FACTCHECK.ORG

Obama's Overstatement

An Obama ad says McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil." The total is actually $1.3 million.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Aggie Independent @ 09/04/2008 6:32:53 PM

    Pretty petty compared to the McCain ad distortions this same group has noted. I don't like this one either, but in context I have to say it is feeble propaganda in this case.

    What has happened to McCain, he used to be the best the GOP had to offer and very easy for independents to like. I remember when the Bush team trashed him in the S. Carolina primary with the mixed race baby calls and how low that seemed. Yet here he is 8 years later hiring the same nasty group to help him win. I always thought he had more integrity than desire to win at any cost.

  • Posted By: dara111 @ 08/16/2008 10:25:58 AM

    Obama is a lying freak. Let him go back to Chicago where he can return to his wonderful post as "community project manager". You all know, the position that qualifies him to govern the United States?

  • Posted By: Nmaitre @ 08/13/2008 10:28:15 AM

    McCain has been in the big oil companies' pockets big time since the last 30 years. God Almighty, the Father of Jesus Christ who died on the Cross for mankind, and the whole world meaning you and I, will not place McCain in the White House. No matter what Karl Rove does and what Jerome Corsis writes against Obama, they will see him triumph on his enemies as God is on his side to rescue him from them and hepl him take the high road to the White House.

  • Posted By: wnzin @ 08/08/2008 12:34:54 PM

    The Campaign for Responsive Politics has serveral articles on oil company contributions. (The companies do not donate themselves that is against the law)
    Obama got more from BIg oil, but less from oil companies overall.
    Does it mean Obama got bought by big oil? Hardly.
    Look at a few other of Obama's donors. Perhaps he got bought by the funds? Ever wonder why that SEC rule changed in 2007? The one that is rumored to have caused the high oil prices? Did Obama get bought? NO.

  • Posted By: BJT8337 @ 08/07/2008 6:36:29 PM

    1 million, 2million, what a waste of time writing this article. The amount is less than the old coot should have received for selling his soul. Write about that! As for who is Presidential, if America elected a moron like Bush, then I guess Obama is not Presidential material. Bush broke the mold, but oops. McBush put it back together.

  • Posted By: Bass Pro @ 08/07/2008 11:18:48 AM

    What about the one million that went to the RNC earmarked for McCain's Election Campaign?

  • Posted By: befair @ 08/06/2008 5:01:14 PM

    John McCain has lied, inflated and exaggerated in every ad he has put out about Obama but once again, it is easier to pick Obama apart because he did not throw a big BBQ and free beer party for the media the way McCain did. Are you listening America! We are being led down the same old path and we will get the same old results in the fall if we do not wake-up!

  • Posted By: TemujinP @ 08/06/2008 1:54:19 PM

    Obama: Fresh, innovating, inspiring...........McCain: Washed up, PTSD, outdated!

  • Posted By: Rosemary A. @ 08/06/2008 1:07:27 PM

    It would be interesting to know exactly where the incredible amount of Obama's campaign funds originated - very interesting. Instead of talking issues Obama accuses Republicans of being ignorant - when he has taken the level of this campaign to low levels - perhaps the lowest ever. He has the electorate talking about inflated tires and tune ups - and a $1000 rebate which will come from the profits of a PRIVATE COMPANY.
    We all know about inflating tires to the PROPER levels, our automobiles today to not require TUNE-UPS
    and Obama is in no position to institute a socialistic program!!!! BARACK OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL, no experience and more baggage than the terminal at JFK - but no one is discussing these points. TIME TO GET SERIOUS - weigh the programs and VOTE McCain - thank God we have him.

  • Posted By: AskPlus @ 08/04/2008 7:26:55 PM

    So 2m did not go to McCain but to the RNC and GOP - which is McCain.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:36:02 PM

      Nope, the RNC and GOP also fund Senate and Congressional elections, the convention, and local and state elections.

      Did you really want to put your deficiency in knowledge and understanding of the American two party system on display for thousands of people to read here?

      • Posted By: good conscience @ 08/06/2008 11:55:43 AM

        Huge mistake to think that "thousands" of people will read this awful drivel...

  • Posted By: techresmgt @ 08/05/2008 7:17:34 PM

    Every time Oprahma speaks, he overstates, exaggerates, and promises more than he can deliver. This is why people like him, they love living in a dream world.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/06/2008 11:08:02 AM

      And promises to give people money, or something for free, like a college education. And how does he plan to pay for this? By taking the dividends retirees live on.

  • Posted By: Cliff-N-Cali @ 08/06/2008 1:40:10 AM

    Okay, Here we go again! We aren't going to get anywhere by adding additional taxes on the oil companies people! You know and I know that the reason for starting a buisness is for that buisness to do well and make a profit. You tax my buisness more and I'll just pass the cost on to my clients ( just in case you didn't know the clients are us....thank you very much!).

  • Posted By: Duck Soup @ 08/05/2008 10:25:32 PM

    "We won't drill, we will let our economy go down the tubes." That's what Republicans say.

    Here's what I say to them:

    Don't listen to me. Watch her. Really. She gave a talk to conservatives recently that I think you should watch. It might resonate.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/8/4/215124/0139

    She says the more we produce, the less OPEC will increase its production to compensate. Her proof? OPEC has gone from producing 30 million barrels a day since the 70s to 32 million barrels a day today. The rest of the world has doubled its production. We add a few million barrels from offshore drilling, guess what happens? Growth in China and India picks up the slack and OPEC holds its production steady. In other words, nothing. It's that simple.

    Anne Korin is right. Two thirds of our gas consumption comes from vehicles. Only 2% of our electricity is generated using oil. What is the obvious solution? Switch to battery powered vehicles. Get vehicles off the gas. And start equipping all vehicles for alternative fuels, at a cost of only about $100 a car by the way. Corn ethanol is profitable at about $2 a gallon, much cheaper than current prices. Let's go!

    The Republicans have been in power for so long. Even they say we are addicted to oil. Why aren't they saying any of this? Could it have something to do with their warped allegiances in the Middle East, especially with Saudi Arabia who sent us the 9/11 bombers?

    Can we please get real already? Offshore drilling is a red herring. It will not matter in the grand scheme of things. The problem is OPEC holds the cards. We are too dependent on oil. Republican politicians are sell-outs who don't want you to think clearly on this.

  • Posted By: powin @ 08/05/2008 8:21:37 PM

    If anyone does their research here, they will see that Barack Obama is funded by some of the most powerful groups in the world. Google, for example, was ranked as the 6th most powerful company in the U.S. The Goldman Sachs family like various other donors here are directly linked to the Rothschild Family, the most powerful family in the world. They created and own along with other foreign investors the Federal Reserve System. The Rothschilds were pivotal in the creation of the EU. Obama has the corporate interests backing him and this is undeniable. Here is a list of some of his highest donors. Cross reference these donors and you will see that it is irrefutable that Obama is backed by the most powerful and influential and has their interests in mind.

    Goldman Sachs $627,730
    University of California $523,120
    JPMorgan Chase & Co $398,021
    Citigroup Inc $393,899
    UBS AG $378,400
    Google Inc $373,212
    Harvard University $369,802
    Lehman Brothers $353,922
    National Amusements Inc $352,603
    Moveon.org $347,463
    Sidley Austin LLP $326,845
    Skadden, Arps et al $304,050
    Time Warner $298,972
    Morgan Stanley $291,388
    Microsoft Corp $276,925
    Jones Day $266,705
    Latham & Watkins $252,845
    University of Chicago $250,685
    Wilmerhale Llp $249,282
    Exelon Corp $239,061

  • Posted By: chandler @ 08/05/2008 7:13:25 PM

    McCain has repeatedly voted against tax credits for renewable energy.
    McCain missed votes to require energy companies to produce 20% of energy from renewable sources.
    McCain voted against tougher fuel efficiency standards.
    McCain opposed $290 million for Research and Development on Renewable Energy, including wind power.

    McCain's record speaks for itself. Why didn't he work towards our energy goals YEARS ago when it was clear we were going to need renewable energy?? How can anyone buy his lies that he is for alternative energy sources now?

  • Posted By: JoeSmith16 @ 08/05/2008 6:46:25 PM

    Has anyone begun to realize that McCain is exploiting the ignorance of the American people? Regardless of whether you are voting for Obama or McCain in Nov., please read this article. It'll benefit you either way.

  • Posted By: lcaina @ 08/05/2008 6:01:02 PM

    Comment: John McSame is suggesting a corporate tax cut for the oil industry from 35 percent to 25 percent! The same oil companies that are raking in record profits will gain another 4 billion, oh, excuse me, 3.8 billion in additional tax savings. Where is the public outrage at this ridiculous proposal by McSame?
    McSame also has the same old way of thinking when it comes to solving high gas prices; drill, drill, drill. He says this even though he knows drilling today will not lower gas prices for ten to twenty years at best. Of course his old way of thinking has dramatically increased his contributions from oil executives. Does America really need another oil guy in the White House? God help us if he gets in.

  • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 08/05/2008 5:47:58 PM

    HiddeHo Harley Ho....what up BikerChick.......seems you challenged me for a response a few DAYS ago. I responded...YOU did not.....Kinda like Hussein challenging Sen McCain and then turning tail. Well, maybe you just forgot.....so here is another chance............

    ........Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 08/02/2008 19:12:39
    Comment: Hey CornHolyO same question for you as was for DavHerpe:

    WHat are the ENERGY EXPERTS saying about offshore drilling, timelime, actuall "impact" to prices, etc? DARE YOU TOANSWER try to make it honest and stay on topic here oilboy.

    ................. .......................... ......................... ........................ ........................... ............................ .........................

    HiddeHoHarleyHo...what up BickerChick......stay on topic??? NOT the "Hussein is a mohammed" topic??? That IS my favorite. But, if you want to talk energy....probably over your head......but what the heck...here's a brief summary. HolyRoller is a blogger not an expert (supply vs demand I understand....do you?)...so I'll let an expert I find quite convincing, answer you.........

    There's been a huge transfer of power to oil producers. Even at $100 a barrel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates will earn almost $8 trillion in oil revenues between now and 2020, estimates the McKinsey Global Institute. More troubling are the political implications. "This has really strengthened the Iranians, Russians and Venezuelans to be more provocative in the world," says Larry Goldstein of the Energy Policy Research Foundation. Although governments control crude supplies, private companies have dominated distribution. Anyone can buy oil at a price. Now oil could become a political commodity offered to friends at a discount, withheld from rivals.

    How can we retrieve some of our lost power? The first thing is to get out of denial. Stop blaming oil companies and "speculators." Next, we need to expand domestic oil and natural-gas drilling, including Alaska. Although we can't "drill our way" out of this problem, we can augment oil supplies and lessen price strains. It might take 10 years or more, because new projects are huge undertakings. But delay will only aggravate our future problems.

    Argue against this SIMPLE TRUTH. Show us all how really goofy, a devout obamamohammed, can really be. Can't blame that on whitey......OOPs...sorry...I forgot how good at that you are.

    YOUR TURN....now STAY ON TOPIC

    NOBAMA!!!

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 5:03:53 PM

    I wonder how much Obama and the DNC are making by selling their email list to various marketers? I just got a spam email that was written as an email, but was actually promoting subscriptions to a magazine -- I am sure it was paid for, and I don't want that kind of crap in my inbox. But I also do not want to stop getting Democratic party emails.

    The more I learn about the democratic party this year, the more bias I see in MSM. The publisher couldn't give money to the campaign, so instead they pay for an email to the DNC's list -- just one more loophole in the convoluted campaign finance legislation.

  • Posted By: chandler @ 08/05/2008 2:09:46 PM

    Wind farms are already up and running, silly pearson!

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:20:24 PM

      Are they connected to the grid? How much energy do they supply? How much did they cost? Are they commercially viable, or do they cost more to erect and maintain than they save? Were they subsidized by the Energy Department?

      • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:50:34 PM

        wind won't work in Florida (or anywhere in the south)

        http://wdbo.com/news/windpower.html

        • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:53:50 PM

          Aug 1, 2008: FPL Group Inc., the largest U.S. producer of wind power, said second-quarter profits fell 48 percent on a drop in the valuation of energy contracts.

      • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:47:34 PM

        Info on wind and other alternative power systems, from FLORIDA power company (where wind will NOT work)

        http://www.fpl.com/environment/conservation/alternative_energy.shtml

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:43:46 PM

      Where we are on wind, according to the government.

      http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/regional.asp

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:41:42 PM

      Denmark is the most advanced in terms of developing wind power, but only 3.3 per cent of Denmark???s wind power gets ???accepted??? on the grid for domestic consumption. In 2003, Denmark exported 84 per cent of its wind-generated electricity at money-losing rates. And what about reducing CO{-2}? In 2006, Denmark produced 36 per cent more carbon emissions than the year before.

      Denmark has provided generous subsidies for wind power developments since the 1970s and now has a sophisticated wind-dependent industry that - think Vestas - flogs subsidized turbines to naive U.S. presidential candidates. The industry???s reliance on subsidies has apparently not lessened in the past 30 years. Mr. Lodge says Danish consumers paid $517-million (U.S.) in wind power subsidies in the first six months of 2007 alone.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:36:25 PM

      Wind turbines operate occasionally with remarkable efficiency at 100 per cent capacity. More often, they operate with 20 per cent capacity. Once in a while, they operate with subzero capacity - taking electricity from the grid to keep themselves running until they get hit again by a restless wind.

      Denmark boasts the world???s greatest ???wind density??? - wind power per capita. With 19 per cent of its electricity now generated by more than 6,000 wind turbines, Denmark produces 80 times as much wind power per capita as Britain.

      Why, then, does Denmark export almost all of its wind power - at a revenue loss? Why, then, does Denmark still operate all of its conventional coal-fired power plants? In a phrase, Mr. Sharman says, the reason is Denmark???s ???wildly fluctuating wind power.???

      It turns out that Denmark???s vast array of turbines often produce minimal electricity when demand is high, maximum electricity when demand is low. Basing his analysis on data from a single year (2002), Mr. Sharman reported that wind power produced less than 1 per cent of the country???s electricity supply on 54 different days. On one of these 54 days, the wind turbines took more power from the grid than they produced. (Wind turbines consume considerable electricity whether winds are blowing or not blowing.)


      In Texas, a proposal for $6.4 billion of new power lines to link the new wind farms with the state's public electricity grid, whose cost will be borne mainly by consumers, is proving politically controversial. Not surprising considering the unreliability of wind as an energy source and the high cost of connecting the turbines, AND the fact that the turbines will be using power instead of generating it.

      Energy analyst Tony Lodge makes the same point in a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London think tank. ???Not a single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed,??? he says. ???Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity and to provide backup.???

      Mr. Lodge says it is not practical to turn coal-fired plants off and on as winds rise and fall - because ramping them up consumes more fuel (and emits more carbon dioxide) than running them at a constant rate. Thus Denmark relies almost exclusively on coal-fired plants for its own consumption and exports its wind power at whatever off-peak price it can get.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse