Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I can’t help but be bemused by the pickle that Cory Booker finds himself in. The problem for him wasn’t his Harold Ford-like approval of private equity firms. It was his denigration of a key Obama campaign talking point, right as it was getting started. In doing this, Booker found himself facing a crew of Obama supporters eager for revenge. And the facts about Booker’s career weren’t so hard to find, to fuel that revenge fantasy.
Wall Street has been a huge backer of Booker’s campaigns. In 2006, “Lee Ainslie, the founder of hedge fund Maverick Capital Management LLC and a former protégé of Tiger Management LLC’s [Julian] Robertson; and D. Ian McKinnon, the managing partner of Ziff Brothers Investments,” maxed out in their donations to Booker’s campaign. Even putting aside direct donations to Booker’s campaign, Wall Street has also curried favor with the Newark Mayor through other routes. For instance, Bloomberg chronicled in 2010 how Booker worked to raise as much as $240 million from Wall Street and other American financial services hubs to invest in urban renewal in the city of Newark. By promising dollars for projects Booker backed, Wall Street has has possibly been able to exert a level of influence on him.
Robertson, the prominent Booker campaign supporter who helped finance a Newark Charter program on behalf of Booker, is a close ally to Mitt Romney. Robertson is a primary donor to Romney’s Super PAC, Restore Our Future. Robertson’s $1.8 million in contributions to Restore Our Future make him the second biggest contributor, next to Bob Perry.
Lee Ainslie, the other hedge fund manager that helped finance Booker’s career, has given $100,000 to Romney’s Super PAC.
And there’s plenty more where that came from, including this report from the Obama-aligned Think Progress. Turns out that Booker raised lots of money from executives from Bain Capital. As John Cole writes, Booker is “paid for in full.”
But no more than, say, Barack Obama, who raised $3.5 million from private equity and hedge funds in 2008. The same day Obama released his first attack ad on Bain Capital, he was holding a fundraiser in the home of private equity head Tony James of the Blackstone Group. Booker was following a time-honored tradition in the Democratic Party of the last decade or two, complete with the money-grubbing from Wall Street. With unions collapsing, this is the base of support to which Democrats with national ambitions have gone. Booker just got caught.
But the irony of Booker getting savaged by Democratic partisans, to the extent that he had to do damage control on Rachel Maddow out of nervousness over his shattered career prospects, when the leader of the party followed the exact, precise path to power, is a little much.
Obama spoke about the Bain issue yesterday and showed the young, unlearned Booker how it’s done from a lip service standpoint:
I think it’s important to recognize that this issue is not a “distraction.” This is part of the debate that we’re going to be having in this election campaign about how do we create an economy where everybody from top to bottom, folks on Wall Street and folks on Main Street, have a shot at success and if they’re working hard and they’re acting responsibly, that they’re able to live out the American Dream.
Now, I think my view of private equity is that it is set up to maximize profits. And that’s a healthy part of the free market. That’s part of the role of a lot of business people. That’s not unique to private equity. And as I think my representatives have said repeatedly, and I will say today, I think there are folks who do good work in that area. And there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs or new industries, but understand that their priority is to maximize profits. And that’s not always going to be good for communities or businesses or workers.
And the reason this is relevant to the campaign is because my opponent, Governor Romney, his main calling card for why he thinks he should be President is his business expertise. He is not going out there touting his experience in Massachusetts. He is saying, I’m a business guy and I know how to fix it, and this is his business.
And when you’re President, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who got laid off and how are we paying for their retraining. Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as President is to think about how do we set up a equitable tax system so that everybody is paying their fair share that allows us then to invest in science and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.
And so, if your main argument for how to grow the economy is I knew how to make a lot of money for investors, then you’re missing what this job is about. It doesn’t mean you weren’t good at private equity, but that’s not what my job is as President. My job is to take into account everybody, not just some. My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now.
This is how it’s done for an establishment Democrat. You talk in somewhat populist terms about how a President has to look out for the little guy. You do it in such a way that you don’t demean private equity. You talk about retraining and equitability and employment clusters and investments. And you come off sounding like the one who cares about the average worker in the street instead of turning a profit.
Now the next day you go back to Wall Street and ask them for some more money. And you make sure that none of their misdeeds go punished. And you make sure that the constraints on their businesses are as minimal as possible. It turns out they still don’t like you, because you want to raise their tax rates by about 2% and your opponent wants to shower them with millions. And you scratch your head and wonder how a group of people who you’ve bent over backward for can turn on you so quickly.
But you still have your adoring fans. And Cory Booker doesn’t. Booker’s problem was that he let everyone behind the curtain see who was holding his puppet strings. Ah, the folly of youth.




36 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
How long before “private equity” collapses & leaves govts holding the bag.
Problem- Obama and the Democratic Party are corrupted by corporate, Wall Street money.
Solution- Stop voting for Obama and the Democrats. Simple enough equation.
You ant corporate money out of politics? Stop voting for it.
Rocky Anderson for president
Great stuff.
How’s that getting rid of italics on block quotes to improve readability project going?
By virtue of the double indent you are already saying it’s a block quote so why bother with the Itals? It just makes it harder to read. I realize I’ve pointed this out before.
http://webstyleguide.com/wsg3/8-typography/5-typographic-emphasis.html
Italics
Italicized text attracts the eye because it contrasts in shape from body text. Use italics for convention—for example, when listing book or magazine titles—or within text for stressed or foreign words and phrases. Avoid setting large blocks of text in italics because the readability of italicized text, particularly at screen resolutions, is much lower than in comparably sized roman (“plain”) text.
Although I agree and respect the writer’s view point on this good write up, the issue of going after funds is a little cynical. The “middle class” is barely hanging in there. They don’t have “chump change” ($1m) to spend on a candidate of their choosing. Yet the candidates opponent has MANY wells that can and do give. Most of their weath is to protect themselves as we know.
So to suggest that the President doesn’t have to grovel at a trough now and still retain his dignity misses the point. Unless you, the writer, knows of a way to fight many states voter suppression laws, disingenuous attacks of character, bigotry, etc. please do not suggest that his groveling changes his character for the betterment of citizens in this and other countries.
He is not perfect and he has missed my markers on many occasions, but he has done more then others (especially Clinton if you are more Democratic). He should be compared to Theodore Roosevelt as a “PROGRESSIVE” who was surely not perfect!
David, you are on fire. Keep it coming. No slack!
Pam! You watchin’ this?
Or have you found another republican peckerhead that thinks the earth is flat, to shriek about, so people won’t pay attention to our republican-lite preznint?
JRubin:
Do you think we should have had a public option in the healthcare “reform” bill?
Do you think Obama, as he promised, has protected our coastlines from offshore drilling?
Were you pleased when Pelosi stuffed the effort by some House democrats to strip the health insurance robber barons of their exemption from our anti-trust laws? Or, even worse, do you think that she did that on her own hook? (Please tell us you don’t think that…)
How long are you willing to keep our troops in Afghanistan?
When Obama was at that $30,000-a-plate fatcat dem fundraiser, and used the progressives who put him on track for the White House in 2008, like we were a piñata, were you offended?
Are YOU, as are some other people on here, proud of Obama’s “courage” as he waited 3 and a half years to “come out” for Gay equality, and then only did it AFTER Gays and progressives had gotten the shit kicked out of us in N.C.? And after Joe Biden had embarrassed him by soonering him BEFORE the vote?
Are you supportive of Obama’s joining Israel in constant saber-rattling at Iran, as he flirts with a mid-east war? If that happens, will you support it? (Extra-credit subject: did you support Bush’s invasion of Iraq?)
Hope you don’t mind a few questions about Obama’s “accomplishments”? :o)
Good morning, eCAHN.
Let us consider the contrary: How long until “government” collapses & leaves private equity with a stranglehold on everything, (including the damned “bag”)?
BTW, DDay, the Obama supporters hereabouts will not take kindly to your honest appraisal of their man … and, when it is added to Obama’s other “tendencies” … well, the less said the worser.
Money may yet prove to be the bane of both candidates and it is a very (there, I used an unnecessary modifier … and I’ll toss out some more excessively flowery verbosity when I get muh steam up, as I most decidedly don’t wish to be confusulated with any low-grade Congress types, no how, no way, ;~D …) good thing that most other people do not deserve very much of “it”, money, that is, as excessive demand would crimp the style of our noble political class (aren’t we ever so lucky to have a choice of evils? Pity about all those poor un-represented people who were not smart enough to be born into a democracy … but then, that is what personal responsibility is ALL about and they shall have to live with their choices … unless our intrepid leaders decide that they should not, everything being right with the world and so on … Really, you could get eaten by a mountain lion or struck by lightning, so why all this droning-on fuss about “collateral damage”? Oh, you’re not going to start with all that silly due process and rule of law stuff are you? It’s torture, that’s what it is, pure torture … and right when this great nation is beset by disaffected, dangerous, and deluded demonstrators asking embarrassing questions and interfering with the Peoples’ Business … just because of a moldy, quaint old piece of paper and a bunch of silly notions … what’s that? So what if the Dems aren’t doing anything about global climate change? At least they all claim to believe that it is real … they just have other priorities … oh, and they know things that you don’t know, SO? If you haven’t done anything wrong … and don’t know anything, then you don’t have anything to worry about.
Well, that about covers it for now … and I defy anyone to say that ain’t first grade quality material I just done filled yer head with.
Curmudgeons Unite!
All you have to lose is fear itself … nonetheless, watch yer step, there’s lots of BS … everywhere.
DW
I’d point out: Obama is SAYING the right things as he calls out Romney for bragging about his corporate expertise…
I’m just thankful that David has the honesty and the smarts to point out Obama’s ties to the same corporatist shits.
“The less said, the worser.”
Line of the week, and, unfortunately, the clear philosophy of some of the threaders on the Lake.
‘But the irony of Booker getting savaged by Democratic partisans, to the extent that he had to do damage control on Rachel Maddow’
He was justifiably resavaged by Crystal Ball and Steve Kornacki, with Martin Bashir after the maddow display…
rachel reached the mariana trench of village stenography last night.
She adopted the david gregory approach of no follow up and let booker filabuster and bloviate his way through without an apology or retraction.
She then had mrs greenspan come on and teller what a ‘hot story’ she got.
I’m sure if she has any conscience left, she was steamed by Ball and Kornacki calling out the nothingness of her stroking booker.
Obama should be compared to Teddy Roosevelt as a Progressive? Please. Teddy took on the original JP Morgan and also launched the process that eventually broke up the Standard Oil Trust. TR’s Square Deal actually improved the lives of some members of the working class.
Then, when the Republican Party betrayed him and working people during the Administration of his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, TR challenged Taft for the nomination and, when he lost, challenged him in one of the most successful third party bids in American history, carrying several states in 1912 and guaranteeing his former party’s defeat.
In short, Teddy Roosevelt had some integrity. Obama has none.
Do you mean again? Or is the answer to your question negative three years?
Does this mean I have to endure another round of crap like this:
“Hey, don’t you realize it was the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 that caused all this mess?”
You don’t know how many times I had to hear this non-sense over the last four years. Yeah, yeah, yeah, a thirty year old US law made the WORLD ECONOMY and WORLD BANKING collapse when all the real evidence is that loans made to CRA standards performed better.
Or another oldie and moldie:
It’s too much government regulation!
Sure, despite the fact that we didn’t have these economic implosions while we had stronger regulation after the Great Depression, and now we have this mess after nothing but thirty years of deregulation.
And the all time champ of stupid:
We have to cut taxes to fix this!
Hey, we’ve been “cutting taxes” since Reagan, by now we’re supposed to be rolling in jobs and all wealthy as all get out. No? Or like Bush, we had to cut taxes because we’re paying down the Federal debt too fast and then we have to cut them again because the Federal debt was growing too fast, and then we have to cut them, well, just because Republicans cut taxes for the rich, that’s what they do.
But I digress…
Booker is a creation of the hard right now a leader in school privatization.
“Glen Ford, a journalist from Jersey City who is the co-publisher of a Web site called Black Commentator, says Mr. Booker is allied with conservatives seeking to dismantle public education, destroy affirmative action and gain an urban foothold for their views. He points to a speech Mr. Booker gave to the conservative Manhattan Institute two years ago and a recent column by the conservative writer George F. Will that ridiculed Mr. James and lionized Mr. Booker. “He’s totally cynical, careerist and mercenary,” Mr. Ford said. “They’re backing him so they can claim a black elected official from a black city.”
[…]
No matter what happens in Newark on May 14—a Booker victory or a close loss—heavily Black cities across the nation should expect an assault for which they are ill prepared. Ultra-conservatives have made an historic decision to invest all the money it takes to plant their flag in our midst. Using these unfortunate cities, they plan to create the appearance of an alternative Black politics of the Right. Booker’s showing so far has already given them all the encouragement they need.
From the 2002 article: Newark: The First Domino? The Hard Right Tests Its National Black Strategy | Black Agenda Report
hahahaha
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/30/1079054/-What-if-Barack-Obama-weren-t-a-leftist-
Private equity can’t work without the backing of govt. It’s a euphemism for LBOs, and leverage is the biggest culprit behind every large market collapse bc it works in both directions. Thus, once the failure occurs, PE needs govt to bail them out.
If only the forked tongue was a terminal disease . . .
http://blackagendareport.com/content/fruit-poisoned-tree-hard-rights-plan-capture-newark-nj
From your link
Sound like anyone else we know?
Great writing David.
jrubin, the problem is the dems CHOSE this path. They chose the path of Wall Street Money rather than back and support unions, and the “little guy” they feel they must acknowledge election season. They chose to allow election fraud. I remember Dean looking at this several years ago. They had power in congress and decided to do absolutely nothing about voter issues. Now they are playing politics with the issue. It was Obama the dems who kicked ACORN to the curb.
Did they make any attempt in the time they had power for serious campaign reform or public financing? No!
The issues you brought up are self-inflicted wounds. The dems are just as corrupt as repubs. They love corporate money. In fact they may be worse because at least the repubs don’t hide it.
No disagreement there.
The PTB co-opted union leaders and after that they would do whatever they were told. Ds can count on their votes and their GOTV (ditto blacks, hispanics, women), so no reason not to go for the big bucks. CU accelerated that mightily.
With you, Shadow.
Maddow has turned into one of the worst of the “We suck less!” Pom-pom wavers.
The Maddow revelation for me was when she did her Afghan (or was it Iraq?) embed & pranced fawning around the U.S. military.
Andrea Mitchell is also peddling Obama-fertilizer, when she says that the Gay marriage issue was “badly damaged” by Joe Biden. This is arrant horseshit: What Biden did (supposedly, unintentionally…) was to help force Barack Obama to crawl out from under his desk, where he was hiding for 3 and a half years.
It’s also stomach-turning to watch Maddow and Mitchell giving each other glute-rubs. Maddow has turned into the purest Obama pimp going…which evidently thrills Mitchell to her toenails.
Well, when it comes to a “government” enthralled with money and power, in the service of the elite, building the “private equity” which the elite did NOT “lose”, in fact the elite lost nothing and gained “bonuses” for their clever “control” these past many years, “government’s sole “function” IS to bail “them” out …
Oh, you were serious?
Perhaps, so am I … beyond the apparent facetiousness lies the reality that the ONLY losers, so far, are NOT the elites, corporate or political, but ONLY the people, and tied to the political climate of fear and the teriss menace, the political economy is steaming along toward a “compromise” between wealth and power, government will be “run” like a corporation and corporations will run the world into ruination.
Then, if humankind is very lucky, they will seek to rebuild … with the VERY great likelihood that your prediction of yesterday, that the elite will simply take over and “run” the whole thing into shambles … again.
Unless the rest of us decide that civil society MUST protect itself from concentrations of wealth and power … but THAT plays havoc with heroes, knights in shining armor, political parties, and capitalism, it also debunks myths and the appeal of empire … especially if the following understandings and actual realities come to be embraced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAG0HkpDnaM&feature=player_embedded
Then we shall have “The Empathic Civilisation”.
DW
Yep, Rachel is now officially part of the talking-head centrist corporation.
The fact that so many democrats are disgusted with Booker whoring himself out to Wall Street, is nothing to be ashamed of. It’s a plus, a huge one, that people like Dave Dayen are outraged by it, and are pointing it out.
Maddow’s whining about the republicans getting away with “mis-spoke” surrogate brainfarts (which happen to be true…) while some democrats and progressives are openly and honestly pissed when one of ours does it, is bullshit. More of the “they’re worse than we are!”
Whatever the repubs do, outing a democratic corporatist who’s dressed as a populist is a good thing; not something to lament. And that principle doesn’t stop with a mayor: it goes all the way to the White House.
I’m not so willing to say the PTB has co-opted most unions. I do agree that union leadership, blacks, hispanics and to a somewhat lesser extent, women are in the hip pockets of dems.
It will be interesting to see if tweety falls into line.
He was white hot yesterday, and it seems that Krystal Ball and Steve Kornacki had his back after the maddow fluffing last night.
We’ll see if he lets this thing go this afternoon.
I meant to mention that MSNGE has harold ford and michael steele there to give cover for undermining the Black vote. These two quislings with booker are absolutely insidious.
That adjective also fits the Chief Executive.
Ford on Obama
Uhhg. Exactly what kind of TV programs are you watching? J
Yeah, I liked Maddow years ago. There’s rarely anything noteworthy on her show now.
Leaving aside the discussion of whether anything in the media can be taken at face value especially post Citizens United, especially during campaign season, especially involving political infighting on cable tv, there are some excellent points made here about the duplicity and corruption of our political parties.
It seems this situation is being used to frame some kind of national debate? (at least by the President) regarding the benefits of private equity?
“I think it’s important to recognize that this issue is not a “distraction.” This is part of the debate that we’re going to be having in this election campaign about how do we create an economy where everybody from top to bottom, folks on Wall Street and folks on Main Street, have a shot at success and if they’re working hard and they’re acting responsibly, that they’re able to live out the American Dream.”
One problem,in my opinion,is that it seems this may be getting framed strictly in terms of economics. Not just part of it. Another problem is that the corporate control of our government was not even mentioned in the press conference that I saw.
No question, the economic challenges we face are huge. But to equate the “American dream” strictly to money, as this answer appears to have done, is wrong. Just as the ruling that money equals free speech is wrong.
“And when you’re President, as opposed to the head of a private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits. Your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who got laid off and how are we paying for their retraining. Your job is to think about how those communities can start creating new clusters so that they can attract new businesses. Your job as President is to think about how do we set up a equitable tax system so that everybody is paying their fair share that allows us then to invest in science and technology and infrastructure, all of which are going to help us grow.”
It’s understood, especially since Citizens United, everything said (especially) during campaign season is suspect. (Sucks I know, but a whole bunch of people were trying to warn about that before the campaign.)
“My job is to make sure that the country is growing not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now.”
Of course, the primary job of the President of the United States of America is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Sadly, that doesn’t seem to get talked about much. Hell, I don’t think anyone can even agree on (or knows) what the Constitution means. I once had hopes that a Constitutional scholar would help us with that. Besides, at this point, it would come across as insincere, flag waving, campaign, BS.
It seems that there is only one thing that matters in our great country now.
You know, I’m old enough to remember the end of the cold war and all the spies and double agents and all. I remember how people used to talk, in shocked disbelief, about how anyone could betray our great country like that.
And the thing that really disgusted people was not just that someone would betray our great democracy because they believed in communism. The thing that many people were truly sickened by was how some of the traitors would do it just for money.
For me it was when as public support for pressuring Congress for a public option was picking up speed and showing results, Maddow no longer challenged Obama and Max Baucus on air about a public option. She was actively tamping down expectations, talking about a public option in the past tense, and pushing for the bill without one.
During the 2010 midterm election coverage, Olbermann let the cat out of the bag about a ‘secret’ meeting she had with Obama at the White House months earlier, wondering what they talked about and why he hadn’t had any invitations to meet with Obama.
Just about all of MSNBC’s on-air talent was under great pressure by the White House to stop holding Obama and Democrats to their pledge of a public option, or any of his other pledges. With the exception of Olbermann (who was gone in the final weeks/months tending to his dying father) everyone except Keith Olbermann caved.
For her cooperation, Maddow seems to have gotten her ‘get’ — An hour-long interview with Tim Geithner, along with a fat contract that enabled her to buy a multi-million dollar NYC condo. Jonathan Alter, under contract with MSNBC and a lobbyist for Obama’s bill early on, got access to insiders in the White House for his book (The Promise). Richard Wolffe, another MSNBC frequenter under contract, got similar but even more and better access for his book – Obama himself suggested Wolffe write a book about him. They say everyone has their price. Olbermann is a convenient populist, and had he been on the job and hitting nightly at Obama’s health insurance bill, I’m sure he, too, would have been made an offer he couldn’t refuse.
What can’t be denied is that in the last weeks and months of the healthcare legislation debate, all of MSNBC’s on air personalities dropped their support for a public option at a crucial period where proponents were making inroads and had momentum. MSNBC’s hosts really put a wet blanket on proponents’ efforts, and a date can be fixed to when it occurred: After liberal journalists (Rachel Maddow included) had a secret and off-the-record meeting at the White House. After that, MSNBC personalities had more access to the White House, including on-air interviews with Geithner and Obama himself.
What is with these secret meetings, where the Obama administration is trying to work the media? Something is very wrong when an administration reneges on pledges of transparency, shuts down access to documents and government officials, gets legislation that guts FOIA and then meets in secret with popular media personalities to sell its spin to the public.
How about the administration talking to We The People, directly? How about the transparency we were promised?
Do you recall Jon Stewart’s Rally to Sanity just and his take down of Olbermann and Maddow and MSNBC in the weeks before and after the 2010 midterms? I think that through Jon Stewart, the establishment elites got control again. It’s damned sad what Stewart did, but people tend to be true to their roots (Stewart’s brother is Chief Operating Officer of the NY Stock Exchange. It begs the question: Why did Tim Geithner hold an undisclosed meeting with Jon Stewart in April 2010?.
When Tim Geithner is having secret meetings with you, presumably for the purpose of delivering a message to your brother, the COO of the NYSE, I don’t think you have any business holding political rallies where you scold media under the guise of “We’re comedians putting on a show”.
After that rally and weeks of excoriation by Stewart, Olbermann and Maddow got back onto the reservation. Olbermann dropped ‘Worst’, which by the way was the most watched segment each night of all of the segments. MSNBC viewers love ‘Worst Persons’. If Olbermann’s numbers worsened, it’s likely because he lost that edge that viewers love. I know I stopped watching him and everyone else on MSNBC following their ‘nice’ makeover in response to Stewart’s attack on them.
It seems to me that MSNBC’s existence is to provide an illusion of leftward media counterpoint to Fox’s right. It is to convince Democratic voters that Obama is a liberal and Independent voters that Obama is a centrist. Only no amount of Chris Matthews saying that Obama is a progressive and “left of center” makes it true. The only viewers who would believe it are those who are to the right of the right-of-center. You have to be pretty far to the right and clueless to believe that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats in Congress are progressives/liberals.
I watched the clip that Dave posted. That’s all you need to do. It was:
“You scratch my ass and I’ll scratch yours.”
your last paragraph was right on.
Remembering who/what owns that network, it is best to adopt your point as fact.
I always bristled when I heard tweety pronounce 0 as ‘liberal’
Today he was the lone voice railing at the cooption of conservadems, and was basically told by rendell and heilman, ‘welcome to the corrupt world of ownership by financial services’…
0 dug this hole with the first shovelful of his betrayal three years ago and now has quislings like booker, ford and rendell pissing on his leg.
karma.
Booker’s problem was that he let everyone behind the curtain see who was holding his puppet strings.
Ah yup. That’s what I said from day one. People are upset because Booker pulled back the curtain. Apparently what “progressives” and “Democrats” are wanting is for their politicians to soothe them with sweet little lies. It’s “Pay no attention to what the Dems do, pay attention — but not too much or too closely — to what they say.”
alternate subtitle: when thieves fall out…