Perhaps in response to the recently disclosed data which shows 2/3 of all campaign cash donated by Wall Street* went to Democrats, dunderpate emeritus Harry Reid today opined that Republicans are “making love” to Wall Street. That’s an interesting choice of words.
When I think “making love” it brings to mind a tender act shared between two people who have committed themselves to each other. A physical expression of their feelings, an affirmation of a bond Shakespeare himself could not fully describe.
Maybe he’s got a point. Perhaps Republicans do share special feelings for Wall Street and its ability to allocate scarce resources through marketplace principles. They admire its entrepreneurial spirit. They want to build a long term relationship to ensure our nation’s financial well being.
The sense of timing is outstanding as well, since the Senate just voted 90+ to 5 or something to remove the $50 billion bailout slush fund to which Republicans – under derision from Obama hisowndamnself over the notion there was any bailout authority at all in the bill – objected.
Now consider the individual who offers short term release as long as you’re willing to pay them enough and conduct your business discretely. I call that person a prostitute. Not that there’s anything wrong prostitutes. At least the ones who actually have sex with you for money are honest about their intentions, upfront about the price, and not spending our grandchildrens’ childrens’ money**.
Harry Reid is #3 among the 11 Democrats and 4 Republicans who make up the top 15 Congressional recipients of Wall Street cash. The filthy whore.
We can all rest assured though. He won’t go hungry once he’s voted out of office in November. He’ll be back in Washington walking the streets, only this time as a John.
No wait, Washington is giving bailout money to Wall Street. Does that mean Harry is the John now?
I’ll never make hide nor hair out of this whole financial regulation boondoggle. But I know a prostitute when I see one.
* i.e. New York City zip codes
** Is spending the unborn’s money considered taxation without representation?