Aww: Obama’s “Bundler-Ambassadors” not contributing in 2012

posted at 2:21 pm on June 20, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’m actually loathe to excerpt too much from this Huffington Post report filed by Howard Fineman and Paul Blumenthal, because it’s almost a work of performance art that needs to be read in its pristine condition for full enjoyment.  The article laments that Barack Obama’s 2008 bundlers apparently like their diplomatic sinecures as ambassadors so much that they’re now unwilling to come back and raise money for a second Obama turn.  Still, there are a couple of moments that stand out.  For instance, Fineman and Blumenthal describe the process of divvying up these plum diplomatic posts among big-ticket donors (a long and tawdry tradition in American politics) as a “good deed” by Obama while casting big-ticket Republican donors as boogeymen:

In politics, as in life, no good deed goes unpunished. Just ask President Barack Obama.

Facing a tidal wave super PAC spending from the likes of GOP-backing billionaires Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, the Democratic president lacks countervailing help from the super pack of well-heeled allies he drew in 2008 -– and rewarded with government jobs abroad.

Every President does this, but it’s not a “good deed.”  It’s a casually-tolerated form of corruption, which is equally true when either party does it.  It’s rather amusing to see progressive bêtes noires like Adelson and the Koch Brothers used to spook readers while praising the sale of ambassadorships to equally wealthy and active Democratic donors, however.

It’s especially amusing when the same piece laments the exclusion — so far, at least — ofGeorge Soros:

But the same Obama officials fret about the surging flow of mega-donations from conservative billionaires, especially since the Democrats’ own billionaire game-changer, George Soros, has shown no inclination to do in 2012 what he did in 2008, when he was the leading source of personal donations.

And then goes on to decry the loss of connection to corporate boardrooms that the Bundler-Ambassadors might have provided this year:

How will Team Obama fight back against the late bombardment of tens of millions of dollars in secretly donated cash to super PACs?

The president will need all the help -– and all the connection to big money in business -– that he can get. He is not beloved in corporate boardrooms of banks, investment houses and the law firms that serve them. But those are precisely the people that the bundler-ambassadors (and some other former bundlers in the administration) know best.

The President, by the way, has his own super-PAC that also “secretly” raises cash, in that it doesn’t disclose its donors.  It’s nowhere near assuccessful as conservative super-PACs, not because of any legal or diplomatic impediment, but because more people want to support Romney and Republicans in this cycle with more money.

The difference in losing the “Bundler-Ambassadors”  is rather small — only $28 million, which Obama has been raising about every two weeks.  Obama has held more fundraisers than any modern President — more, in fact, than two or three modern Presidents combined.  The problem isn’t that some former bundlers like their diplomatic assignments too much to give them up and raise money; it’s that Obama just isn’t as attractive to big-ticket donors, especially the ones he and his allies have been demonizing since September of last year with class-warfare attacks and Occupy protests.  If Obama and his team couldn’t have predicted this outcome from that strategy, well … that explains their insistence on Obamanomics, too.


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

I can give him a list of super rich from around the world who want America destroyed. Just trying to help..

IlikedAUH2O on June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Hee hee

Delicious

cmsinaz on June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

He is not beloved in corporate boardrooms of banks, investment houses and the law firms that serve them

Welcome to elections by SuperPAC. If you’re a too big to fail bank that took this country for a ride in 2008, you can buy your way out of adult supervision.

bayam on June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Oh oh…wonder why!

KOOLAID2 on June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Tito, pass me a tissue

cmsinaz on June 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

soros will make up the difference along with some of jug ear’s rich muslim buddies.

acyl72 on June 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Sweet, sweet fun!

Bmore on June 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

NEWS FLASH! to Democrats. George Soros doesn’t back losers.

GarandFan on June 20, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Michelle, I just don’t understand why these bourgeoisie Comrades don’t want to help me.

- Barack Obamuh.

Hon, for the first time in my adult life, I’m ashamed of these bourgeoisie Comrades.

- Michelle Obamuh.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Boy, life around Barack Obama involved just one big crying towel.

Have we ever had such a whiny panty waist for president, ever?

You can tell this guy was raised by his mama, he’s a straight up diva.

NoDonkey on June 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Obumbler: Hey, Wall Street fat-cat capitalist vampires, give me your money! What do you mean, no?

Steve Z on June 20, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Laugh of the day

Schadenfreude on June 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

The President, by the way, has his own super-PAC that also “secretly” raises cash, in that it doesn’t disclose its donors. It’s nowhere near assuccessful…

Sometimes, typos are funny.

Fallon on June 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You can tell this guy was raised by his mama, he’s a straight up diva.

NoDonkey on June 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

For informational purposes only :

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/your-right-to-know-more-racy-photos-of-obamas-mother-discovered-video/

burrata on June 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

“… George Soros, has shown no inclination to do in 2012 what he did in 2008, when he was the leading source of personal donations.”

You don’t know how much this saddens me…

/

Seven Percent Solution on June 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Ed, it should be “loath” not “loathe” in the first sentence.

DavidW on June 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

George Clooney: Ambassador to Sudan

John the Libertarian on June 20, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Ed, it should be “loath” not “loathe” in the first sentence.

DavidW on June 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

No, loathe is correct.

John the Libertarian on June 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

For informational purposes only :

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/your-right-to-know-more-racy-photos-of-obamas-mother-discovered-video/

burrata on June 20, 2012 at 2:47 PM

O_O

Seven Percent Solution on June 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Sarah Jessica Parker: Ambassador to Somoa

John the Libertarian on June 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Welcome to elections by SuperPAC. If you’re a too big to fail bank that took this country for a ride in 2008, you can buy your way out of adult supervision.

bayam on June 20, 2012 at 2:25 PM

We can thank FDR for a strong federal government that makes federal office so important that people are willing to shell out millions. If the federal government had the same restrictions it did before 1937, the rich wouldn’t think of wasting their money to get a congressman, senator, or president elected. Thanks to FDR and his threat to pack the court, we now have no meaningful constitutional limits on federal authority and a frightfully large and bloated federal government. This superPAC election is just a “benefit.”

RedinPDRM on June 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Tito, pass me a tissue

cmsinaz on June 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

LOL!

Kungfoochimp on June 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

l a n d s l i d e .

Tim_CA on June 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Tito, pass me a tissue

cmsinaz on June 20, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Hahahaha!

I’m trying to squeeze out a tear.
Nope.

HornetSting on June 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Sarah Jessica Parker: Ambassador to Somoa

John the Libertarian on June 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Does Somoa have a lot of horses?

HornetSting on June 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Never fear, the Gulf States (not that one, the other one with camels), will come through.

CorporatePiggy on June 20, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Jon Corzine wonders if diplomatic immunity is retroactive and covers securities fraud.

blah blah blah on June 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Heh… Go figure

fistbump on June 20, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Aww: Obama’s “Bundler-Ambassadors” not contributing in 2012

Starve the beast.

Starve it to frigging death.

UltimateBob on June 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Boy, life around Barack Obama involved just one big crying towel.

Have we ever had such a whiny panty waist for president, ever?

You can tell this guy was raised by his mama, he’s a straight up diva.

NoDonkey on June 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

He’s a shining example, a poster boy if you will, of what affirmative action gets you.

NapaConservative on June 20, 2012 at 3:08 PM

soros will make up the difference along with some of jug ear’s rich muslim buddies.

acyl72 on June 20, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I’m sure Obama has collected his commission in full and in advance , for all our taxpayer money he has been doling out to the jihadies of the world

burrata on June 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM

The “bundler-ambassadors” are probably not contributing now because they realize that they are not likely to be getting the return on their “investment” in Obama that they were almost guaranteed in 2008.

Obama is no longer the blue-chip investment he was in 2008; now he’s a highly-speculative, high-risk investment. IOW Obama, like the U.S.’s credit rating, has been downgraded.

AZCoyote on June 20, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Ed, it should be “loath” not “loathe” in the first sentence.

DavidW on June 20, 2012 at 2:50 PM

No, loathe is correct.

John the Libertarian on June 20, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Nope; it’s not.

Loath is an adjective meaning reluctant or unwilling.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/loath

Loathe is a verb meaning to dislike strongly.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/loathe

https://terriblywrite.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/im-loath-to-say-this-but-i-loathe-this-mistake/

DavidW on June 20, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Interesting. Went to HuffPo to read the entire article. The Partisan Divide in the comments has shifted right, that was almost entertaining.

Almost.

FineasFinn on June 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM

The “bundler-ambassadors” are probably not contributing now because they realize that they are not likely to be getting the return on their “investment” in Obama that they were almost guaranteed in 2008.

Obama is no longer the blue-chip investment he was in 2008; now he’s a highly-specul

Exactly. It’s amazing how quickly money dries up when it looks like someone will likely lose.

Big donors are MUCH more sensitive to where the political winds are blowing than the guy that throws a $25 online donation to a candidate. The big bundlers very much look at their donation as an investment.

BradTank on June 20, 2012 at 3:40 PM

I have always said this-follow the big money in politics. it will tell who is likely to win. These big donors are not going to throw money away and always back the winner so they can reap their rewards. obama is toast.

Ta111 on June 20, 2012 at 4:02 PM

“… George Soros, has shown no inclination to do in 2012 what he did in 2008, when he was the leading source of personal donations.”

i’m crushed :)…

jimver on June 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Bad news, moonbats: Mitt’s campaign is going to collect a huge haul this month.

If Obama would have improved the economy, maybe he would have gotten more campaign contributions. I don’t know if his supporters can make campaign contributions from EBT and unemployment debit cards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/obama-campaign-fundraising-mitt-romney_n_1612966.html

Philly on June 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Obama should be fired for dereliction of duty.

Anyone that thinks “winning” the presidency is a contest of who can raise the most cash with which to screw the American people out of their representative republic as obama does, should be put on a desert island to live out their last 3 weeks of life.

….and no, I don’t think Romney thinks this as obama does. obama does NOT care about this country, in fact, I firmly believe he HATES this country. I think the opposite of Romney. You can see it in his face and hear it in his voice. Maybe there’s a tad bit of naivete there, but there’s also a genuine love of country there too. Not true with the liar and hater in chief, the marxist pig obama.

Wolfmoon on June 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

I’d love to see the hollywood gang step up and invite King Barry back for another fund raiser. Except this time they punk him and nobody shows.

The ego-maniac deserves it.

fogw on June 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM

I wish I could top the link containing nude photos of Zero’s mother, but alas I just have a link to HuffPo. Sad face :(.

Philly on June 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

An absolutely outstanding piece.

Kudos and thank-you!

Nana on June 20, 2012 at 11:25 PM