NY Times Caucus blog reported McCain's attack on Obama's "big oil contributions," but not that McCain received more
SUMMARY: In reporting the McCain campaign's attack on Sen. Barack Obama for "the $400,000 from big oil contributors" he has received, The New York Times' The Caucus blog did not point out that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. John McCain has received approximately $1.3 million from the oil and gas industry, more than triple the amount Obama has received.
In an August 4 post in The New York Times The Caucus blog, staff writer Michael Falcone reported that Sen. Barack Obama "is going on the air with a new television ad that accuses Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, of being 'in the pocket' of the big oil companies: ' ... instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks,' the ad says." The article goes on to quote McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds claiming, "Also not mentioned is the $400,000 from big oil contributors that Barack Obama has already pocketed in this election." But Falcone did not point out that, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, while Obama received $394,465 from the oil & gas industry, McCain received more than triple that amount: approximately $1.3 million.
From the August 4 New York Times blog post:
Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, will be making a big push today for his proposal to wean America off its dependence on foreign oil with a speech in Lansing, Mich. to tout his New Energy for America Plan. According to the Obama campaign, the plan will "provide an immediate energy rebate to Americans struggling with high gas prices, create five million new green jobs, and eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil in 10 years."
As Mr. Obama announces the plan, his campaign is going on the air with a new television ad that accuses Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, of being "in the pocket" of the big oil companies: "...instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks," the ad says.
Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, was quick to respond: "Barack Obama's latest negative attack ad shows his celebrity is matched only by his hypocrisy, after all it was Senator Obama, not John McCain, who voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that was a sweetheart deal for oil companies," Mr. Bounds said in a statement. "Also not mentioned is the $400,000 from big oil contributors that Barack Obama has already pocketed in this election."
Yet another instance of double-standards and classlessness from the Right...
And now I'm starting to sound like the Left!
... MMFA must be getting to me...
OK, partisan smearing aside, what's wrong with oil investors donating money to politicians? They are free to do that, right?
OK, partisan smearing aside, what's wrong with oil investors donating money to politicians? They are free to do that, right?
Of course, they are. The problem come in when Gramps McCain's people make a fuss over Obama receiving $400K from Big Oil when they've received $1.3M. That's called "hypocrisy".
Yeah, and it's kinda sad considering the Right-wing prides itself on having higher standards.
That's not very fair - implying that the right wing has no standards. I happen to know for a fact that the right wing has VERY high standards...
...for everybody else.
Just ask James Dobson.
Just ask James Dobson.
And his buddy Ted Haggard......
Bill, speaking for Chromedome -Americans everywhere, I'll ask you to keep your hateful smears to yourself.
Oh, sure, rub it in. My hair is so thick and grows so fast that I'm constantly having to go get it cut.
You're so lucky.
Mr. Clean is hot!
So are those irradiated Danish citizens...
This is like the complaint that McCain's recent ad made about Obama supposedly wanting to tax electricity.
Both candidates have "cap and trade" proposals, and if it's true that Obama will be taxing electricity, then McCain will be doing the same.
If both candidates have the same policy, that it's hypocrisy to claim that Obama is going to raise taxes! But leave it to a Republican to be a hypocrite!
If McCain has gotten 3 times the contributions from big oil that Obama has, then McCain is the one who's in big oil's pocket! Not to mention the fact that Obama doesn't support drilling offshore in the moratorium areas, but will accept it as part of a compromise, whereas McCain supports that new drilling. Who's the one in big oil's pocket again?
My God! How DARE environmental groups promote global warming over everything?
That would be like British Petroleum promoting oil over everything.
That would be like Hollywood promoting movies over everything.
That would be like limpaugh promoting republicans over everything.
That would be like hannity promoting ignorance over everything.
That would be like the NRA promoting guns over everything.
That would be like Catholics promoting Jesus over everything.
That would be like Heinz promoting ketchup over everything...
Swell rant, Neon, but I'm going to have to call you out as 100% wrong. Most environmental groups are unabashedly anti-Global Warming.
(Sorry, couldn't resist, I hear so many RW pundits talking about people who are "Pro-Global-Warming" because they know about it.)
Really? Did you really like the rant? I was a little worried that maybe I carried it too far, but then I wanted to work up to the "ketchup over everything" part so that it kind of came up unexpected, and I felt that cutting it any shorter would dilute the surprise.
As far as "anti-global warming" vs "promoting global warming" - yeah, whatever. Just as long as the rant was good.
So you really thought it was OK? 'Cause I'm starting my job today writing for the McCain campaign. Gotta clear my mind of facts, and focus on the impact of the words, not their meaning...
<sigh!> I really get tired of doing other people's homework for them.
Barack Obama:
IndustryTotalLawyers/Law Firms$21,126,520Retired$16,722,771Securities & Investment$9,472,773Education$8,024,122Real Estate$5,879,799Misc Business$5,734,361Business Services$5,625,499Health Professionals$4,817,470TV/Movies/Music$4,516,144Misc Finance$3,625,455Computers/Internet$3,414,378Civil Servants/Public Officials$2,964,595Printing & Publishing$2,729,647Democratic/Liberal$2,720,109Commercial Banks$1,963,410Other$1,585,595Hospitals/Nursing Homes$1,325,932Non-Profit Institutions$1,281,077Construction Services$1,188,213Insurance$1,166,888
You should be able to find out. Take notes, present links or addresses.
Opps sorry forgot who I was posting to. Insinuate away.
And why would he specifically want to know that, when the issue was the McCain camp claiming that it was Obama who was indebted to Big Oil?
Do you think he simply wanted to smear Obama? He has proven he doesn't know his butt from a hole in the wall when it comes to facts about oil exploration and conservation. He couldn't be trying to prove that he knows anything about alternative energy either, because he proved that he doesn't know beans about solar or wind power generation either!
The link that MMFA provides in the item, to the web page that lists:
"PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200... categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer... as reported to the Federal Election Commission... for the 2008 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, July 28, 2008"
...lists only those recipients who were or are Presidential candidates: and of course, John McCain tops that list by far, more than doubling the contributions received by the Presidential candidate listed as receiving the second most amount of money from oil and gas interests (someone named giuliani): and McCain's top place on the list of those Presidential candidates and how much money they take from oil and gas interests, nearly triples the third place candidate, Mitt Romney: and then we have Democrats Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama listed as the fourth and fifth Presidential candidates most contributed to by oil and gas interests in the current Presidential campaign, with McCain receiving more than triple what either of those Democrats received, in total gas and oil contributions.
A better list of these things, from that same web-site (OpenSecrets.org, which is an awesome source of information), is this list/link:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2008&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U
It lists essentially the same information, but in the context not just of Presidential candidates, but of "All Recipients" of 2008 oil and gas interest contributions.
That list, in that context, then highlights for us just where Presidential candidates place, in the total contributions made by oil and gas interests (the other list, linked to in the MMFA item, excludes this insight from us, by listing only Presidential candidates).
It's insightful: 6 of the top 7 people that oil and gas interests have contributed to so far in the 2008 cycle, were or are Presidential candidates (Sen. Cornyn of Texas is the exception), and also on that list (which names only the top 20 poeple oil and gas contributed to) numbers 11, 17, and 18 are also former Presidential candidates (including the "civilians" Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee).
Obviously, the Presidency of the United States is important to the oil and gas industries: so important, that it almost seems as though all a person has to do is announce they are running for President, and oil and gas immediately lay money on them (I point out again how the clown-fool giuliani was second most contributed to, by oil and gas in this 2008 cycle, and that the actor Fred Thompson was eleventh: these two men have no Legislative or Administrative authority in the U.S. Government or any government at all, and yet oil and gas laid an awful lot of money on them, for merely running, however lamely, for President). My point, and what I think is the true insight here: our President, and whoever runs for that Office, are the objects of a great deal of contributed money from oil and gas interests... it is no badge of honor, to say (as Mr. Obama can say) that a candidate took only $400,000 from oil and gas interests, and that John McCain took three times more... being bought is being bought, whatever the price... exactly why Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama needed to accept so much money from oil and gas interests seems curious to me: I know, they are Presidential candidates, and so oil and gas immediately offered them money for being such... but why do they have to take it? And if you say they needed that money to run for President, then I ask what they spent it on, that was so important to their campaign? It's bullchit, this false notion that more and more money is needed in these matters: what did that money do for Sen. Clinton? What did it do for the clown-fool giuliani? It's a shame: it's a shame that Sen. Obama's name appears on this list at all, never mind that he is listed as the sixth largest recipient of oil and gas contributions, among what is ultimately hundreds of people that those indusries contribute money to... It's a shame and a disgrace, and should disqualify Sen. Obama from the Presidency, along with John McCain, and Sen. Clinton too, and of course that clown-fool giuliani... it's a shame and a disgrace, to be listed #6 on a list that has giuliani as #2... it's a crying shame, that we can't find a Presidential candidate who says no to money from oil and gas.
It looks more and more like we'll just have to settle, in this Presidential election.
If a democrat wins, its fair and square. If they lose, its voter fraud.
perhaps you would be interested in this book written by a republican convicted in the scheme to block democratic phone lines in the new hampshire 2002 senate race. the phone lines were for people to arrange rides to the polls. the title is "how to rig an election, confessions of a republican operative". and then there was that mysterious vote count in volusia county in 2000. gore got negative 16,000 votes in one precinct. that was the reason he was going to concede and then called it off, when that "mistake" was corrected. there has never been a convincing explanation where that came from.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/8/how_to_rig_an_election_convicted
here's the story of the minus 16,000 gore votes. limbaugh has actually tried his usual spin on this. a couple years ago, he referred to the fact that when the "mistake" was corrected, in the early morning of election night, bush's total dropped and gore's increased. that was why gore stopped the concession he was about to make. rush has tried to portray the drop in bush's vote as some kind of democratic plot, but obviously the person who was getting robbed was gore.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm
this link also mentions a similar incident the same night in nearby brevard county, with a negative 3000 vote for gore. although these errors were corrected, you have to wonder, were there other smaller "errors" around the state, 50 votes here or there, that didn't show up as a negative vote?
http://www.chatterboxcafe.org/Page_2.html
as i stated some time ago, when i was on poll patrol in the last election in ohio, the only irregularities were perpetrated by democrats. some were minor, like a poll captain parking her car in front of the place with a kerry bumper sticker prominently displayed.
the other infractions involved the acorn group which invaded polling places. we were not permitted to enter the places, so i don't know what went on. we just reported it. they were not to be there, but they stayed for some time. kerry did carry that particular county.
then there was the guy whose car blew up just as the polls were closing. it was a terrific fire, but i don't think it was election related. kind of sad really, he has purchased the car just a week earlier.
That kind of pales, Shoes, in comparison to the distinct lack of voting machines in heavily democratic precincts, where people had to wait for HOURS in the rain to vote. I know, I was there and waited more than 2 hours.
And of course, the machinations of the governor about who could and couldn't register, Diebold's chairman guaranteeing a victory for Bush in Ohio, I could go on and on. But it wouldn't matter. You highlight false election fraud and miss the real deal. Kind of un-American if you ask me. Sad as well.
and bush chairman ken blackwell tried to have thousands of new registrations thrown out because they were on the wrong thickness paper. a federal judge said you can't do that.
Sands, why haven't you come forward with these earth-shattering election irregularities sooner?? I can't believe you've been sitting on damning anecdotal evidence like;
"...a poll captain parking her car in front of the place with a kerry bumper sticker prominently displayed."
A volunteer at the polls who was politically involved enough to be supporting a candidate? Outrageous!!!
"...the acorn group...invaded polling places.... i don't know what went on."
Something happened, the details of which you're completely ignorant about? Blam! Try to beat that rap!
"..then there was the guy whose car blew up just as the polls were closing. it was a terrific fire, but i don't think it was election related"
And some random event that made an impression on your childlike brain because something blowed up, although it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.?I think you're 3 for 3 here, champ!
You'll no doubt be on the front lines of that garbage.
We'll see if the unacknowledged help from the MSM can help steal another election. Without their help he'd be lucky to be 10 pts behind.
Listened to Mr. Waldman on air america today. A point stuck out of the interview. There is no penalty when McFolderall's campaign lies. He is never called out on it in MSM. Ergo, his campaign has no reason to stop lying.
Even with an Obama victory, wingnut views will not in any way be proscribed, nor muted. Indeed, all the attention they never gave to this administrations faults will be focused upon Obama's administration. I expect any media honeymoon with his administration to last one week max. Investigative journalism in MSM will reappear...like magic. Though its standard's of operation will be unchanged. Which is to say abysmal, assinine, and presumptuous.
But if Nancy Pelosi abruptly closes her politburo and leaves town in order to save our planet and improve our economy by fighting big oil...why is Obama taking ANY money from those involved in the oil business or have some of their executives doing $50,000 to $100,000 'bundling' of campaign contributions for him?
This is no way to save the earth senator!
As opposed to wingnuts with a metal rod up their...
Nope. Too easy.
Obviously, Pelosi and company are afraid that 'average' democrats would vote to allow drilling here, just like average republicans. Otherwise, she would have allowed the up or down vote.
Sometimes it's the job of Congress (or any other political leader) to vote (or not vote, as the case may be) in our nation's best interest which might be contrary to what the majority of the ill-informed populace might think is best.
Take slavery for example. Take desegregation of the military for example. Take not voting on drilling, for example. The American people have been misled to believe that it'll help with their pocketbook today and for years to come. It won't help today, won't help for years to come, and the help in decades to come will be insignificant according to the Bush Administration.
Obama is saying, well, if voting for this nonsensical additional drilling will make Americans happy and force disagreeable Republicans in Congress to agree to other responsible choices, I'm willing to allow that stupidity called new offshore drilling to happen in limited areas. It's still not a good idea, but if it will get those idiot Republicans to agree to sensible stuff, then let's do it.
Obama's doing the smart thing, and the thing that shows leadership. McCain, not so much.
There was an up or down vote on wednesday of that week which boner and co. purposely blocked so they could grandstand on friday. Your clowns had their chance and they chose to be partisan dillweeds (and use you like a tool in the process). And hey, while we're at it, lets take a look at just how low a republican can go to grandstand:
Here's republicans booing veterans who requested they remove drilling from a veteran's bill. It was subsequently killed, thanks to republicans.
Here's republicans blocking aid to paralyzed veterans because they refused to vote on anything not related to drilling.
And here's a report on how Exxon spends less than 1% of their profits on alternative energy research.
You dirtbags don't deserve drilling because you are holding progress hostage for your selfish interests. You aren't american, you don't represent american values, you are just greedy slimeballs who will do anything for a buck.
bigbird,
"Mr. Pickens has put $58 million into an advertising campaign that urges the country to adopt wind power and natural gas – the focus of his own investments – as replacements for foreign oil. "
Plus he still advocates for Alaska and offshore oil drilling. I think that America does want all of these options considered but the leftist econuts don't want any drilling anywhere, even if for energy that is clean like natural gas. They shut down a major operation off the coast of NC. That's why Nancy hightailed it out off Dodge.
The "best estimates" I have seen seem to think we can develop 20% (max) of our electrical energy from wind. I think this may be optomistic. I happen to think that wind is part of the solution, but it is not "the solution." Sure, he wants to drill, but that has to do with national economies as much as anything. We currently are seeing a huge transfer of wealth from this country to the oil producing regions and if we could keep a substantial portion of that money in country, it would help us economically (creating jobs, putting more $ in the US economy, etc). For those here who never wander over 200 miles from home, go to electric/hybrid/hydrogen powered cars, just don't tell me those will be my only choice. Those of us who have to travel long distances to see family, visit metropolitian areas, gas/diesel powered vehicles are our option for the foreseeable future. We try to be as "green" as possible, but also being realistic, oil will continue to fuel much of our infrastucture for quite some time. Double fuel economy by 2013? Will either require lighter cars (more plastic) or a transition to an economy that cannot drive over 200-250 miles between charges. And the electrical infrastructure, the hydrogen infrastructure, etc are not in place to handle transitions like this soon. We are already seeing a diminished demand for oil because of prices and I can imagine that as fuel prices go down, there will be a drive by government to increase fuel taxes. $4.00/ gallon seems to have become the "tipping point." Government sees that and if the pump price drops to the $3.75 range or below, look for a bill in Congress to add about $.25 in taxes.
garbagecanhomeowner,
I refer to that '$4.00 tipping point' as the Algore Line. Much like baseball's Mendoza line of batting under the magic average of .200 !
Maybe some of these oil people see some benefits in transitioning from oil to green energy.
Yes, they do. Like the ability to charge higher amounts than oil for sources than produce vastly less amounts of energy.
But if Nancy Pelosi abruptly closes her politburo and leaves town in order to save our planet and improve our economy by fighting big oil...why is Obama taking ANY money from those involved in the oil business or have some of their executives doing $50,000 to $100,000 'bundling' of campaign contributions for him?
This is no way to save the earth senator!
How is leaving on time for a regularly scheduled summer break that's been taken by Congress ever since I started watching politics an "abrupt" departure?
Those of us in the private economy often find that if there is something pressing that needs to be taken care of, regularly scheduled vacations are postponed. Its all political posturing by both sides to see if they can raise the Congressional approval ratings from their abysmal lows before election day.
Whoo, gee, natural gas doesn't produce co2, golly a new fun fact to share with all my friends and enemys.
What did they call that program to flush possible democratic voters out of the system the last couple of times? A believe it was considered very sucessful. It targeted the homeless, the military, and another group or two. Million or so possible democratic voters disinfranchished.
I'm seeing lots of ideas and work being done on alternative/green energy. All by individual and small groups. One small company already offers a hydrogen conversion for cars and trucks using hydrid storage. The also offer a hydrogen producer to produce the gas. Several ways of hydrogen production have been brought out recently. The price is equivilent or cheaper that gasoline. Growing biofuels from algi in bioreactors.
In all, of this major corporation participation, leadership and contribution is zip point nil. These people are on our side?