pushing this purist bullshit has got to stop

Those suppossed self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting helped usher in the era of trump, where NOT only is regulation be torn down, but Civil Rights, Women's Rights, Worker's Rights, the environment, etc. etc. etc. are all being whittled away because of this divisionary garbage.


Worst of all those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee helped us lose two Supreme Court appointments.

It is going to be interesting when the Democratic candidates for president release their tax returns exactly what rationalization the purists are going to make when they find their prospective candidate got their money from








George II

(67,782 posts)
20. One of our "leading" candidates has more than half of his reported net worth invested in....
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:36 AM
Jan 2019

....mutual funds, i.e., "Wall Street".

groundloop

(11,488 posts)
56. Hell, nearly all of my net worth is invested in mutual funds... does that make me bad?
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:26 AM
Jan 2019

I don't think it's a matter of making Wall Street go away, they just need to made to behave more responsibly in a lot of cases.

George II

(67,782 posts)
57. Not at all. Unfortunately many people think that everything or everyone....
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:33 AM
Jan 2019

...who has anything to do with "Wall Street", the "financial industry", or even the "fossil fuel industry" is bad.

I wonder how many people in this country can go a single day without dealing with "Wall Street" (i.e., their 401k or pension plans), or the "financial industry" (i.e., use a credit card or write a check) or even the "fossil fuel industry" (i.e., drive to work, drive to the store, use their home furnace, etc.)

Hangdog Slim

(80 posts)
18. Thank you!
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:32 AM
Jan 2019

Thank you Dr. Funkenstein! I'm not sure I get the push back on this posting. How can we expect a politician to rein in the excesses of an unfettered financial system on one hand and take money from it to fund their political ambitions on the other?

JustAnotherGen

(31,686 posts)
91. No one is pushing back on the DU member
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 06:58 AM
Jan 2019

We are pushing back on the author of this hit piece on our party.

Why should we listen to him?

What are HIS credentials canvassing, calling, volunteering?

He can answer with his credentials. Bring his receipts.

I thank the OP for posting tgis. He let us know who to swat down.

Response to DrFunkenstein (Original post)

Victor_c3

(3,557 posts)
25. Call them what they are
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:56 AM
Jan 2019

Calling out a candidate for their pro-corporation and pro- Wall Street stances isn’t very popular on DU. Expect a lot of ire.

George II

(67,782 posts)
53. What do you think of a Representative with 99% of its contributions from outside the district...
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:19 AM
Jan 2019

...who is that representative serving?

NBachers

(17,007 posts)
27. To those cheering the Guardian article: What are you doing to support these candidates so they have
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 08:59 AM
Jan 2019

the huge funding they need without going to Wall Street? Will their millions come from you instead?

HopeAgain

(4,407 posts)
29. Sending my money to Elizabeth Warren
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:07 AM
Jan 2019

Whoever she takes money from, she is clearly focused on regulation financial institutions.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
35. It should be noted that the author of the article identifies as an anti-capitalist. Most of the
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:18 AM
Jan 2019

Democratic party are not anti-capitalist, but believe that it MUST have regulation, which is exactly where Warren's main strengths lie.

The argument though, right or wrong, that it takes tremendous amounts of money to win elections.


Whether one believes that can be achieved through individual contributions or otherwise is debatable, but from my perspective the most important point should be where they stand on the issues.




HopeAgain

(4,407 posts)
38. I understand the reality of a post Citizens United world
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:24 AM
Jan 2019

But we have to fight the clout of the special interest whenever and wherever we can.

I am not "anti-capitalist," but I am not afraid of the words "social democrat" either.

DrFunkenstein

(8,745 posts)
83. Does anyone doubt that the candidate against Trump will lack donations?
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 06:14 PM
Jan 2019

This is going to be a deeply visceral contest, and even a cardboard box with a face painted on it would receive a ton of money from the Trump opposition.

erlewyne

(1,115 posts)
30. LOL ... You're going to catch hell DrFunkenstein ....
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:08 AM
Jan 2019

I bitched about Wall Street Hillary and made moocho enemies

In my book Wall Street is Conservative.

delisen

(6,039 posts)
42. Did you complain about Obama being funded by Wall Street or Biden's
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:29 AM
Jan 2019

ties to the banking industry?

I have found that many who were highly critical of Clinton, a New York senator, receiving money from Wall Street (a NewYork industry employing huge numbers of New Yorkers) had no problem with Obama receiving huge amounts from Goldman Sachs employees (average income over $650,000 and other Wall Street firms.

Likewise many people had no problem with Joseph Biden supporting and being supported by the banking /credit card industry (a major employer in his home state of Delaware= the same credit card industry that charges working people rates that are usurious.

You may be evenhanded regarding candidates but so many aren't.

Fiendish Thingy

(15,369 posts)
65. Perhaps that is the limit for individual donors directly to candidates
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 11:41 AM
Jan 2019

But you seem to be ignoring the unlimited donations to super-PACs and "dark money" allowed under Citizens United.

George II

(67,782 posts)
67. Have any of those three candidates accepted any "dark money"? I see that in the 2014 cycle...
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 11:47 AM
Jan 2019

...committees supporting Booker spent about $1.3 million and committees opposed to Booker spent about $510,000.

Candidates have no control over what other entities spend, and those supporting him contributed nothing more than the maximum allowable (if any, I'm not going to pore over his filings).

still_one

(91,965 posts)
43. The author of the piece is an anti-capitalist. Most of the Democratic party is not
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:30 AM
Jan 2019

anti-capitalistic, however, they do believe that capitalism MUST have regulation.


Renew Deal

(81,802 posts)
33. The tricky part is that "Wall Street" could think that Democrats are good for the economy
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:11 AM
Jan 2019

They would be correct to think it

Tobin S.

(10,418 posts)
40. Yep, they are good for the economy.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:28 AM
Jan 2019

If they weren't, they wouldn't get any corporate support. Conservatives have sold most of their followers on the idea that Democrats are socialists or communists. While they generally believe in more regulation of our economic system, most of them are far from being radicals on the issue.

JustAnotherGen

(31,686 posts)
93. Robert Mercer funded Brexit
Wed Jan 23, 2019, 07:04 AM
Jan 2019

Cambridge Analytica helped push it over the finish line.

I shouldn't have to explain who Mercer and C.A. are at DU.

And we do have limits. The UK is not better than us. Let's just stop that right now. They ducked up the world and don't know their asses from a hole in the ground.

Again - the author of the article needs to focus on the UK.

Why isn't he demanding that May give the exit plan? It was supposed to be delivered last week. They are stock piling packaged foods in England right now. Let that sink in.

 

louis c

(8,652 posts)
47. This info is not helpful.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:51 AM
Jan 2019

I want to know where a person is on the issues, not where their money is coming from.

If we're going to be held to a different standard than Repukes, and then have to try to win a fight with one hand tied behind our backs, I amy as well move out of this country.

safeinOhio

(32,532 posts)
48. I don't care if they take money from Big Pharma, as long
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:52 AM
Jan 2019

as they vote against extended patent times and repeal of the extensions that exist. I don't care if they take money from Wall Street, if they vote to raise taxes on them and lower them for the middle class. I don't care if they take money from Big Oil if they vote for less fracking and against off shore leases.

I see those with more energy needing fewer Wall Street dollars. Work harder and you don't need as much money. High energy like AOC and Beto.

Just a suggestion.

still_one

(91,965 posts)
50. How they voted and where they stand on the issues. The debate on where ones political contributions
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:05 AM
Jan 2019

come from, and whether that makes them flawed or not, or how much money it takes to win a national election will continue


samnsara

(17,570 posts)
58. i think at this point i have come to realize there are a LOT WORSE things than appealing to...
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:35 AM
Jan 2019

...Wall Street. I was never convinced of that argument in the first place.

DrFunkenstein

(8,745 posts)
70. ProfessorPlum!
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 01:39 PM
Jan 2019

Now that is a blast from the past! The original voice of reasonable debate! Great to hear from you!!

beastie boy

(9,063 posts)
60. What does this article do to address the problem of money in politics? Absolutely nothing. Why...
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 10:40 AM
Jan 2019

...did it single out only the three strongest Democratic candidates out of thousands of politicians who accept Wall Street money rather than make a comparative analysis of all politicians, Republican and Democratic to see where they stand? Very clearly, to divide their base and make them weaker.

This song sounds too familiar to me, and I don't like it. If the author purposely targeted the three mentioned Democrats, he is a troll. If he did it unintentionally, he is what Putin calls a useful idiot.

I understand why the Guardian published this column: they are obligated by their professional standards to present a variety of opinions.

My question is, why is this garbage that has no other effect than to divide the Democrats being spread on DU?

bahrbearian

(13,466 posts)
66. Thats right. If they can talk the talk, they should walk the walk.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 11:43 AM
Jan 2019

Its their actions that they give to Wall Street ,and words they give to us.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
68. And now the impossible purity tests and self sabotage begins
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 12:21 PM
Jan 2019

right on schedule...

For the last time, if money in politics bothers you, then it's long past due to start advocating for public-funded elections... Because no Dem aside from those in the dark-bluest districts is going to have an ideologically "perfect" donor list and big/small money ratio

 
71. Okay, but let us not Freak, either
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 02:22 PM
Jan 2019

Fact is, our nominee in '20 will probably NOT agree with AOC on every single issue. And we all know what happened three years ago, when too many on the Left gave Hillary the White Glove Inspection, and were shocked when a few specks of dust showed up!

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
72. The ever critical Obama bank regulations are no longer in place and the voting on that score is
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 03:30 PM
Jan 2019

important to remember too. That said, Sherrod Brown wrote and gave the speech of his career on the floor of the senate trying to keep regulations in place, so don't always presume the worst. Look at everything and all of the Democrats should have listened to him.



Brown Opening Floor Speech Opposing S.2155, the Dodd-Frank Roll Back Bill
Tuesday, March 6, 2018

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) – ranking member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs – delivered the following speech on the Senate floor today in opposition to S.2155, The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act.

Brown’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, follow.

Mr. President,

Ten years ago – almost to the day – this country was on the verge of a financial crisis that would end up wrecking the lives of millions of families.

The experts – the so-called experts – had their heads in the sand. They shrugged off the warnings. They told the public everything was fine.

Jim Cramer was telling hardworking Americans to invest their money in Bear Stearns, saying “I’m not giving up on the thing.” Bank of America was putting the finishing touches on its plan to buy the subprime lender Countrywide, which they called “the best domestic mortgage platform.”

Hank Paulson – the last Treasury Secretary who got plucked from Goldman Sachs until Secretary Mnuchin came along – downplayed homeowners’ pain. He said “You know, the stock market goes up and down every day more than the entire value of the subprime mortgages in the country.”

Meanwhile, advocates in communities – the people who were actually dealing with the consequences of the building crisis – were sounding the alarm.

https://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/brown-opening-floor-speech-opposing-s2155_the-dodd-frank-roll-back-bill_

BeckyDem

(8,361 posts)
86. Politicians and why they vote the way they do is not always obvious.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 06:57 PM
Jan 2019

But I hate our system, it is sick. CU has to go among other things.

DrFunkenstein

(8,745 posts)
74. The Original Impetus Behind Posting This
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 04:08 PM
Jan 2019

There is going to be a very crowded field for 2020. After a very disappointing and deeply unhealthy primary contest in 2014, we have an opportunity to properly vet the candidates. They all seem supportable, but as political activists we have to articulate our own vision of the Party and look how the candidates align with that vision.

For me, corporate oversight is one of the most fundamental issues of our day. I like many parts of the platform that all of candidates seem to be embracing, but it seems to me that candidates like Warren and Sanders are making this a central part of their candidacy.

It worries me when I see Kamala Harris, who seems warm but tough-minded, taking large donations from Steve Mnuchin and others at OneWest Bank then turning away loads of evidence from her own staff of serious mortgage fraud at the bank - without explanation. I was a reporter covering the mortgage industry back in the day, and I know just how serious this issue was to the families involved.

As someone from NJ, I have great admiration for what Cory Booker has done, particularly with Newark. But at the same time, I have deep reservations about his cushy relationship with the industries he would eventually oversee as President.

I'm not out to hurl bombs at Dems, but I think this early stage is an excellent opportunity to draw distinctions between the candidates. In general, I'm also happy to be proven wrong (personal attacks and logical fallacies don't count).

I think Trump will be a seriously weakened candidate in 2020, and we have a chance to get the sort of viable, but truly progressive candidate we've always wanted.

redstatebluegirl

(12,264 posts)
78. Guess what it takes a ton of money to run a national campaign.
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 04:14 PM
Jan 2019

All of you who feel this can be done with grass roots, 25 dollars a time are delusional.

OhZone

(3,212 posts)
79. I will be happy with -
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 04:14 PM
Jan 2019

a moderate or a progressive Democrat.

I prefer a progressive, but ANY Dem is likely better than the treason party.

DrFunkenstein

(8,745 posts)
82. It's a little early to start setting our sights so low
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 06:11 PM
Jan 2019

Being better than the current GOP is setting the bar pretty close to the ground.

I get that some people would prefer a moderate Democrat. I can respectfully disagree. I'm one of those people who are inclined to see a difference between progressive and liberal. The difference being a fundamentally reformist and regulatory economic stance with a steady eye on social justice, equity, a fair playing field, and a robust social safety net.

When candidates start getting in bed, so to speak, with the elite who stand to lose the most, the eye quite often does not remain on the prize when it comes to reform and regulation.

Looking at the field of candidates ranging from very good to excellent, we are presented with a rare opportunity to champion the vision and guts we so often complained that our wishy-washy Democratic leadership lacked.

OhZone

(3,212 posts)
85. Or we can do the "perfection is the enemy of the good" thing again -
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 06:36 PM
Jan 2019

and see 4 more years of treason.

Not saying we shouldn't aim for the best but we need to avoid divisiveness to a point, which helps the traitor party.

rwheeler31

(6,242 posts)
81. They should be getting donations from every legal source,
Tue Jan 22, 2019, 04:37 PM
Jan 2019

as long as we know where it come from, we can make decisions. It is the dark and foreign cash that is the biggest problem.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»These 2020 hopefuls are c...