Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

We always knew it.

By

Joe Klein says that candidates are human beings, with sometimes-interesting stock portfolios, so back off. (He’s right, but I suspect this will be one of the few times I type “Joe Klein says”.)

One of Ezra Klein’s commenters proposes some campaign slogans:

Vote McCain–A human being with a portfolio.

Vote Giulliani–Half human half portfolio.

Vote Romney–A Portfolio with a human exoskeleton.

Sweet.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors.

    <

    p>
    Okay.  Someone try and disuade me from voting for Barack Obama based on that paragraph.  In other words, why should this matter to me, the typical middle class liberal and professional?  I’m fairly smart, and sure I can follow along.  But use small words, please.

    <

    p>
    I have a hearing to go to, but I’m sure someone can come up with something by the time I get back.

    <

    p>
    Ready?  Go!

    <

    p>

    • Some people are saying Uncle Obama did a bad thing.

      <

      p>
      Some of these people simply want to make it harder for Uncle Obama to get elected President.  Some of these people think it is bad that Uncle Obama spent his money on two small companies that are run by people who just gave Uncle Obama a lot of money. 

      <

      p>
      Some people are worried that Uncle Obama, who is now a United States Senator, might use his power to spend daddy and mommy’s tax dollars to help these companies.  Or that he might try to really scare people about a “bird flu” because he wants to help out his friends who make a medicine for bird flu.

      <

      p>
      This is why most people who become Senator’s stop investing their money themselves.  So that people won’t say bad things about you even if you really didn’t do anything too bad.

    • Ok, Eddie.

      <

      p>
      Once upon a time there was this blonde chick, Cinderella.  Life sucked, cleaning the hearth and all.  I never figured out why she was always bothering with the hearth and those cinders, but that’s where nicknames are born–weird fetishes.

      <

      p>
      Anyway, Cinderella meets fairy godmother.  Fairy godmother hooks her up with some Prince Mucketymuck and suddenly, she’s SOMEBODY.  Rags to riches.

      <

      p>
      Why the backstory? You’re five.  Shut up. Asleep yet?

      <

      p>
      Anyway.  She marries the Prince, then runs for Senate.  She wins, writes a book–Dreams from my Godmother–takes some of that new cash, and invests with an old friend F. Godmother. 

      <

      p>
      Now F. Godmother just happens to be majority owner of Pumpkins Coachline. Pumpkin Coachline is looking for government funding. 

      <

      p>
      Cinderella’s not wise to politics, or maybe she’s very wise.  Nonetheless, the thought of helping out an old friend plus making a few bucks is too good to pass up.

      <

      p>
      Cindy invests no small sum in Pumpkin Coachline.  Pumpkin Coachline gets its cash from the Government.  Was Cinderella instrumental in the Government cash? 

      <

      p>
      Heh. Can’t say. That chapter’s missing.  Good question though.

      <

      p>
      Cinderella sells for a quick short term profit.

      <

      p>
      And they lived happily ever after.

      <

      p>
      ‘night eddie.

          • Still a goose egg in logic and factual accuracy, though.

            <

            p>
            Keep trying. You can do it!

              • your ineffectual debating strategy.

                <

                p>
                In any case, Obama’s money was in a blind trust. He never chose to invest in anything. A fact included in the original article.

                <

                p>
                I’m done. Your mom’s here to pick you up.

                • You say:

                  <

                  p>

                  Obama’s money was in a blind trust. He never chose to invest in anything. A fact included in the original article.

                  <

                  p>
                  Not “a fact” but rather “an asertion” by an interested party. Rather than place blind trust in the blind trust, the article questions the coincidence of the investment.

                  <

                  p>
                  But you knew that.

                  <

                  p>
                  So too, I’ve gotta run.  So as you said, your mom’s here to pick me up. Grroowlll…

                  <

                  p>

                • the article “questions” the timing. Are you deef? That happens to be the entire point of this diary! The article admits the companies have received no federal money; it admits finding no evidence that they have benefitted in any way from Obama’s actions; it admits to finding no ethical breach whatsoever.

                  <

                  p>
                  It just…questions.

                  <

                  p>

                • Finally! 

                  <

                  p>
                  Exactly, the article questions the timing and the coincidence of it all.  Much the same as WSJ “questioned” the impropriety of Enron transactions, the WAPO “questioned” the Watergate break in, I question your ability to properly debate without using ad hominen as a crutch….

                  <

                  p>
                  BTW, thought you said you were done.

      • I really hope that’s not how you tell stories to your kids.

        <

        p>

        Was Cinderella instrumental in the Government cash?

        <

        p>
        Eh.  Okay. 

      • that he was, then it’s a story and a very real concern.  If no one can though, this seems more like the type of nonsense story that comes out before an election (“killer coke,” anyone?) than a real story.

    • …it appears that stocks were purchased on the open market based on tips from friends and colleagues.  That really isn’t unusual.

      <

      p>
      What should be considered unusual would be if Obama had gotten special access to stock in companies just before they were to go public (IPO-Initial Public Offering).  That would be disturbing, but that doesn’t appear to be what was happening in these case.  Stock prices in companies tend to increase in value (or at least they used to) shortly after they go public, and the people who had invested before the IPO oftentimes “cash out” at least some of their stock with huge profits.  But that doesn’t seem to be what happened in Obama’s case.

      <

      p>
      I guess the NYTimes, as usual, was trying to stir up a controversy that didn’t exist to sell more fish wrapping paper and birdcage liner.

  3. The other elephant in the room – the contrasting moral character of the lead candidates.  You know, family values, and all that.

    <

    p>
    McCain–Adulterous Affair; Divorce.  Had affair with wealthy 25 year old; divorced old, worn out Wife 1 and used crisp Wife 2’s money to launch campaign.

    <

    p>
    Giulliani–Divorce; Adulterous Affair; Divorce.  After divorcing Wife 1 and marrying Wife 2, publicly paraded Current Mistress in St Patrick’s Day parade.  Informed Wife 2 of impending divorce in public press conference.

    <

    p>
    Gingrich–Adulterous Affair; Divorce; Adulterous Affair; Divorce.  He’s not a lead candidate now, but he’s high on the wish list.  Divorced Wife 1 while she was in hospital with uterine cancer.  Had affair with congressional aide while heading up Clinton impeachment proceedings.

    <

    p>
    Clinton–Never divorced.

    <

    p>
    Edwards–Never divorced.

    <

    p>
    Obama–Never divorced.

  4. …into a thread that must have set the thread deterioration speed record, here goes.

    <

    p>
    Obama (who I don’t dislike, so I’m not looking for an excuse to slam him) may or may not have an issue with his investments, as he isn’t President yet, so we’ll have to wait for the quid pro quo, if any.  However, more than a few folks have been scratching their heads at the Senator’s advocacy for Coal-To-Liquid (fuel) technology as part of the solution to the energy-independence conundrum.

    So why then, environmentalists ask, is Obama backing a law supporting the expanded use of coal, whose emissions are cooking the globe? It seems the answer is twofold: his interest in energy independence — and his interest in downstate Illinois, where the senator’s green tinge makes the coal industry queasy.

    Since we’re talking about candidates being human (almost as shocking as them engaging in politics), to me that seems something with a little more meat on it, but the story’s been out there for a while, so maybe that’s another yawner as far as folks are concerned.

Archives