The American media has more or less abandoned a substantive discussion of the effects of policy, because they are -- for a lot of reasons -- averse to the idea of coming down on one side or another. Many Beltway media types don't want to do this, for fear of coming across as biased. The rest literally cannot do this because they lack the chops. That's why when major events happen, like the ongoing revolt in Egypt, most of the political media cannot muster up any sort of analysis beyond how those events will effect everyone's reelection hopes back home.
Wall Street is sad, and its recent record-setting profits are no comfort. Should I begin by assuaging their fears? If we define "pro-business" as "a policy that would allow investments to be made in an actual physical business, spurring economic growth and jobs development," and not "policies that allow Wall Street to return to a regime of creating non-productive casino games based upon the amount of moneydust that can be leveraged from rubbing two ten-dollar bills together to create an ornate daisy-chain of swaps," then we are never going to issue a discouraging word!