Bernie’s out to lunch on pretty much everything and particularly on economic issues, but he is certainly a different breed from Ms. Clinton.
Click HERE for a larger version of the graph.
Last week we posted a story about the cozy relationship Hillary and Bill Clinton have with the CEO of Columbia’s largest private oil company and we asked this question;
…are the UAW, the AFL-CIO, and the USW going to support a candidate for president who has taken millions and millions of dollars from a company (and its CEO) which has a history of busting unions at the point of a rifle?
The article did well in terms of traffic but of particular interest to me was the tone of some of the comments from readers at the end of the article. Among some of our more liberal commentors I sensed just a bit of real unease with Ms. Clinton.
Seriously Democrats is Hillary Clinton really going to be your nominee? So she’s taken millions of dollars from the head of an oil company which has strong connections to the Colombian military, which also just happened to “round up” the striking workers of Pacific Rubiales, the company in question.
I mean, I get that she is a woman, and that she has name recognition, and that she has long been the presumed nominee. But guys, I may not agree with you on most things but this is an integrity thing. At least don’t throw in with someone who many of my friends on the “Left” would probably call a union busting, fossil fuels promoting, political profiteer if she wasn’t named Hillary Clinton. At least stand for something lefties – other than cronyism.
Ms. Fiorina is right on the money here. We look forward to hearing more from her in the months ahead.
Big money is a big concern. That we have two political dynasties trying to extend their influence in the 2016 election is an even bigger concern. And Hart touches on that too.
Strong words. In your face words. Fighting words.
What are these reporters thinking? OK, I get that the old media is populated with generally statist big government leaning journalists, but given what we know Ms. Clinton has done (just recently) any objective person has to consider such an ovation as being in bad taste. The email scandal which in theory could have jeopardized national security, the gifts from foreign governments and companies to the Clinton Foundation while Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State, the enormous “speaking fees” are all quite problematic. Is a standing ovation, particularly from “journalists” really warranted? I mean I think its pretty terrible that a group of reporters would give any politician a standing ovation, but Ms. Clinton? There is just no excuse. She has a history.
Hillary Clinton thinks, it’s fairly clear at this point, that the American people are idiots. That they can be duped. It depends on what the definition of “law” is.
Ms. Clinton, like her brother in bs Jonathan Gruber thinks that she is above the law, part of the ruling class, free to do as she wishes. She personally comes before the country, or the law, her former office, decency, or honor and she thinks the same stuff that flew in in the 1990s will fly again now.
Dun dun dun…
The leadership within both major parties view the “populists” within their ranks as annoyances. Jeb Bush and his crowd and Hillary Clinton and her crowd have a similar disdain for the people who want actual change come 2016. Jeb and Hillary are the establishment. They are the anointed. They represent the long time infrastructure of their respective parties.
Vested interests within the parties know where they stand with both candidates. These interests know that the boat won’t really be rocked by either one. The people who run the parties are safe, so long as none of the rabble rousers slip through. The rabble rousers must be beaten down and beaten back.
We bet he would be.
Think of Goldman Sachs as a political compass. If Goldman is the north star of crony capitalism one should always move to the south as far away from these guys as possible. Electing any of the bank’s officially endorsed candidates (and we don’t have any candidates yet) is just not smart. It’s asking for trouble.
When you’ve lost CNBC…
In 2013 we posted a speech given by firebrand political strategist Pat Caddell who argued that many of the political consultants during the Romney campaign were interested more in lining their pockets than in getting the former governor elected president. (I personally don’t think it made much of a difference, but who knows.) The attached article seems to confirm that this sort of thing continues as the GOP gears up for the 2016 election.
This isn’t some hit piece. It comes from a website, Right Wing News, with legit conservative credibility. And for some groups the report is pretty damning.
We’ve been talking about this for a very long time. The play from the Wall Street banks, you know the ones you and I bailed out and kept alive after they leveraged themselves to oblivion, is to sew up the 2016 presidential contest early.
Not just conservatives, but libertarians too.