Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces

[WIP]

Gay rights activists and the professional liberal class are celebrating the ratification of a marriage equality bill by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. The story reported in the N.Y. Times is misleadingly titled: "Behind N.Y. Gay Marriage, an Unlikely Mix of Forces"] Well, the only thing unlikely is that these hot shot Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers usually open their wallets for Republican politicians....and that's because they can usually count on the slavish devotion of Repubs. But, this time they were feeling generous and told their Republican henchmen and lackeys to back off....just this once, because Andrew Cuomo has been such a good boy and carried out most of their agenda since arriving in the Governor's Mansion. As Mother Jones put it back in March:

In the midst of all this gross inequality, New York’s millionaires are getting a tax break, thanks to the state's new Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo. Son of liberal ex-governor Mario Cuomo, inheritor of some of the enthusiasm that once surrounded Eliot Spitzer’s campaign, and successor to the weak stand-in David Paterson, Cuomo was elected on a wave of optimism. He even ran on the line of the Working Families Party, an increasingly important progressive player in state politics. Yet Andrew Cuomo has turned out to be just another craven neoliberal. In his most meaningful action to date, he has embraced a budget that would make any Bushite salivate.

In a deal this past weekend, the governor and legislative leaders agreed upon a $132.5 million budget that cuts state spending by 2 percent, largely on the backs of the poor and the sick, women, children, the elderly, and other beneficiaries of state services. It offers next to nothing to the struggling middle class. But for the well-heeled denizens of Wall Street and beyond, there's a promised end to the so-called millionaire's tax passed at the height of the recession. This privileged group has already received a massive boost from the federal government in the form of the financial industry bailout, followed by the extension of the Bush tax cuts. Now they'll receive an extra gift from the state.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/03/governor-cuomo-new-yorks-poor-and-middle-class-drop-dead

So, Cuomo is trying to balance the budget on the backs of public employees and the poor, the sick, and the elderly.....sounds like your typical Republican governor! And that's what so nauseating about this dog and pony show. Somehow, for some reason, it's okay to be carrying out the big business agenda if your a Democrat -- even though it is essentially the same damn thing that Scott Walker and Chris Christie are doing....with the only notable difference is that they fight against marriage equality, while Democrats support it.

That may be enough of a difference to impress the editors of the N.Y. Times and other professional liberals who are part of that top income bracket, but what about everyone else? The leftwing blogosphere has mostly repudiated these charades, and it will be interesting to see how much is left of that Democratic grassroots support that Obama rode to the Whitehouse three years ago in next years election.

The expected billion dollar Obama Campaign is already framing itself as the only alternative to Republicans....I'm thinking that it's not going to be enough to bring many Obama voters back for 2012, and will set up a primary challenge and other third party alternatives who will remind voters that a lighter shade of Republican red isn't good enough!

[Pliny]

WIP: Well, the only thing unlikely is that these hot shot Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers usually open their wallets for Republican politicians....and that's because they can usually count on the slavish devotion of Repubs.

With the exception of Merrill Lynch, Republicans see very little Wall Street support. The above claim is factually incorrect.

Wall Street Political Donations

More on donations

Democrats, in particular, have become more reliant in recent years on Wall Street money. The second-largest source of donations to all Democratic candidates in the 2008 campaign has been the securities and investment industry. The industry ranks as the third-biggest giver to Sen. Obama's presidential campaign.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Pliny

[WIP]

With the exception of Merrill Lynch, Republicans see very little Wall Street support. The above claim is factually incorrect.

Wall Street Political Donations

More on donations

Yeah, I mentioned about Obama's collections from top hedge fund managers when he first entered the 2008 Democratic Primaries awhile back. It explains more about his so called "moderation" than the excuses made by top liberals that Obama was "playing three dimensional chess"...in case anyone's heard that one before.

Republicans get the lion's share of the cash from the Chamber of Commerce and the big oil companies; but the story isn't who gets what, it's about how much leverage corporations have over the political process. When they're telling Republicans to back off and let Andrew Cuomo get a win on gay marriage (an issue that wins him cred with liberals, but has no impact on business), I'm sure the religious right segment isn't happy about it, but they have to put that aside because they have to answer to the people who bring them the money....just as the Democrats have to stop or alter their wish list to accommodate the demands of their financiers.

[Oleg Bach]

Tell them they are decended from apes and convince them that men are woman and woman me - THEN you have an easily controlled population - a confused one.

[bud]

the story isn't who gets what, it's about how much leverage corporations have over the political process.

most of these corporations and special interest groups send cash to both parties. they don't really care whether a democrat or a republican gets in, because they have helped to finance their elections.

Edited June 30, 2011 by bud

[WIP]

most of these corporations and special interest groups send cash to both parties. they don't really care whether a democrat or a republican gets in, because they have helped to finance their elections.

And when they are paying both sides, that means there is essentially a one party state, rather than a two party system. One of the behind the scenes stories is that the money men specifically targeted weaker Republican legislators, like James Alesi of Rochester, that were anti-gay marriage, and threatened to cut off their donations if they voted against Cuomo's bill. Now, I'm personally in favour of marriage equality, but the implications of this case are that the Bankers prefer having Cuomo as Governor, because he is pretty much doing their bidding -- and the fact that he is a Democrat means that it is much more difficult for unions and others on the left to organize demonstrations against him, as happens in Wisconsin or Indiana.

If you recall the name "Alan Grayson," from the last election cycle - a Florida attorney who decided to run for Congress as a Democrat in a gentrified Republican district during the last election cycle...and lost to a heavily funded Republican in 2010 - Grayson informs us during an interview with OP ED News founder - Rob Kall, that as soon as he got settled in to his new congressional office, he was approached by lobbyists who informed him of how they wanted him to vote on health care reform and other issues. They told him basically that they were putting X amount of campaign cash for his district; if he followed their guidelines, he would get the money; but if he did not, the money was still going to his Florida district, but would support his next Republican opponent.

So, keeping this in mind, are liberals in the Democratic Party delusional or just plain stupid when they expect that Barack Obama, or prominent Democratic governors like Cuomo, Jerry Brown or Ed Rendell will do anything of significance, after stabbing them in the back and carrying out the corporate agenda...while just tossing them a few crumbs like letting them have their gay marriage bills!

[Pliny]

And when they are paying both sides, that means there is essentially a one party state, rather than a two party system.

Your statement there is a "one party state" for some reason doesn't seem to affect your discernment there is a clear distinction between the benign and benevolent Democrats and the evil and corrupt Republicans.

Which is it a one party state or a two party system?

Of course, I must point out that it seems convenient to your argument to see a one party state when Democrats are the major recipients of Wall street money. A two party system is better if you can continue the lie that Republicans are the bigger benefactor.

[bloodyminded]

Your statement there is a "one party state" for some reason doesn't seem to affect your discernment there is a clear distinction between the benign and benevolent Democrats and the evil and corrupt Republicans.

???

I don't believe I've ever heard our friend WIP even faintly hint that the Democrats were "benign and benevolent," and I'd be mightily surprised if he ever chose to say such a thing.

[WIP]

???

I don't believe I've ever heard our friend WIP even faintly hint that the Democrats were "benign and benevolent," and I'd be mightily surprised if he ever chose to say such a thing.

Right! It's a matter of trying to appear populist and working class while carrying out agendas that are largely corporate-driven. And, I think here in Canada, the NDP will morph and reposition itself as a center-left party, especially now that the Conservatives are cutting public campaign financing, and restrictions on corporate campaign financing will disappear, and reflect the American reality.

[WIP]

Your statement there is a "one party state" for some reason doesn't seem to affect your discernment there is a clear distinction between the benign and benevolent Democrats and the evil and corrupt Republicans.

Which is it a one party state or a two party system?

Of course, I must point out that it seems convenient to your argument to see a one party state when Democrats are the major recipients of Wall street money. A two party system is better if you can continue the lie that Republicans are the bigger benefactor.

There are many issues where both parties are out of step with the wishes of the majority of people. I think the Republican advantage is that their libertarian ideology allows them to be up front about their devotion to money and power...I'm thinking of Joe Barton's infamous apology to BP executives at Congressional hearings on the Gulf Oil Disaster. Democrats who collect big cheques from oil and coal companies have to try to hide it or make a lot more excuses to their supporters.

[Pliny]

Yeah, I mentioned about Obama's collections from top hedge fund managers when he first entered the 2008 Democratic Primaries awhile back. It explains more about his so called "moderation" than the excuses made by top liberals that Obama was "playing three dimensional chess"...in case anyone's heard that one before.

Republicans get the lion's share of the cash from the Chamber of Commerce and the big oil companies; but the story isn't who gets what, it's about how much leverage corporations have over the political process. When they're telling Republicans to back off and let Andrew Cuomo get a win on gay marriage (an issue that wins him cred with liberals, but has no impact on business), I'm sure the religious right segment isn't happy about it, but they have to put that aside because they have to answer to the people who bring them the money....just as the Democrats have to stop or alter their wish list to accommodate the demands of their financiers.

It remains that this statement from you is not factual.

WIP:Well, the only thing unlikely is that these hot shot Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers usually open their wallets for Republican politicians....and that's because they can usually count on the slavish devotion of Repubs.

[Pliny]

???

I don't believe I've ever heard our friend WIP even faintly hint that the Democrats were "benign and benevolent," and I'd be mightily surprised if he ever chose to say such a thing.

Not even a faint hint?

[bloodyminded]

Not even a faint hint?

Nope. It would appear you are more supportive and defensive of the Republicans...for some reason, unstated...than WIP is for the Democrats.

Edited July 6, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

It remains that this statement from you is not factual.

What's your point? Republican candidates still get more money, even from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, than Democrats do. The only difference I can see between the two parties is that the Democrats are trying to appeal to lower income voters on economic issues, while figuring a way to grab as much corporate cash as possible, while Republicans have no qualms about their toadying to CEO's, and pull out the religion and social issues to scare up some votes from lower income voters to get enough votes to win an election.

[Pliny]

What's your point?

The statement:

WIP:Well, the only thing unlikely is that these hot shot Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers usually open their wallets for Republican politicians....and that's because they can usually count on the slavish devotion of Repubs.

is not factual.

Republican candidates still get more money, even from Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, than Democrats do.

Saying, it again doesn't make it true.

The only difference I can see between the two parties is that the Democrats are trying to appeal to lower income voters on economic issues, while figuring a way to grab as much corporate cash as possible, while Republicans have no qualms about their toadying to CEO's, and pull out the religion and social issues to scare up some votes from lower income voters to get enough votes to win an election.

I will say that Democrats understand money but they have little concept of economics. That could be applied to politicians in general, I suppose. But I notice you say Democrats appeal to lower income voters on "economic" issues when you only mean buying their votes.

[Pliny]

Nope. It would appear you are more supportive and defensive of the Republicans...for some reason, unstated...than WIP is for the Democrats.

I'll eventually get to the Republicans -

[WIP]

The statement:

is not factual.

Saying, it again doesn't make it true.

I don't consider 'which party gets more' to be a worthwhile issue in the first place! Because we know that they spend most of their time fundraising while in office; and afterwards, many are still cashing in when they collect ridiculously generous fees in their later careers as Washington lobbyists. But, if you want to keep trotting out a claim that the Republicans aren't getting as much as Democrats, here's some numbers from 2010...

Supporting Republicans/

Opposing Democrats

$197,398,622.13

Supporting Democrats/

Opposing Republicans

$181,124,211.10 http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/totals

I will say that Democrats understand money but they have little concept of economics. That could be applied to politicians in general, I suppose. But I notice you say Democrats appeal to lower income voters on "economic" issues when you only mean buying their votes.

Whose votes are Republicans buying when they insist on keeping tax subsidies for oil companies and corporate jets? That's why they have to use faith, fear and resentment to appeal to the great unwashed! And if Republicans knew economics, why did Bush bring in tax cuts that reduced tax revenues so precipitously, he turned a budget surplus into 5 trillion dollars in deficit spending?

[Pliny]

I don't consider 'which party gets more' to be a worthwhile issue in the first place!

But you don't mind spouting some untruths about it.

Because we know that they spend most of their time fundraising while in office; and afterwards, many are still cashing in when they collect ridiculously generous fees in their later careers as Washington lobbyists. But, if you want to keep trotting out a claim that the Republicans aren't getting as much as Democrats, here's some numbers from 2010...

Supporting Republicans/

Opposing Democrats

$197,398,622.13

Supporting Democrats/

Opposing Republicans

$181,124,211.10 http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/totals

The subject is Wall street donations to political parties not party/non-party action committee expenditures. What I got from your cite was that in the 2010 election quite a bit of money was spent by non-party committees opposing Democrats.

Your citation does nothing to show the original statement you made to be factual.

Which was....oh yes :

WIP:Well, the only thing unlikely is that these hot shot Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers usually open their wallets for Republican politicians....and that's because they can usually count on the slavish devotion of Repubs.

Whose votes are Republicans buying when they insist on keeping tax subsidies for oil companies and corporate jets?

George Soros? Jeffrey Immelt? Do ya think? It's a huge voting block, isn't it? Those millions and millions of corporate jet owners could swing an election for sure. And once Republicans have bought George and Jeff's vote they will really be in the chips.

That's why they have to use faith, fear and resentment to appeal to the great unwashed!

What do Democrats use to appeal to the great unwashed? I think Obama will be attending Sunday Service a little more often this election cycle. But not staying the course by following Republican plans would be a dangerous path, and besides Republicans don't care about people.

Is that more or less what democrats want the great unwashed to think?

And if Republicans knew economics, why did Bush bring in tax cuts that reduced tax revenues so precipitously, he turned a budget surplus into 5 trillion dollars in deficit spending?

George was no economic whiz kid for sure and had a spending problem especially after the 2006 mid-term election. Obama is outspending George big time and feels there was always a revenue problem. He thought that George had a revenue problem too, I guess. Never mind spending. Let's just not pay any attention to that. Tax cuts are the problem.

If the revenues aren't there you would think they would need to cut spending accordingly. But remember if the economy is bad, revenues will be bad as well. Raising taxes is no guarantee of revenues and conversely, cutting taxes by no means guarantees a drop in revenues.

Do you believe that if Obama had been elected in 2000 the US federal government would have had a balanced budget by the time 2004 rolled around?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Pliny