Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary

[pberq]

http://www.alternet.org/story/65869/

Weapons Industry Dumps Republicans, Backs Hillary

By Leonard Doyle, Independent UK. Posted October 31, 2007.

The U.S. arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs. Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of U.S. armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.

. . . (more at link)

[OKNancy]

1. WOOHOO!!! take their money and run

More for Democrats less for the dumbass Republicans. Better her than them!

( I'm not joking either)

[pberq]

3. Yes, more money so she can win the election and continue the wars without end

[OKNancy]

4. I don't believe that will happen actually

better her than the ghoul.

[tkmorris]

12. Perhaps not, but what troubles me is

That the military contractors and other arms corporations DO think Hillary is the best candidate to back. In theory at least they should know better than you or I do which candidate benefits them the most. It's kind of unsettling that they think that candidate is Clinton isn't it?

[Occulus]

17. Unsettling isn't the word I'd choose.

She's a politician in Washington. 'Telling' would, perhaps, be a bit more apt a word.

They're not giving her money out of the kindness of their ballistic hearts.

[OzarkDem]

14. Quid pro quo is the problem

All that campaign cash will buy a lot of influence vis a vis continued wars, no real health care reform and "privatized" social security, among other goodies.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Birds of a feather...

[peacetalksforall]

5. If my assessment of Hillary as a candidate goesalong from day to day, there

are no ups and downs. It's all down.

Support for her from weapon makers? How much worse can it get - for my assessment?

[Cha]

6. Shocking!

How's she gonna keep all those weapons' manufacturers happy?

[Deja Q]

7. Dumps a barrel for a keg. Who said there was a difference between the parties?

:evilgrin:

[OKNancy]

8. I just don't get it.

Why does it have to be such a negative. Hasn't anyone considered the thought that they know she will probably win and are cutting their losses.
Anyone who thinks Senator Clinton is going to turn into a rabid right-winger is...well..sitting on DU too long. :-)

[pberq]

9. It's based on her record, which has been pro-war all the way

[OzarkDem]

15. No, they're buying her support and influence

They'll continue to get what they ask for. If they don't get it, they'll put all the money behind a GOP candidate in the next election.

If Hillary is elected, you can bet she will want more than one term, as would most.

[Deja Q]

19. I hope you're right.

Now while Hillary has said some rational things about the war, what bothers me is how she can keep the H1B people happy along with the middle class, who just happens to be losing thanks to the H1B people. (if India opened up its borders and we thought the money they doled out was impressive, we'd all jump at the chance to do their IT work too...)

[DS1]

10. because she's chickenhawk scum, just like the rest of em

regardless of the lip-service she gives her bleating crowds

[WilliamPitt]

11. True, but that support is going to Democrats in general, too

From the above article:

Employees of the top five U.S. arms manufacturers -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon -- gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

...followed by:

So far, Mrs. Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 percent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.

Therefore, the above article is true regarding support for Clinton. But the Democrats in general are receiving that kind of support, which is unprecedented in recent decades.

Why? Two reasons, in my opinion:

1. They think the Democrats are going to win in November, that Senator Clinton has the best shot of all the presidential candidates, and so they want to make sure they're riding with the winners in general and the big winner specifically. I'm not sure they're right, but there it is;

2. They want the Iraq war to continue after January 2009, because it is their biggest payday since Vietnam. 'Nam lasted 20 years, and they made money every single day during that time. Iraq will have been going on for five years come this March, and they've gotten paid every single day since March 2003, and want to keep doing so for as long as possible.

If we aren't firing bullets and dropping bombs and launching missiles, if we aren't losing vehicles and choppers and uniforms and armor to hostile fire, we aren't buying more stuff to replace all that, and nobody's getting paid in the weapons industry...and the economy suffers as a result, because the economy has been depending on war since 1946-1947, since the implementation by Truman of the permanent wartime economic footing we still enjoy today.

Can't have that, right?

That's why this is happening. They don't want the party to stop...and I fear that any Democrat who wins the Oval in '08 won't disappoint them. I don't just mean Clinton, either. Stuff like this is way bigger than any president, sadly. That's one of the things we have to work to change, and it'll take a hell of a long time to do it.

[pberq]

16. Will - thanks for your post - here's a question

Do you believe that a President Kucinich would give these guys what they want?

"I fear that any Democrat who wins the Oval in '08 won't disappoint them."

[WilliamPitt]

18. Yes.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WilliamPitt/343

(snip)

Power politics is a dirty business to get involved in, or even close to, especially if you’re stupid enough to actually care about more than paying back your donors and keeping your seat. We’re pretty stupid, I guess…thank God…but we’re also smart enough, hopefully, to know that all of them are dirty, all of them signed on the line that is dotted, and scourging away their dirt is our purpose in this, so we have to be our own heroes if we are ever to prevail.

I don’t care all that much about who the Dems nominate next year, because all of them are beholden to the same system. Yes, even Dennis…and if he wins and then attempts to take the system down, the system and its profiteers will fight back (asymmetrically, in fact, through the constant eruption of foreign wars instigated 20 years ago by US policies and/or Cold War gamesmanship), and he will probably fail in the end…or he will succeed and thus obliterate this paradigm, ushering in an era of anarchy and war that’ll make the Dark Ages seem quaint by comparison. Probably, however, if he wins, he’ll get a briefing on what the really real deal actually is, and he won’t be any more willing to stop the music than the others. Even Dennis.

[OzarkDem]

13. Same thing has happened for Dems in the House and Senate

That's why Dems in Congress are sitting on their thumbs, giving Bush everything he asks for. The transformation is complete - its fascism.