Politico gives away the game

Thomas Lifson
If you ever wondered what the real political issue of the day is when it comes to presidential politics, an article in Politico gives you the answer. Wall Street Big Money wants a presidential candidate who will allow the financial games enabling hedge fund billionaires, investment banks, and other financial engineering specialists to continue their merry ways. This group dominates the top one percent of the top once percent of income earners – the people who have expanded their share of national income, while the rest of the one percent (and the rest of us) get to divvy up the rest.

Of course, the Politico story doesn’t say that outright, but you can read between the lines. Ben White and Maggie Haberman write:

Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016

This is not to say that Clinton is the preference of Republicans in the financial sector — far from it. Most shake their heads when asked directly if Clinton is someone they could support. But when the contrast is against some of the non-establishment hopefuls, their comfort level becomes clearer.

This line of thinking is a direct response to fiery rhetoric from people like Rand Paul, who used the 2013 CPAC conference in Washington to rip the financial industry, saying “there is nothing conservative about bailing out Wall Street.”

 Ted Cruz, whose wife works at Goldman Sachs, is viewed negatively by many in the industry for his support of last year’s government shutdown and scorched earth approach to political battle. Cruz fired up an activist gathering in New Hampshire earlier this month with the kind of provocative populist message that makes bankers very nervous. “The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy,” Cruz thundered. At the same event, Paul argued that the GOP “cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

That kind of talk leaves some rich people contemplating the notion of supporting Clinton in what would amount to a reversion to 2008, when Wall Street money went nearly 2 to 1 for then-Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain. Even those who could never back her don’t see her as a huge threat to the business community.

“I tell you this, I hope he does decide to run,” Al Hoffman, a GOP megadonor who chaired George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, said of Jeb Bush, noting the former Florida governor’s positions on immigration reform and national education standards rile populists but line up well with business groups and the broader electorate.

He said his clear preference is not to see Clinton as president, and he hopes GOP ideals will triumph in 2016. But he added: “Is [Clinton] anti-business? I don’t think so. I hope not. I don’t have any reason to believe that.”

Translation: if those crazy Tea Party types succeed in nominating someone like Cruz or Paul, Wall Street money will go to Hillary. And because Wall Street money plays a major role in overall political fundraising (they have plenty of money and know what they are buying after all), it is seen as determinative in the election outcome by most political professionals, at least off the record and after a drink or two.

Welcome to the oligarchy, suckers.

Hat tip: Karin McQuillan

If you ever wondered what the real political issue of the day is when it comes to presidential politics, an article in Politico gives you the answer. Wall Street Big Money wants a presidential candidate who will allow the financial games enabling hedge fund billionaires, investment banks, and other financial engineering specialists to continue their merry ways. This group dominates the top one percent of the top once percent of income earners – the people who have expanded their share of national income, while the rest of the one percent (and the rest of us) get to divvy up the rest.

Of course, the Politico story doesn’t say that outright, but you can read between the lines. Ben White and Maggie Haberman write:

Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016

This is not to say that Clinton is the preference of Republicans in the financial sector — far from it. Most shake their heads when asked directly if Clinton is someone they could support. But when the contrast is against some of the non-establishment hopefuls, their comfort level becomes clearer.

This line of thinking is a direct response to fiery rhetoric from people like Rand Paul, who used the 2013 CPAC conference in Washington to rip the financial industry, saying “there is nothing conservative about bailing out Wall Street.”

 Ted Cruz, whose wife works at Goldman Sachs, is viewed negatively by many in the industry for his support of last year’s government shutdown and scorched earth approach to political battle. Cruz fired up an activist gathering in New Hampshire earlier this month with the kind of provocative populist message that makes bankers very nervous. “The rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power, are getting fat and happy,” Cruz thundered. At the same event, Paul argued that the GOP “cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people and Wall Street.”

That kind of talk leaves some rich people contemplating the notion of supporting Clinton in what would amount to a reversion to 2008, when Wall Street money went nearly 2 to 1 for then-Sen. Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain. Even those who could never back her don’t see her as a huge threat to the business community.

“I tell you this, I hope he does decide to run,” Al Hoffman, a GOP megadonor who chaired George W. Bush’s presidential campaigns, said of Jeb Bush, noting the former Florida governor’s positions on immigration reform and national education standards rile populists but line up well with business groups and the broader electorate.

He said his clear preference is not to see Clinton as president, and he hopes GOP ideals will triumph in 2016. But he added: “Is [Clinton] anti-business? I don’t think so. I hope not. I don’t have any reason to believe that.”

Translation: if those crazy Tea Party types succeed in nominating someone like Cruz or Paul, Wall Street money will go to Hillary. And because Wall Street money plays a major role in overall political fundraising (they have plenty of money and know what they are buying after all), it is seen as determinative in the election outcome by most political professionals, at least off the record and after a drink or two.

Welcome to the oligarchy, suckers.

Hat tip: Karin McQuillan