I have been taken to task via email for suggesting that Obama is corrupt for taking money from the insurance industry - a LOT of money - and then sheparding a bill through Congress that legalizes insurance corpo's predatory policies and forces people to buy useless health insurance at top prices. Clearly, I am told, someone running for president (or any other elective office) has to have campaign $$$ or he won't win. It is, they say, The System. Not his fault. There is no, they asserverate, connection between the amount of an industry's campaign contributions and a bill sponsored by the WH that just happens to favor that industry over the consumers forced to use it. To believe that, they say, is cynical and cynicism is a cyn.
Uh, "sin".
Since Obama is a Democrat, any $$$ accepted for campaign contributions must perforce be pure as the driven snow. There can never - repeat NEVER - be any relation whatever between the donations and the bills backed by that Democrat no matter how it looks. It is a coincidence, just a coincidence, that Obama received all that bread and then just happened, by sheerest accident and a genuine belief that he was doing the right thing, came out strong for a gift-bill that the insurance corpo's never in their wildest dreams dared believe they'd get.
How dare I suggest there's any equivalency between those two events? Why, that would be...BRIBERY! And no Democrat would ever stoop to such a thing. I was directed, in order so I cioukld see the clear difference between them, to Scott Brown's campaign contributions from the financial industry, clearly an attempt to bribe a would-be Senator into compliance with the industry's attempt to kill any new banking regulations.
In a six-day span just before the US Senate election, Republican Scott Brown collected nearly $450,000 from donors who work at financial companies, a sign the industry is prepared to spend heavily in the upcoming midterm elections to beat back new controls and taxes President Obama wants to impose.
The donations, from hundreds of financial executives, far exceeded what Brown received from doctors and others in the health care industry in the final days of the campaign. While Brown saw donations from all quarters explode in mid-January, as polls showed him closing fast on opponent Martha Coakley, the donations from financial workers coincided with several key developments that would affect their companies.
On Jan. 14, five days before the Senate election, President Obama proposed a fee on large financial firms to recoup the cost of the government’s bailout of the industry, and he angrily demanded that those firms cut executive bonuses.
And they believed him, apparently either forgetting that they'd already purchased his services or believing that he was betraying them, as indeed any good financial manager would do to his closest friend if there was $$$ at stake. We know it's just kabuki but they can't be sure when the worm will turn and besides, there's no coward on Earth with less spine than a banker taking a risk he might not be able to get the taxpayers to bail him out of if it went bad. So they bought some insurance in the form of a corrupt Republican. Of course, Brown hasn't actually voted for anything yet but that isn't important.
Obviously, this is a COMPLETELY different scenario from Obama's case because, um, because....wait, I'll remember.....
Oh yeah. Because Scott Brown is a REPUBLICAN. So that's different. If he does it, he's a crook. If Obama does it, it's coincidence. Got it? OK. Now just keep that straight. IOKIYAD.
Comments