Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Can Obama Be 'The Peace Candidate'?

By, Chris Rossini

Wall Street & Washington go hand-in-hand. The former is the financial arm of the latter.

This year's election cycle sees Wall Street spending record amounts on this year's dog & pony show known as The Presidential Election.

CNNMoney reports:
"Wall Street is on track to spend more on this election than it ever has during a campaign season. With two months to go before Nov. 6, Wall Street firms have so far spent $164 million on campaigns and donations to political groups designed to influence the elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That puts the industry on pace to surpass the spending record of $170 million that it set during the 2008 race."

There is one difference compared to 2008 though. Wall Street is betting more on The Weaponized Keynesian's party, instead of Mr. Hope & Change's party.
"The biggest difference between this election and the race in 2008 is that Wall Street is now betting bigger on Republicans. During the last cycle, 57% of individuals from Wall Street gave to Democrats and President Obama. But this year, 60% of Wall Street's contributions went to Republicans."
Why is this important?

Well, if you've never read Rothbard's "Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy" (make sure you download a digital copy for free here). Rothbard brilliantly shows the relationship between money, power, and war.

With the economy in the toilet, Europe falling apart, and the Fed facing a choice of letting a severe depression occur or inflating even further, why not turn to war?

Wall Street seems to think the more belligerent of the two would be Romney. And they're probably right.

With Romney in the White House, the neocons will be back in the driver's seat, and they'll be able to count on their legions of Republican voters who will zip their lips when the wartime police state mandates are unleashed.

If Wall Street is throwing cash at this scenario, then maybe Obama has a slight (and I mean "slight") edge as the peace candidate. Sure Democrats will tighten the state's grip on the economy and create more class, gender, and race conflicts. They may even make up more "rights" that don't exist.

But the State advances most during war.

If Wall Street is placing its chips on the Republican Kings of War...maybe there's a small chance, that in this election, Obama is the peace candidate.


  1. I'm sorry but this is just stupid. Calling Obama 'The Peace Candidate' is akin to calling Ron Paul 'The War Candidate.'

    1. Ron Paul is no longer a candidate.

      The sad choice is between Romney & Obama. I don't vote, and urge others not to as well. But enough Americans will be voting and one of the two will be elected.

      This was nothing more than a mental exercise exploring which one of these two characters may be less belligerent.

      Wall Street (maybe) is giving us a clue.

  2. The last four years have demonstrated that Obama can fight wars without any public opposition. He can also abuse civil rights without opposition. Obama has neutered the anti-war and civil rights factions in a way no republican can. Who on the left is taking him to task on this? It is clear that there will be less public outcry on these issues if Obama continues as president as opposed to Romney.

    So, Obama may pose as the peace “candidate” as he did four years ago, but I don’t expect he will be a peace “president” if elected. He will have more of a free pass on this than Romney will. He may not be able to go as far as the neocons would like, but he can go unopposed much better than a republican can.

    Historically it has been the democrats who have taken the country into the big wars anyway- Bush II was an exception. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam – all tied to democrats in office.

    1. Bush I started the first war against Iraq in 1991, and then his idiot son started the 2nd war against Iraq.

      I was thinking that given their socialist domestic policies they were both closet Democrats. However, given the outright socialism of the Republicans, I guess they are all the Socialist Party.

    2. It seems like most everyone has forgotten those yellow ribbons the mom's wrapped around the old oak trees in the 1990's.

      I guess those yellow ribbons were replaced by the yellow magnetic stickers many people placed on their car bumpers proclaiming their support of the troops.

      What a shift that was, eh? ...Pardon me while I throw up.