Big Money, Big Hypocrisy
[guest post by Dana]
On a three day swing through California, President Obama spent last evening at a Democratic party fundraiser held in Bel-Air. Unfortunately, it is no longer surprising to see the hypocrisy of this president, and once again it was on display last night. It *should* be a surprise, but that it isn’t only evidences that we’ve seen it so often it’s become an expected behavior.
In a sober political assessment, President Barack Obama told donors Wednesday that disquiet and a sense of frustration in the country is fueling cynicism about government that could hurt Democratic turnout in the November congressional elections.
Obama told high-dollar contributors that he feels a sense of urgency about the election and needs the Senate to remain Democratic. Republicans have a chance to win control of the Senate this year.
Obama spoke at the home of Disney Studios Chairman Alan Horn before about 90 contributors who paid from $10,000 to $32,400 to attend. Among those attending were Hollywood luminaries Barbra Streisand, James Brolin and Jeffrey Katzenberg
Obama said the political system faces challenges from legislative procedures, a partisan media and too much money in politics. But he said the main cause for gridlock was fundamental differences between what Democrats believe and “what this particular brand of Republicans in Congress believes.”
Apparently the president is unaware of the closely guarded group Democracy Alliance, which I wrote about here. One of their primary goals: pump Big Money into the Democratic party. And perhaps he is unaware of Democratic billionaire Tom Steyer, who puts his money where his mouth is – straight into the Democratic party. And so it goes…
–Dana
The peasants are getting restless. Call out the feudal squires and their lances. Will no one rid me of this troublesome electorate ?
Mike K (cd7278) — 5/8/2014 @ 7:41 pmHe is the most cynical brazen liar I can recall.
JD (f3b432) — 5/8/2014 @ 7:50 pmIt’s our money they’re bribing him with. Big tax subsidies for Hollywood.
nk (dbc370) — 5/8/2014 @ 7:51 pmUnfortunately, it is no longer surprising to see the hypocrisy of this president,
Along with all the sycophants (ie, the “limousine liberals” in every sense of that phrase) who kneel and drool before his feet.
Bleech.
I guess the left has always been corrupt and disgusting in various ways, but perhaps it didn’t seem quite so bad — at least to me — in decades gone by because the mid-point of the socio-political spectrum still was closer to the middle and standards hadn’t yet fallen so far.
That’s why to have been a liberal in the context of, for example, 1950 or 1920 was one thing. But to be a liberal (or, for that matter, even philosophically squishy) in the context of 2014 is a whole different matter.
They say liberalism is a mental illness. That may explain why people of a particular faith or ethnicity (but who really represent the “race” or “ethnicity” of leftism) would give the following award to a person who deserves it about as much as he deserved the Nobel in 2009.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/8/2014 @ 7:51 pmHe also told them the people are with them on the issues. Let him enjoy the delusions while they last.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/8/2014 @ 7:58 pmhttp://spectator.org/articles/59104/hollowing-out-obama’s-coalition
mg (31009b) — 5/8/2014 @ 7:59 pmI’ve observed that you seem to favor the catch phrase “limousine liberal”, and LLs seem to annoy you even more than regular plain old rotten lousy squishy everyday liberals, Mark. How do you go about detecting limousine liberals apart from all the other liberal sycophants out there?
Do you think there are also corresponding limousine Republicans or is limousinism strictly a leftist disease?
elissa (ac5d20) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:16 pmNot nice, Elissa 😉
JD (f3b432) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:23 pmWell the speech is fraught with self delusion, and other sections from the DSM IV
http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/president-obama-fundraiser-hollywood-steven-spielberg-democrats/
it seems there are very few working class leftists, so Gore, Arianna, Soros, Steyer, all those immune from the schemes they wreak upon us, are the enlightened,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:30 pmJD–I just want to understand what Mark’s words signify when he writes them. I’d also like to know the differences he sees in Liberal thinking and goals between Woodrow Wilson’s time and Barack Obama’s time. Apparently he is surprised in some way. To me, it just seems very much like a slow long game continuum.
elissa (ac5d20) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:33 pmHow do you go about detecting limousine liberals apart from all the other liberal sycophants out there?
Actually, Elissa, I consider most people on the left to be “limousine liberals,” regardless of their income level. After all, practically every person who embraces liberalism also wants the finer things in life, all the creature comforts, all the advantages he or she can dig up for himself, and the surroundings that reflect that, even though they love pretending to be egalitarian, altruistic, non-bigoted, compassionate, generous and oh-so-non-greedy.
I guess the leftists who don’t fall in that particular category, however, are the ones who willingly (and happily) live in places like Detroit or, for that matter, the dumps and dives (and the corresponding public schools) not too many miles away from LA’s westside. But I would imagine very few of the people at Obama’s fundraiser fit that description.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:40 pmWilson set as his goal ‘to make college students, the opposite of their parent’s values’ he was a Progressive, but an anticommunist, in fact the first to wage the cold war unsuccessfully, he was also a social reactionary, in certain spheres,
narciso (3fec35) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:40 pmAre union people limousine leftists? Are the nation’s academics limousine liberals? Are the media race baiters limousine liberals? How about the poor people in Detroit? Is it a monetary cutoff of some sort? I’m really not trying to argue here. I despise liberalism. I just want to know the genesis of limousine liberalism and why it has its own different name, as opposed to regular liberal ideology.
elissa (ac5d20) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:43 pmKeynes, had this line, which is ironically apt;
In the long run we are all dead … are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
union people are working class, academics are some what higher in status, although some like Krugman
narciso (3fec35) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:49 pmhave a very good scam going, David Brooks gets paid 300 K for his effusions,
I just want to know the genesis of limousine liberalism and why it has its own different name, as opposed to regular liberal ideology.
I don’t know of any other phrase that captures so succinctly the two-faced, phony-baloney nature of liberals and liberalism, due in part to the alliteration of the two words.
There’s also the phrase “latte liberal” — which is a good fit for young urban dweebs who hang out at Starbucks all day long while bemoaning the unfairness of the capitalist system — and, particularly when thinking of people similar to the grotesque George Soros, “champagne socialist.”
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/8/2014 @ 8:52 pmCombating Liberalism is serious business. Maybe we should not cushion it and soften it up with cutesy names. My opinion only. Maybe I’m wrong.
elissa (ac5d20) — 5/8/2014 @ 9:14 pmYou know, at some point, you’ve made enough money.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/9/2014 @ 5:17 amGLWT.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/08/dnc-chair-heck-yeah-were-running-on-the-obama-economy/
Goldman Sachs puts Q1 GDP at -0.6%, JPMorgan at -0.8% and decelerating.
404Care will make more headlines about October. No there is no one to vote for, but Dhimmis will not want to be identified anyway, shape or form.
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/9/2014 @ 5:31 amelissa asked:
What they are, unfortunately, would be short-sighted people. Their sole concern is more money and more benefits for themselves, without enough economic knowledge to understand that if their demands are so high that the businesses for which they work can’t stay in business, they all lose their jobs.
The Republican Dana (3e4784) — 5/9/2014 @ 5:33 am==What they are, unfortunately, would be short-sighted people. Their sole concern is more money and more benefits for themselves, without enough economic knowledge to understand that if their demands are so high that the businesses for which they work can’t stay in business, they all lose their jobs.==
Exactly right, Republican Dana.
elissa (b88a7c) — 5/9/2014 @ 6:25 amThe liberals will always be among you. You can
— kill them or send them to gulags (it’s been done);
— direct their energies to socially beneficial pursuits such as keeping the masses distracted and entertained, e.g. TV, movies, Facebook, Tumblr, etc.;
— include the more talented and productive, e.g Google, Microsoft, Apple, serious writers and artists, into the wealth-making machinery, scientific progress, and intellectual development of the nation, while keeping a close eye on them;
— tax their asses off.
What else can you think of?
(As for Mark, he has called Mao Tse Tung and the Viet Cong limousine liberals at various times on this site. There’s sumthin, I say there’s sumthin, wrong with that boy. He ain’t running on all eight cylinders. Ignore him unless he gets too annoying.)
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2014 @ 7:00 amWhat else can you think of?
Not make excuses for FDR.
Case closed, nk.
Mark (99b8fd) — 5/9/2014 @ 7:14 amUnions are as much a part of the machinery of the state in the United States as they were in the Communist bloc. They are an important part of the middle class, itself vital to a stable society. The ones with intelligent and educated membership which is not easily controlled, such as the air traffic controllers and printers, get dissolved. The not so sophisticated ones that are controlled by union bosses who make sweetheart deals with government and business are coopted, directed and nurtured. The alternative is disruption in production, breach of the public peace, and even violent insurrection when enough workers feel that they are not getting their fair share of the nation’s wealth.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2014 @ 7:14 amI hate unions, but people have the right to join them, what with freedom of association and all that. That being said, the rules government passes to favor them should all be abolished.
That, by the way, Kevin M, is the constitutional way to fight unions. Not by squelching their speech, but by ending government protectionism for them.
Patterico (9c670f) — 5/9/2014 @ 7:19 amYou can have
— A couple of Teamsters who earn enough to send their kids to law school, business school, and medical school;
— Publicly supported schools, universities, and trade schools with free tuition;
— 3% of the population who can afford to educate their kids, with the bulk of skilled trades learned by apprentices bound to service for a term of years to their master in payment of their education, and the rest of the population knowing what their parents can teach them.
If you choose the third option, are you sure that you will be able to win a war on two oceans and three continents, send men to the moon, and have iPhones and Starbucks?
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2014 @ 8:00 amUnions, which represented the poorly educated and immigrants, and protected worker safety in mines and factories and foundries and shipyards were a whole different breed of cat than what we mostly have today–powerful public unions. (SEIU types, teachers, post office clerks, DMV workers, park district cleaner-uppers, trash collectors, police and firemen.) The mere idea that there need to be government employee unions to protect office staff, manual laborers, credentialed professionals, all well paid government employees from—-government, is laughable on its face.
elissa (b88a7c) — 5/9/2014 @ 8:40 amI want civil service employees not to be janissaries — state slaves to the political masters we idiotes elect over them. I want them to have an organizational identity and loyalty outside of the state and to feel a bond with ordinary working people. Lois Lerner was not in a union. But a union would have made it easier for an IRS employee in Cincinatti to tell her to FO when she asked him to do something illegal.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2014 @ 9:45 am“Organizational identity outside the state” –really, nk? Having fealty forced via dues to pay corrupt union leadership who engineer damaging strikes and turn elections for their political cronies? That’s the very last thing a responsible independent minded working person in a bureaucracy needs in my opinion. C’mon. You posit the union would stand up to Obama’s Lerner and the DOJ? Are you new? 🙂
It has been apparent for a while that you and I have a diametrically opposed view of the value, versus the damage caused by unions to working persons over a lifetime. It’s how we were raised. We should probably leave it at that. I’ll try to hold my tongue next time you sing the praises of unions.
elissa (b88a7c) — 5/9/2014 @ 10:43 amI’ll try to hold my tongue next time you sing the praises of unions.
Please don’t. Not on any subject. And definitely not for my sake. We’re just talking here.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2014 @ 12:04 pmAnd I am not ignorant of the unions’ faults you point out. You know that movie Casino? It was my parents’ pension fund that was raided by Allan Dorfman, the real life Teamsters business agent in cahoots with Sam Giancana, to build it. I’ve mentioned it before.
nk (dbc370) — 5/9/2014 @ 12:10 pmWhat protectionism exists?
Michael Ejercito (becea5) — 5/10/2014 @ 1:55 amMoney isn’t everything:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/05/10/NE-Sen-Ben-Sasse-Surges-to-14-Point-Lead
gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 5/11/2014 @ 1:25 am