I'm trying to understand the almost $1 million dollars donated by Goldman Sachs employees, partners and executives. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama campaign took no PAC monies from anyone, and accordingly they will not return anything. Was the money PAC money, or simply a donation from a employee?
Obama's latest charade is in full throttle. Make Republicans vote "for," "or" against Wall Street, when he presents his financial reform, and when they refuse to vote for his ever-tightening control over America's money, it will be clear Republicans side with the meanies on Wall Street, even though, from CNN, Barack Obama's second-highest PAC contributor, and company employees is Goldman Sachs. But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied that Obama took PAC money from anyone or anything.
Did you read about the keywords the White House bought to drive campaign donors to Obama's website? If not, read this because it has to do with Goldman Sachs.
Can you guess the largest PAC donor? It was the University of California PAC and employees - which donated more than $1.5 million, topping Goldman Sachs. Who knew any university had that kind of money to elect Liberals? Take your college age student and run as fast as you can to a conservative college. Oh my gosh! $1.5 million!
Goldman Sachs contributions to the Obama campaign were more than four times larger than the $230,09t in donations to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign....
According to figures dating to 1990, Goldman Sachs' PAC and employees have consistently contributed more money to Democratic rather than Republican candidates for federal office.From Timothy P. Carney at The Washington Examiner:
...$995,000 -- that's the most any politician has raised from any one company in a single election since the age of "soft money" ended.It is common knowledge that Wall Street is "conservative." Right? On the right side of the aisle? After all, Wall Street is "big business?" Well, it's not that simple. Wall Street often hedges their bets, and they do donate tokens to Republicans, but the big money goes to Liberals.
Obama is touting his proposed bank tax and fnancial regulations as a test of "whose side" politicians are on -- the bankers' or the people's. But check the numbers at OpenSecrets.org, and you get an interesting clue as to whose side Wall Street.
The Wall Street flood of cash to Democrats is not simply about buttering up those in power -- a close look at the cash looks like Wall Street wants Democrats to win. The top recipient of Wall Street PAC money is Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA), distinguished mostly by his being a very vulnerable incumbent.OpenSecrets.org says Goldman Sachs have increased their lobbying considerably this past quarter, a 70% increase from its spending during the first three months of 2009, apparently to try to waterdown the Obama financial regulations coming their.
Courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, this quote from Gibbs today:
The president doesn't take -- and didn't in the campaign take -- PAC money. Doesn't take money from registered federal lobbyists. Uhhhh, and I think anybody that contributed to the campaign at any point knew where the president sttod on regulating Wall Street and regulaing the financial industry. From, agains: That first speech on Wall Street in 2007, the second speech in March of 2008 -- the same venue we're going to go to -- and then anybody that watched the campaign from sot of mid-September on, obviously, uh, the focus was on, uh, what to do on Wall Street. See the Gibbs video here.That is total and complete "Gibberish."
Rush unwinds the garble:
Well, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. What about Jack Abramoff? Where's the outrage here? Isn't Goldman's money as dirty as Abramoff's is? So Gibbs' point is, "hell, no we're not giving the money back! They knew what they were in for. They knew what we were going to do. They had every idea what we were going to do to them. We make it clear we were out to destroy 'em, even from our speech in 2007 from Wall Street on. No, we're not giving the money back."For background on what Goldman Sachs did or perhaps did not do, you'll find this interesting.