Video: The real party of Wall Street

posted at 12:55 pm on April 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The NRSC wants to remind everyone during the debate on the financial regulation overhaul just which party got the big bucks from Wall Street in the last election. Today, they released a pretty effective web ad showing the numbers involved — which are eye-popping, without question. However, one has to wonder whether the GOP wants to keep treading down this road:

Wall Street donated tons of money to Democrats in 2008 for one reason: they were winning. While they hedged their bets by contributing substantial amounts to Republicans, Democrats won the Wall Street Sweepstakes not because of some grand devotion to their policies, but in order to maintain some leverage after the election. That’s not exactly a surprise, although after the AIG witch hunt and the class-warfare shrieks in the early days of this Congress, even some Wall Street execs began questioning that strategy.

That brings up a rather delicate question.  If Wall Street execs suddenly decide that Republicans have the momentum and want to climb aboard the bandwagon, will this Republican version of class warfare turn them off?  Does the GOP mean to establish that accepting Wall Street money signifies a lack of credibility on economics — which would certainly be a sea change from their position in 2002 and 2004?  A little of this kind of attack goes a long way.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Web Ads: Cuz they pushed McCain over the top in 2008.

lorien1973 on April 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM

They’d be better off pointing out how the dems helped precipitate the crisis, or didn’t see it coming, like from FWanks, Geithner, Orzag, and include Fannie MAe, Freddy Mac, and ACORN. Blame Bush too, as well.

dIb on April 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM

lorien1973 on April 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Ads were not McCain’s problem. McCain was McCain’s problem.

RBMN on April 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM

I would remind them that these ads CAN end up biting you in the booty if the winds of Wall St. donations change. I agree with dlb…stick to the figures of corruption and paint with a narrow brush.

search4truth on April 26, 2010 at 1:04 PM

Hope the republicans don’t get wrapped up in the class warfare debate. Those wall street firms also contribute profits to invested funds that help grow pension funds. Lets not make profits the enemy of our economy.

fourdeucer on April 26, 2010 at 1:05 PM

lorien1973 on April 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Pretty much preaching to the choir unless there is some possible Guy Fawkes interpretation.

Cindy Munford on April 26, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Ads were not McCain’s problem. McCain was McCain’s problem.

RBMN on April 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Since I just finished Sarah Palin’s book last night – I would tend to agree with this.

gophergirl on April 26, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Ed, I believe what the add is saying is that the Democrats are hypocrites going after “Wall Street” when they are major recipients of Wall Street money and as such swayed policy their way… This is warning us that the Democrats are trying to engineer a take over of the Wall Street they created as if they are innocent of that… They are saying don’t be fooled by these Domocrat chalatans…

CCRWM on April 26, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Oh and I think the video is very good and depicts that effectively…

CCRWM on April 26, 2010 at 1:10 PM

2008 Winner = Socialist

How did Wall Street figure they would gain anything?

fogw on April 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

Call me when they put it on national TV.

james23 on April 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM

In the clip they say Democrats are getting 70% of Wall Street money in the mid-term cycle. Are they talking 2006 or 2010?

Phoenician on April 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM

This ad might sway a few independents but true Dem voters are blinkered by emotion and oblivious to reality. The evidence is all the strum & drang over evil Big Insurance during the Obamacare debate. Now what is the real world effect of the legislation they so passionately championed? The U.S. government is deploying IRS agents to force uninsured Americans to buy from those very same villains. And what’s even better for Big Insurance is all these regulations virtually block any competitors from entering the market, insuring their monopoly. But will the suckers who campaigned for this ever wake up and admit they got played?

miles on April 26, 2010 at 1:16 PM

Since I just finished Sarah Palin’s book last night – I would tend to agree with this.

gophergirl on April 26, 2010 at 1:07 PM

You mean the book that a local TV news anchor in San Diego claimed was written by somebody else?

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 1:18 PM

As I recall Bill Clinton got a lot of Goldman Sachs money in 1992 and 1996 as well.

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 1:19 PM

You mean the book that a local TV news anchor in San Diego claimed was written by somebody else?

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 1:18 PM

LOL – is that what they are saying? Dang good book – enjoyed every second of it.

gophergirl on April 26, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Ed, it’s about the hypocrisy, not who got more money. That’s why they put those quotes up next to each of the Senator’s payday from Wall Street. To show the hypocrisy.

It’s a good strategy in my opinion. Republicans have ALWAYS been considered the party of rich white guys. So it’s a yoke they’re used to wearing. The tables have turned with the hypocrisy exhibited by Democrats the last 4 years.

ButterflyDragon on April 26, 2010 at 1:33 PM

I’d like to think the message of this ad is not to say that Wall Street prefers one party over the other; rather, Democrats who demonize the institution were all to happy to accept their donations highlighting either their faux outrage, or their two-faced hypocrisy.

BKeyser on April 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

A Little off topic but….Chuck Schumer is rocking a nice set of “moobies”. I’m guessing an A cup?

milwife88 on April 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/;kw=3351,11459

The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled dry American empire, reads like a Who’s Who of Goldman Sachs graduates.

But this is it. This is the world we live in now. And in this world, some of us have to play by the rules, while others get a note from the principal excusing them from homework till the end of time, plus 10 billion free dollars in a paper bag to buy lunch.

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Goldman, AIG and Geithner

As the ABACUS story develops and plays out, it now seems that Goldman hedged its exposure to a synthetic CDO by purchasing CDS’ from AIG. As much as I would like to adopt the new paradigm of positiveness that is sweeping our recovering economy, I cannot help but think the taxpayer got hosed by “The Honorable Timothy Geithner” by paying off in full what was essentially a private bet that even if it had not gone wrong would have added a sum total of zero value to the American economy.

Synthetic is just that: not real. The parties constructed a bet on certain bonds without actually having any participation in the actual bonds. It is like two of us betting on a Red Sox-Yankees baseball game; our bet has absolutely no impact on the outcome of the game.

I’m really trying to be positive and forgiving, but I cannot see anything that does not say Geithner f**ked the taxpayer and rewarded Goldman unnecessarily for a private side bet that offered nothing to society. There was no possibility of taxpayer benefit, yet the taxpayer still had to cover the loss.

That this transaction still stands, and Geithner still has a job—or is not in jail—seems to my unsophisticated mind to be proof that the system is gamed, unfair, corrupt, inefficient, and worthy of being destroyed.

KentAllard on April 26, 2010 at 1:41 PM

Wall Street donated tons of money to Democrats in 2008 for one reason: they were winning.

Not true. Most of these Wall Streeters are secular urban sophisticates who backed Obama for the same reason David Brooks did: they liked the crease in his pants and Bush had made Republicans declasse in the Park Avenue salons. They didn’t even bother to find out what a bunch of Chicago thug socialists could do to their industry.

rockmom on April 26, 2010 at 1:48 PM

They make ads all the time. Will they even put it on the air? Or will the RNC be putting all of their time, money and energy into helping Obama pass amnesty?

snaggletoothie on April 26, 2010 at 1:56 PM

LOL – is that what they are saying? Dang good book – enjoyed every second of it.

gophergirl on April 26, 2010 at 1:28 PM

No, just one of HA’s “legal experts”.

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

According to Open Secrets, which has chronicled Goldman Sachs donations for the past 20 years, Democrats have always received much more from the firm than Rethuglicans.
Especially since the evil Rethuglicans tried to overturn a popularly elected Democrat President by trying to remove him from office. Obviously that is when the Kool Aid kicked in:

1990…Dems 66%, Repubs 34%

1992…Dems 55%, Repubs 45%

1994…same as 1992. As I recall, the Dems weren’t “winning” that time around.

1996…same as 1992 and 1994

1998…Dems 63%, Repubs 34%

2000…Dems 62%, Repubs 38%

2002…Dems 66%, Repubs 34%

2004…Dems 62%, Repubs 38%

2006…Dems 63%, Repubs 37%

2008…Dems 75%, Repubs 25%

2010 to date…Dems 69%, Repubs 31%

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000085

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Schumer needs a bro.

m0nkeyb0y on April 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I don’t see a problem with it as all it really does is illustrate the hypocrisy of the Democrats in trying to position themselves as the party of the common man. However, it might have been wise to leave off the tag line about this the Dems being the REAL party of Wall Street. Better just to do as others above have suggested and documented how their greed, corruption and meddling led us to the mortgage meltdown which then plunged the rest of the economy into the abyss. I saw Dodd on Meet the Press yesterday and his phony indignation about the “greedy banks” who took advantage of these poor folks who just wanted to buy a house was absolutely astounding. How they make these claims and are still able to look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

NoLeftTurn on April 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

How they make these claims and are still able to look at themselves in the mirror is beyond me.

NoLeftTurn on April 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Hey, they are liberals. They have no morals, no scruples, no shame.

Remember, Bill Clinton is still convinced he didn’t break the law.

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM

No, just one of HA’s “legal experts”.

Del Dolemonte on April 26, 2010 at 1:57 PM

We seem to have more than our share of those, don’t we?

NoLeftTurn on April 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I think this is all a smoke screen, not paying attention to what is really happening.
Treasury to-day says the are going to sell Citigroup common shares.
GUESS who has been buying up Citigroup shares.
George Soros, John Paulson(yep the same one) Goldman Sachs
Eric Mindich(hedge fund CEO former Goldman Sachs, between the 3 they have over 1/2 BILLION shares.
Another fund owned by Bruce Berkowitz former Lehman Bros. exec. bought 214.7 Million shares.
GAMING THE SYSTEM?? while we are watching the this admin.putting on a circus.

concernedsenior on April 26, 2010 at 6:27 PM