I haven't seen his voter registration card but he's never done a fundraiser for any Republican during either of my stints in the Omaha area. He has held fundraisers for Hilary and Obama both here and in New York. He also has a major, well, it's not a charity but an organization he funds that supports population control. That's not typically a conservative value. So, he may not be a Democrat but he sure isn't a Republican.
OK, I'll take your word for it that Buffett is a Democrat. Maybe that's why so many of the idiots who comment on things at the Wall Street Journal hate him so much. He, of course, cries all the way to the bank. As anmccaff has posted, though, Buffett's political proclivities don't seem to have affected either his decision to buy BNSF or the Obama Administration treatment of Buffett. Matt Rose, on the other hand, is quite conservative and that doesn't seem to have influenced Buffett's regard for the CEO of his largest investment. Rose also has been named to Obama's business advisory council along with the CEO of GE and a few other giant companies. Unlike the Republicans in Congress who are happy to see Obama struggle and will do almost anything to see that he does, business people don't play politics that way. They know that their businesses don't prosper if the United States doesn't prosper. Any of you folks who can write your congressmen might consider pointing that out to the GOP.
Your political perspective and antagonistic narrative is stunning. The root cause of Progressive's limited showing around the building surfaces in 3D.
While never commenting on WB at the Journal, I AM one of those idiots who does occasionally weigh in. One has to get unadulterated news somewhere, and the WSJ is now the paper of record. You're preaching to the choir as to business investment from a political perspective. That's business politics 101. As for the Democrats and particularly this administration, they are politicizing commerce, successful commerce, along with any kind of wealth building. That is not the way forward for this country. If you think it is, time to ratchet back the hectoring tone.
Sorry you don't appreciate my comments, but that's your right. If you were to read the comments that are posted for most WSJ stories (I generally look only at the transportation issues), I think you'd probably agree with my view. Idiots may be strong, but I urge you to read before jumping to your conclusion. These are people who have a paranoid hatred of Obama, some actually believing he is not legally qualified to be President. ?They live in a world of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts. Feel free to defend them. They, too, are exercising their free speech rights. Of course, free speech applies only to public discourse, as generations of Supreme Courts have ruled. The last time I checked, this blogsite was and still is a private entity and the First Amendment does not reach all the way to PR's editorial staff. They reserve the right to remove posts that violate their standards. Perhaps you didn't see the blather over allowing Mexican trucks to enter the United "States. Those who read the WSJ, and I"m one of them, do not even understand that it is the U.S. that violated the terms of our own treaty with Mexico and Canada, and the duties the Mexicans levied on U.S. goods were part and parcel of the international tribunal set up to rule on such violations. I cite this only as an example. And, now, Mazzuchelli, you'll be pleased to know that I won't be posting here - especially not on a thread that goes back more than a year - as I'm off to enjoy a vacation. Hectoring? Not as I understand the English language. That's not a strong enough word. I go way beyond hectoring. You see, I get to exercise my free speech rights too. You are, of course, free to ignore or disagree.