New Obama Ad

Just heard this little tidbit on CNBC... Big oil favors McCain, but Obama has actually received more money from them... and yet he's attacking Exxon.. I wonder if the BO camp bothered to see how much money they've received from Big Oil before running their new ads (let alone the fact that he supported the last major oil bill that was written by Cheaney while McCain opposed it).

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/oil-industry-leans-toward-mcca.html
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08/here-in-the-centers-press.html

Card, I don't understand your point, or why you've even bothered to post this. It says McCain received 3x as much money from Big Oil than McCain...

I am a little confused, the first article says "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500."

How can they link what the employees contributes to the company they work for? You may work for an organization out of need to survive, I don't think you necessarily work for a company because of the politicians or political party they support.

Maybe I am missing something here.

Canuck wrote:I am a little confused, the first article says "Through June, Exxon employees have given Obama $42,100 to McCain's $35,166. Chevron favors Obama $35,157 to $28,500, and Obama edges out McCain with BP $16,046 vs. $11,500."

How can they link what the employees contributes to the company they work for? You may work for an organization out of need to survive, I don't think you necessarily work for a company because of the politicians or political party they support.

Maybe I am missing something here.

I was going to comment on that too, Canuck. When a politician discloses the sources of donations, do they have to also disclose the employer of those sources? If so, that seems a little strange, but I suppose it's possible. It seems like this was mentioned in a previous thread but maybe that was somewhere else.

Would be interesting to know how they got that information, could it possibly be a violation of someone's privacy?

Tangent, Mark, I want that egg there to put in a sandwich, with some sprouts, avocado, a bit of mustard and some mayo.

meta.. i posted it because it's showing that Obama is getting more money from Big Oil, depending on how you look at it. That second article also shows that Big Oil is putting money towards Republican's in general but Obama's campaign is claiming it's going all to McCain.

They appear to be a reputable site, so i'll assume however they collect data it's reliable. Plus it's worth pointing out that Big Oil companies legally can't contribute to a candidate regardless, which is what BO's ad claims.

cardinal5150 wrote:meta.. i posted it because it's showing that Obama is getting more money from Big Oil, depending on how you look at it. That second article also shows that Big Oil is putting money towards Republican's in general but Obama's campaign is claiming it's going all to McCain.

They appear to be a reputable site, so i'll assume however they collect data it's reliable. Plus it's worth pointing out that Big Oil companies legally can't contribute to a candidate regardless, which is what BO's ad claims.

I just want to clear up some misunderstandings here ... so the employees of exxon, mobil etc ... have contributed to the Obama campaign, how is that any different than me contributing or mort contributing to the Obama campaign? The difference is that the employees might be just like some of us and wanting change, tired of the big shots and large stockholders getting all of the breaks. No wonder it is the ordinary workers contributing to the Obama campaign and the Big Oil Pacs and Republican bundlers contributing to the McCain campaign.

I think Card's links play right into why we need Obama ... the ordinary people need change, it is the rich fat cats that are trying to stop and thwart the will of the people so they can continue to line their pockets with tax breaks and continue to make the workers even more poor.

Quote from the article:
While McCain has raised considerably more money from this unpopular industry, CRP was surprised to notice that it's actually Obama who has received more from the pockets of employees at several of Big Oil's biggest and most recognizable companies."

Thanks Card ... great post.

cardinal5150 wrote:meta.. i posted it because it's showing that Obama is getting more money from Big Oil, depending on how you look at it. That second article also shows that Big Oil is putting money towards Republican's in general but Obama's campaign is claiming it's going all to McCain.

They appear to be a reputable site, so i'll assume however they collect data it's reliable. Plus it's worth pointing out that Big Oil companies legally can't contribute to a candidate regardless, which is what BO's ad claims.

I wish I could say I expected a better response than this, but come on... TSIW. Depending on how you look at it, I'll give you 5 dollars or I'll give you 15 dollars (3x more) how can you look at that and say "depending on how you look at it?" Is that the kind of economics or value of money they taught you at BSU? I guess you just need to enlighten this idiot how to look at that differently.

Am I missing something?

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:meta.. i posted it because it's showing that Obama is getting more money from Big Oil, depending on how you look at it. That second article also shows that Big Oil is putting money towards Republican's in general but Obama's campaign is claiming it's going all to McCain.

They appear to be a reputable site, so i'll assume however they collect data it's reliable. Plus it's worth pointing out that Big Oil companies legally can't contribute to a candidate regardless, which is what BO's ad claims.

I wish I could say I expected a better response than this, but come on... TSIW. Depending on how you look at it, I'll give you 5 dollars or I'll give you 15 dollars (3x more) how can you look at that and say "depending on how you look at it?" Is that the kind of economics or value of money they taught you at BSU? I guess you just need to enlighten this idiot how to look at that differently.

Am I missing something?

Meta, you hit it on the head ... our education just does not amount to as much as his BSU education. LOL

Thanks for that extra bit you quoted from the article Bman.
I was busy trying to understand how they figured out how much the employees from the oil sector contributed.

so if Company A's employee's contribute more money to Candidate A than Candidate B it couldn't possibly be because of his favorable voting history towards their industry... Come on.. don't be that ignorant.

And isn't it the employee's who make up the business? Seems they are supporting BO, so the claim that big oil supports McCain over BO is false. Not to mention none of you seem to acknowledge that almost $1M of the money that's gone to McCain (according to BO's ad) actually went to a fund run for the Republican party, Republican Presidential nominee and state Republican parties. But why bother with details..

cardinal5150 wrote:so if Company A's employee's contribute more money to Candidate A than Candidate B it couldn't possibly be because of his favorable voting history towards their industry... Come on.. don't be that ignorant.

And isn't it the employee's who make up the business? Seems they are supporting BO, so the claim that big oil supports McCain over BO is false. Not to mention none of you seem to acknowledge that almost $1M of the money that's gone to McCain (according to BO's ad) actually went to a fund run for the Republican party, Republican Presidential nominee and state Republican parties. But why bother with details..

NO ... in the case of Verizon, our PAC directly contributes to who they deem the most acceptable to the stances of Verizon UNLESS we specifically tell them that our contributions have to go to a specific candidate. So I am guessing if you dig a little deeper you will see that it is the hard working employees who are sick of being shit on that are contributing to Obama. We know for a FACT that NO Big Oil Pac has given money to Obama, he does not take PAC money but the old man with big oil in his pocket does and the republican party does.

Card, this article you posted is the best article you have posted FOR Obama yet. Thanks, keep up the good work. Barack and I appreciate your support.

cardinal5150 wrote:so if Company A's employee's contribute more money to Candidate A than Candidate B it couldn't possibly be because of his favorable voting history towards their industry... Come on.. don't be that ignorant.

And isn't it the employee's who make up the business? Seems they are supporting BO, so the claim that big oil supports McCain over BO is false. Not to mention none of you seem to acknowledge that almost $1M of the money that's gone to McCain (according to BO's ad) actually went to a fund run for the Republican party, Republican Presidential nominee and state Republican parties. But why bother with details..

So you're using the logic that because of the differences in campaign contribution finance structures, the contributors have consciously decided to support Obama?

This must be Obama's secret strategy, to confound the opponent by a dizzying array of complex logic.

Dude, my avatar say's you should vote for Obama and if you do McCain will win...

cardinal5150 wrote:... I wonder if the BO camp bothered to see how much money they've received from Big Oil before running their new ads ...

There's a tenuous link between the employees of a company and the company itself. That aside, since Obama is getting money from the employees of big oil, it's obviously not corrupting him as a politician, as you seem to wonder about.

I told you a long time ago that Obama was the real deal. He's the right guy for the job.

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:... I wonder if the BO camp bothered to see how much money they've received from Big Oil before running their new ads ...

There's a tenuous link between the employees of a company and the company itself. That aside, since Obama is getting money from the employees of big oil, it's obviously not corrupting him as a politician, as you seem to wonder about.

I told you a long time ago that Obama was the real deal. He's the right guy for the job.

I don't wonder if he's getting corrupted by them... I just find it amusing that he's portraying this image of one who takes no money from oil companies as opposed to his competitor, yet won't mention his support for the Cheaney Oil Bill and won't mention that he's received over $300K from Big Oil.

My only comparison would be Edwards running on a platform of moral integrity when he was running for VP after having had an affair. Or Bill telling people to get out of his personal life after telling everyone he didn't have sex with Monica.

cardinal5150 wrote:I don't wonder if he's getting corrupted by them... I just find it amusing that he's portraying this image of one who takes no money from oil companies as opposed to his competitor, yet won't mention his support for the Cheaney Oil Bill and won't mention that he's received over $300K from Big Oil.

How much has he taken from the porn industry?

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:... I wonder if the BO camp bothered to see how much money they've received from Big Oil before running their new ads ...

There's a tenuous link between the employees of a company and the company itself. That aside, since Obama is getting money from the employees of big oil, it's obviously not corrupting him as a politician, as you seem to wonder about.

I told you a long time ago that Obama was the real deal. He's the right guy for the job.

I don't wonder if he's getting corrupted by them... I just find it amusing that he's portraying this image of one who takes no money from oil companies as opposed to his competitor, yet won't mention his support for the Cheaney Oil Bill and won't mention that he's received over $300K from Big Oil.

My only comparison would be Edwards running on a platform of moral integrity when he was running for VP after having had an affair. Or Bill telling people to get out of his personal life after telling everyone he didn't have sex with Monica.

Everyone omits key details... like when you said Big Oil and not employees of Big Oil.

cardinal5150 wrote:My only comparison would be Edwards running on a platform of moral integrity when he was running for VP after having had an affair.

Did I miss something? When did Obama announce Edwards as his VP candidate?

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:My only comparison would be Edwards running on a platform of moral integrity when he was running for VP after having had an affair.

Did I miss something? When did Obama announce Edwards as his VP candidate?

Come on Meta, don't be putting words in Card's mouth. Anybody reading thru the topic can see he used an example to make his point. Do examples used have to only mention the name of the one being discussed now?

LTRT wrote:

meta4 wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:My only comparison would be Edwards running on a platform of moral integrity when he was running for VP after having had an affair.

Did I miss something? When did Obama announce Edwards as his VP candidate?

Come on Meta, don't be putting words in Card's mouth. Anybody reading thru the topic can see he used an example to make his point. Do examples used have to only mention the name of the one being discussed now?

Well, okay. Maybe I can get by with saying that he could have chosen a better example? Of course this is IMO, and maybe it's Card's style to malign every peripheral associate of Obama's in the democratic party or perhaps it's just the corrupt ones, but he never seems to mention ANY republicans. It's almost as if he doesn't think there are any hypocritical republican politicians.

in the interest of being fair and balanced, and following the rove playbook...gotta wonder if mccain is really ready/able to lead our nation..

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html

Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame.

But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.

Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman’s client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

Mr. McCain helped found a nonprofit group to promote his personal battle for tighter campaign finance rules. But he later resigned as its chairman after news reports disclosed that the group was tapping the same kinds of unlimited corporate contributions he opposed, including those from companies seeking his favor. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office.

“He is essentially an honorable person,” said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. “But he can be imprudent.”

Mr. Cheshire added, “That imprudence or recklessness may be part of why he was not more astute about the risks he was running with this shady operator,” Charles Keating, whose ties to Mr. McCain and four other lawmakers tainted their reputations in the savings and loan debacle.

During his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. McCain has played down his attacks on the corrupting power of money in politics, aware that the stricter regulations he championed are unpopular in his party. When the Senate overhauled lobbying and ethics rules last year, Mr. McCain stayed in the background.

With his nomination this year all but certain, though, he is reminding voters again of his record of reform. His campaign has already begun comparing his credentials with those of Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic contender who has made lobbying and ethics rules a centerpiece of his own pitch to voters.

“I would very much like to think that I have never been a man whose favor can be bought,” Mr. McCain wrote about his Keating experience in his 2002 memoir, “Worth the Fighting For.” “From my earliest youth, I would have considered such a reputation to be the most shameful ignominy imaginable. Yet that is exactly how millions of Americans viewed me for a time, a time that I will forever consider one of the worst experiences of my life.”