Kerry Scrapes for Top CEO Backers to Join Buffett, Steve Jobs

[psychopomp]

Bloomberg.com: News & Commentary
Kerry Scrapes for Top CEO Backers to Join Buffett, Steve Jobs

July 28 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John Kerry, who says he's reaching out to business, has so far received one-fifth as many campaign donations from chief executive officers of the biggest U.S. companies as has President George W. Bush.

One CEO from a Russell 1000 Index company gave to Kerry's campaign last month, bringing to 52 the number of such executives who have donated to the Democratic presidential candidate. By March 2000, Vice President Al Gore, the eventual Democratic nominee, had 42. Bush today has 280, according to figures compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan group based in Washington.

-snip

Among the CEOs who have endorsed Kerry, 60, are Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Warren Buffett, Apple Computer Inc.'s Steve Jobs and Google Inc.'s Eric Schmidt.

Bush has won financial backing from the CEOs of nine of the top 10 U.S. companies ranked by market capitalization, including Intel Corp. CEO Craig Barrett. Pfizer Inc. CEO Hank McKinnell and American International Group Inc. CEO Maurice Greenberg each have raised at least $200,000 for Bush. Other CEOs from the top 10 U.S. companies who have given to Bush include Microsoft Corp.'s Steven Ballmer, General Electric Co.'s Jeffrey Immelt, Johnson & Johnson's William Weldon, Wal- Mart Stores Inc.'s H. Lee Scott and Bank of America Corp.'s Kenneth Lewis.

-more


< http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=aMC0k0kzuKwE >

Fat cats know that the general public wants their business practices to be more transparent. Corporate scandal has created a demand for accountability and the Democrats have a lock on that vote. Of course they want a Bushco win! With that fool at fore who could demand CEO's be responsible in their business practices?

[cosmicdot]

1. He should flaunt the fact: I've got 2, Shrub has the other good ol'boys

much of American angst, stress, etc., is rooted in corporate america ... the rank and file might cheer the fact that only 2 CEOs are in the corner ... that just might send a message to workers/employees ...

but, as Arianna Huffington wrote: it's an 'Anger Management Platform'

<<I'm now holding my lips together with my thumb and index finger, and can't say any more.>>

Huffington: Anger Management: Kerry's Put the Kibosh on Bashing Bush, but can he do anything about the outbreak of hotel envy?
http://www.ariannaonline.com/blog/

[Fenris]

2. I would hardly say he is scraping with Warren Buffet and Steve Jobs

Or Eric Schmit.

[Catfight]

3. All this money from both sides could immensely impact the world

poverty problems, we really need campaign reform after this election.

[City Lights]

4. What about Costco's Jim Sinegal?

I thought he was a Democrat.

[King of New Orleans]

5. well, they only mention 3 of the 52

who have given to Kerry

Kind of rates as a so what. I don't think most CEOs are particularly enlightened. They're mostly looking for government handouts.

[w4rma]

13. He doesn't make that much money as he put a salary limit on himself. (nt)

[blm]

6. Bloomberg Headline Writer Scrapes English Dictionary to Smear Kerry.

.

[psychopomp]

7. Yeah, I caught that

You know, rules and all..

Weak attempt, at any rate. Kerry's got the big Mo' right now!

[Dover]

8. I thought Warren Buffet backed Schwartzenegger? I'm confused.

....

[nolabels]

11. If you had lots of money and needed access what would you do?

Explaining the Mystery of Election Parity
By Thomas C. Veatch, 11/21/2000.

Not only the presidential race results, but also the individual and collective results of many representative elections throughout the US are so close -- and so widely, consistently close across states, offices, and branches of government -- that some systemic pattern must be responsible. The data simply does not fit a model of competing conservative and liberal ideologies, which if they actually meant anything, would not correlate so perfectly with equality of constituent populations. I argue here for an explanation of what we observe, based on four ideas:

* 1) Elections are now scientific: socio/demographic modelling has become so sophisticated that elections have come under the modelling capabilities of accurate, predictive, statistical models with small and decreasing error margins
* 2) The two party system imposes an ultra-simplified ideological bipolarity onto the distribution of voters across the high-dimensional space of voter-influencing issues.
* 3) Party politicians, preferring power over ideology or belief, adjust the content of their campaign platforms (not excluding voteable issues such as personality) in order to expand their appeal to a majority of voters.
* 4) The two-party system is defended against any new alternatives through the power of corporate money, which is given to the two parties and withheld from alternatives in order to ensure systemic support for corporate interests.

These elements provide both an explanation of what we see now, as well as a prediction for our future.

Both Clinton, who remade the Democrats into New Democrats, and Bush 2, who remade the Republicans into Compassionate Conservatives, followed the clear evidence of increasingly precise models of national voting behavior in changing major elements of their party platforms in their efforts to gain power. It is, of course, no surprise that ideological purity is valued less than actually gaining power, since successful politicians are almost by definition those that value power over ideology.
(snip)
http://www.tomveatch.com/election.parity.htm

[Dover]

12. Hmmmm.....good article. Thanks!

I suppose I already knew money and power always trump political affiliation and ideology. Just get stuck in 'group think' every now and then.

[nolabels]

14. Group think

The largest group of eligible voters in the last congressional election did not vote.

The fastest growing group of voters are independents (at least that what the numbers say)

VOTERS ON EDGE
REDWOOD CITY
- Mark Simon, Chronicle Political Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004


(snip)
"Our whole reputation was tarnished" by the photos from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, said Tricia Cate. "We've got to start over again. ...

"Was anybody in charge? Were they asleep at the wheel? I'd like to see somebody step up and take responsibility."

Tricia Cate is a Republican who voted for Democratic Vice President Al Gore in 2000. Steve Cate is an independent who did not vote in 2000 because he "didn't like the choices."

Now, he said, President Bush "has got to have a viable exit strategy out of Iraq, and there has to be some noticeable progress before I would consider voting for him."

The Cates are characteristic of the rising number of professionals who live in the increasingly expensive suburbs that ring the Bay Area's urban core, a growing group of people who outnumber those who live in the cities.

They are college educated, affiliated with high tech, but feel unaffiliated with the major political parties.

Voters like Steve Cate -- people who have no connection to any political party -- are the fastest-growing bloc of voters in the suburbs and make up more than 20 percent of the registered voters in many places.

They are the "swing" voters, who can cast their votes for either side and can determine the outcome of an election.
(snip)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/20/MNGSP790ID1.DTL&type=printable

Even corporate media reports this, so it also does seem confusing to others in some aspects

[BritishHuman]

9. Nevertheless, compare money raised...

Kerry's not doing badly at all - I think that speaks volumes about his support.

Why don't the Republicans just rename themselves the Corporate Party?

[Racenut20]

10. Perhaps "KennyBoy" will endorse us this time.