Obama's Overstatement

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:08:56 PM

    Do you wonder why Obama changed his vote on Bush's FISA package? Look who benefited: Communications companies get retroactive immunity from lawsuits for their violations of customers' civil and Constitutional rights.

    Why would Obama support something he says he's opposed to, after all, he claims he was once a civil rights attorney?One of his bundlers is Scott Blake Harris, the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+

    Another one of Obama's bundlers is Thomas J. Perrilli, managing partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Jenner and Block, a Chicago general practice law firm, which includes among its clients the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Inc. As an Obama bundler, Perrelli raised $200,000+.

    And look who funded his campaign for the senate.

    2003-2004
    Listed among the top 50 contributors to Barack Obama 2003-2004 are found the following political action committees:

    AT&T PAC IL
    Allstate Insurance PAC
    Credit Union PAC
    Community Banc PAC
    Zack PAC
    AIA IL PAC (American Insurance Assn)
    IL Road Builders PAC
    MCI Midwest Employees PAC
    Peoples Energy PAC
    Spirit PAC
    ICTA-PAC
    IL Manufactured Housing Assn PAC
    IL Mortgage Bankers PAC
    ACPAC (Automobile Club PAC)

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:06:19 PM

    While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Senator Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital.

    Moreover, his pledge to shun money from lobbyists registered to do business on Capitol Hill does not extend to lawyers whose partners lobby there. Nor does the ban apply to corporations that have major lobby operations in Washington. And the prohibition does not extend to lobbyists who ply their trade in state capitals including Springfield, Ill., Tallahassee, Fla., and Sacramento, Calif., although some deal with national clients and issues. Obama accepts money from lobbyists' spouses and other family members, their partners at the law firms where they work if the partners aren't registered to lobby, senior executives at companies that hire lobbyists, and state-level lobbyists. Among his top fundraisers are at least a few who were registered lobbyists as recently as last year. Overall, the same wealthy interests are funding his campaign as are funding other candidates, whether or not they are lobbyists.

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:05:40 PM

    Obama backed down from an earlier pledge that lobbyists "will not work in my White House" after the media questioned its feasibility. He then said that lobbyists would not "dominate" or "run" his administration but acknowledged that they would "have a seat at the table". In fact, three political aides on Sen. Barack Obama's payroll were registered lobbyists for dozens of corporations, including Wal-Mart, British Petroleum and Lockheed Martin, while they received payments from his campaign, according to public documents.

    One of Obama's bundlers is Commonwealth Edison chairman Frank Clark.With with over $600,000 in contributions as of 2007, Obama ranked number one among all candidates of either party in money from commercial banks.Another one of Obama's bundlers is Thomas Reed, of counsel at K&L Gates, whose practice includes representing a large majority of the major financial institutions and securities firms in a variety of disciplines, including investment management and mortgage banking.Then there's the $1.3 million from real estate (Rezko??), the $1.3 million from the entertainment industry, and the $652,000 from hedge funds and private equity sources Obama has accepted.

    Robert Litt is another of Obama's bundlers, a partner of Arnold & Porter, a law firm which was retained by the Colombian government to provide advice concerning external capital markets and other financial transactions, including with respect to the application of U.S. laws and regulations applicable thereto, as well as advice on other matters from time to time requested by the Ministry of Finance of Colombia. Included in this latter category is advice on legal issues concerning certain aspects of the Free Trade Agreement negotiation betweren the Republic of Colombia and the United States.

    Arnold & Porter also serves as national counsel for Philip Morris in lawsuits seeking to hold the company liable for illnesses allegedly caused by smoking, including the recent Medicare reimbursement cases brought by the states and numerous state class action lawsuits brought by plaintiffs seeking to recover for alleged tobacco-related illnesses.

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:01:15 PM

    Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/07/despite-rhetori.html

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 4:00:43 PM

    last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm's U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

    In a glowing financial report issued just two months after Obama introduced Nufarm's numerous tariff-lifting bills, Nufarm told its shareholders it was making more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.



    Nufarm wasn't the only beneficiary of Obama's efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.

    The lobbyists' task? "Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient," they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama. On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas' key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.

    "If you have a company...there's a whole factory set up to help you get these suspensions," said Steve Ellis, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's a pay-to-play system you have to rev up and work." Hire the right lobbyist, pay the right fee, and you can save millions, he explained.

    In Nufarm's case, Obama's staff met with a lawyer representing the company, Joel Junker, in person and on the phone several times, Junker told ABC News. Junker says he worked with Obama's staff to craft the nine bills and keep them moving forward.

    "To the extent [the legislation] needs a little shepherding, you work with their staff, to be aware of the status, and work with the committee staff," he said, and spoke highly of Obama's staff. "Everything was very professional, very constituent-service oriented."

    Unlike Astella's representatives, Junker did not register to lobby on behalf of Nufarm and did not disclose his fees. In an interview, Junker declined to say whether he believed his work could be considered "lobbying."

  • Posted By: OnlyCureJGK @ 08/05/2008 3:57:29 PM

    The problem is simple corruption needs to be stopped beginning with those who have profited for years from corruption. Please look up this individual ---- Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich ---- he was the father in law of Mr. Rockefeller who's family went on to controll the private banks which became the central bank the FED which is a private institution. This individual Nelson came up with the Income Tax and The Central Bank. Follow the money and you will find the corruption behind the problems in society. For 240.00 the Central Bank the Fed can create 1 million dollars then using the IRS they can bilk the public for 1 Million plus interest. Its easy math to see they have the complete control of the US government and even the world. Money is the root of all evil. Look up the owners of Standard oil it is a circle leading right back to the FED.

  • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:47:17 PM

    I won't vote for Obama because I know what he has done in the past. He is a Chicago trained pay to play politician, the kind who would ruin this country.

    Obama might talk like he doesn't cater to special interests, but look at what he does.

    Obama votes in favor of FISA which gives corporations who have funded his campaign retroactive immunity for violating their customers' civil and Constitutional rights. Pay to play.

    Obama requests earmarks for his political cronies, financial supporters, and his wife's employer, who gave Michelle a BIG raise. Pay to play.

    Obama supports Tillman in a Walmart influenced campaign, and wife Michelle gets a cushy job as a director on the board of an affiliated company. Pay to play.

    Obama is in financial difficulty when he begins as a state senator, so he gets put on a retainer by Blackwell's EKI, and then helps Blackwell's Killerspin get hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money. Pay to play.

    And I also won't vote for him because he admitted using cocaine for years.

    I don't want that kind of leader.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 08/05/2008 3:40:59 PM

    Thats not the only place where Obama plays fast and loose with the truth in the above article. Obama lifts the ''four billion in tax breaks for the oil industry'' from the Clinton-partisan Center for American Progress,run by former Clinton adminstration official John Podesta. What it infers is that these breaks are a stand-alone deal for the oil companies themselves. False.

    McCains tax plan seeks to give ALL American companies such a break,from STARBUCKS to FORD,WAL-MART to HOME DEPOT,LOEWS to MACYS in order to keep American jobs here in America. Even Obama agrees with this platform. Punishing oil companies as though they were MARLBORO is an ignorant exercise in futility as it is they who are providing nearly 100% of Americas energy consumption as it applies to automobiles. Break these companies down,as the Democrats desire,and there will be chaos. You cannot create energy independance in a vaccum,as I have repeatedly stressed.

  • Posted By: chandler @ 08/05/2008 3:39:09 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??

  • Posted By: oshacraig @ 08/04/2008 10:23:09 PM

    Well, Uh-hum, I do believe that the money came from people looking to preserve their jobs in their chosen profession. Statements as such are very ignorant and smack at the rights of individuals to choose freely in our Democratic Republic, look up what that means for you that don't know. Congress does not even vote the will of the people. I voted to be represented not have another set of Parents. What happened to majority rule? Over 60% of the citizens of this country want us to drill for oil we are not doing it, Hum, thank you mommy and daddy congress. Oh by the way check out the Chinese rigs across from the Florida keys nice lets watch them drill for Oil, they dont have and dont care about enviromental constraints. Drilling is safe and clean check it out. Just let the rest of the world do it in our back yard. Get educated and get a life. We watch each day as people prey on the dumb and the slow. Common sense in a world where common sense is not so common. Anyway you own nothing in this country regardless except a small voice at best. Don't pay taxes on your home for a couple of years and see who owns it. Duh, but anyway those contributions are made up of PACS and Unions and very little big doners. Ben Franklin said, "Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Relax we are just a little Facist now, just a sign of the times. Oh by the way I would like someone to be the CEO of my business that has more than 143 days experience. I could elaborate further but, ah what the hay. God Bless America, God Bless America, my heart hurts for you. Good thing stupidity is not a dibilitating disease. I digress.

    • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 08/04/2008 10:39:27 PM

      Or we could research clean energy and be well ahead of the rest of the world...

      BUT you drill drill drill people could care less if America has taken the next step before anyone else. We would only of made a step that gives us a huge bump above the rest of the world. Naw sell out for 1.3 mil instead.

      • Posted By: oshacraig @ 08/04/2008 11:09:08 PM

        I work in the wind energy business. Clipperwind.com

        • Posted By: notroubleatall1963 @ 08/04/2008 11:39:58 PM

          Obama got advice from the oil and gas and pipeline folks in the business. You're in Wind - that's great - but these drilling advocates are largely in the oil biz.

          The funny thing is, we all know (I"m in the oil biz myself) that oil is suffering from supply-demand fundamentals - Demand has grown far beyond anyone's expectations, and we are also experiencing Peak Oil in this decade. Once we peak out globally, there will be a relatively FAST DEPLETION of the remaining recoverable oil from the world's reserves. Now this won't all happen at once - we won't suddenly run out of crude oil one day.... But we will see it coming and petroleum will become more and more expensive, harder and harder to recover for refining and basically it will become scarce and no longer economically viable to produce.

          There will be no more oil production, or it will have dwindled way down, by about 15-20 years from now...maybe even sooner depending on how fast China and India (and the US) use it all up.

          Europe is much further ahead than us - we need to get on the stick and get more innovative, creative and imaginative than just "drilling our way out of a problem" -- it ain't gonna happen. Ask T. Boone Pickens if you don't believe l'il ol' me.

          • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:13:29 PM

            I'm not in the oil business. Personally I like trees. We can grow them, they are renewable, and in growing them we clean the air and water and land because trees capture carbon.

            It isn't drilling our way out of a problem, it's buying time to get cellulosic ethanol online. It's an "all of the above" solution.

            • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 2:35:56 PM

              no its not, its investing billions of dollars into oil platforms to ensure that other energy sources can't compete in the short or medium term

              • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:35:39 PM

                Like what? What is ready to come to market now, that would fit into the power grid or could be poured into our internal combustion engines?

                Get real. the Bush administration has been investing plenty in the development of alternative energy sources. Obama won't win on this one, which is why he's flip flopped and is busy trying to justify his switch so he won't look like a fish out of water he's flipping and flopping so much.

        • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 08/04/2008 11:55:47 PM

          So you work in wind energy, but you are for McShame's drilling plan and against Obama's plan that puts 150 bil over ten years into research.

          • Posted By: oshacraig @ 08/05/2008 12:31:30 AM

            More than 150 bil will go into reserch without the gov. that is their token amount, it ain't squat. The Private sector will far exceed that amount in 1/5 the time. Do we use water in our fuel tanks in the mean time. You tell me.

            • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 08/05/2008 2:45:49 AM

              Ok well 150 bil is at least a respectable amount compared to McShame's $0.00.

              Then you have to realize that drilling will also take 7 to 10 years before we see any of it. So what are you suppose to run your car on until then, water?

              Then we have to assume big oil will over supply the market to drive down the cost while raising their own cost and destroy the record profits they keep posting.

              What company doesn't want to stop posting record profits?

              Or we could attack the problem on the demand side. We could drive less, use cars with better gas millage, start thinking local for shopping entertainment etc, use things like electric cars for city driving, Basically we could take responsibility for our own lives and not blindly trust big oil to do what is right.

              • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:11:20 PM

                So Wisconsin, are you prepared to do without heat this winter? It isn't just a matter of not using cars.

              • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:10:42 PM

                7 to 10 years is better than never, which is what we have without drilling.

                There is no proof that Obama's claim that he would make us energy independent is true. He can't do it without developing our existing resources and using existing technology in addition to pursuing new technologies. Wind and solar won't help in many areas where there isn't enough wind or solar to do the job. Cellulosic is the best bet, but today's electric facilities can't burn wood alone, and the technology isn't available to turn wood into a ethanol at a commercially viable cost yet. Only after that is demonstrated will construction of commercial scale facilities begin.

          • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:06:12 PM

            Bush's government has put even more into research than that already. Obama is just looking for more favors for Excelon and his other financial backers.

        • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:05:14 PM

          kewl! So how long will it take to construct the wind farms and power lines that would put that resource online? What regions will it serve? Not the south, I know, because there isn't enough wind here. And what threat will all those arrays pose for migratory birds?

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 08/05/2008 3:30:16 AM

    the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let's say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market, we wouldn't just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that's what the strategic oil reserve has to be for.

    • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 2:27:13 PM

      or an excuse to keep domestically drilled oil out of the market to ensure or cheaper commitments to foreign oil

      • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:32:03 PM

        Or maybe a threat to cut off all oil shipments to the US if the Muslim oil producing countries decided to obliterate Israel and the US threatened to intervene.

  • Posted By: bin4 @ 08/05/2008 8:13:53 AM

    Why did McCain get more money then OBama? Can Someone Please answer this.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:30:15 PM

      Oil companies have historically given more to the republicans, so that isn't a surprise. And why would any company threatened with specially imposed additional taxes back the candidate who plans to take the profits from the employees and retirees and shareholders who depend on oil company dividends to pay their bills?

      Obama has no idea how big business in America works. He's never worked a wage job in his life, never dug a ditch or slimed a fish or burned a weld or toted boxes or merchandised counters, or even wiped off the table for the next customer in a restaurant. His lack of understanding that workers depend on the profitability of the business as much as management does was painfully apparent when he spoke to the labor and management organization, AAM.

  • Posted By: mk2008 @ 08/05/2008 8:18:24 AM

    bin4, they're private donors, they just happen to work for an oil company. Mccain is taking a stand against high corporate taxes. (did you know that while exxon made 11 billion this quarter, they paid 32 billion in taxes for the quarter as well?) that would men about 120 billion in taxes for 1 year.

    Just as Mccain probably gets more money from people associated with Oil companies, Obama makes more from communists (just kidding)...he'll get more from private citizens associated with say, Environmental groups, or the NAACP, etc.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:00:54 PM

      No, actually, big business backs Obama. He has a history of greasing the wheels for companies who want tax breaks or government funding or other favors. What Obama is doing is trying to make it look like oil companies are backing McCain because McCain supports off shore drilling. In truth, Obama has chosen the one industry sector which has typically given more to Republicans to attack, proposing to tax them at a rate no other taxpayer pays (so much for equality before the law) so he isn't risking losing financial support himself.

      I won't vote for Obama because I know what he has done in the past. He is a Chicago trained pay to play politician, the kind who would ruin this country.

      Obama might talk like he doesn't cater to special interests, but look at what he does.

      Obama votes in favor of FISA which gives corporations who have funded his campaign retroactive immunity for violating their customers' civil and Constitutional rights. Pay to play.

      Obama requests earmarks for his political cronies, financial supporters, and his wife's employer, who gave Michelle a BIG raise. Pay to play.

      Obama supports Tillman in a Walmart influenced campaign, and wife Michelle gets a cushy job as a director on the board of an affiliated company. Pay to play.

      Obama is in financial difficulty when he begins as a state senator, so he gets put on a retainer by Blackwell's EKI, and then helps Blackwell's Killerspin get hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money. Pay to play.

      And I also won't vote for him because he admitted using cocaine for years.

      I don't want that kind of leader.

      • Posted By: americancitizen200 @ 08/05/2008 2:39:16 PM

        WHO ARE YOU!!!!

  • Posted By: Linda Lee @ 08/05/2008 9:45:20 AM

    I will not be voting for Obama.. I do not want this man as my president.. He too received money from the Oil Companies.. and now with his Flip-Flop on off shore drilling, I do not believe he can be trusted on anything.

    • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 08/05/2008 11:51:30 AM

      But your ok with McShame who received 3x the amount and flip-flopped? You might want to note that Obama didn't change until it became clear that we need a plan that gives a little to both sides.

      McShame flipped 100 percent to big oil as soon as he was bought.

      • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 1:56:27 PM

        Bought??? You have no proof that oil is trying to buy McCain. In fact, it is more probable that oil companies are contributing McCain because Obama has proposed taxing oil companies unfairly in a socialist plan to redistribute wealth, a very socialist point of view, very anti-American.

        I won't vote for Obama because I know what he has done in the past. He is a Chicago trained pay to play politician, the kind who would ruin this country.

        Obama might talk like he doesn't cater to special interests, but look at what he does.

        Obama votes in favor of FISA which gives corporations who have funded his campaign retroactive immunity for violating their customers' civil and Constitutional rights. Pay to play.

        Obama requests earmarks for his political cronies, financial supporters, and his wife's employer, who gave Michelle a BIG raise. Pay to play.

        Obama supports Tillman in a Walmart influenced campaign, and wife Michelle gets a cushy job as a director on the board of an affiliated company. Pay to play.

        Obama is in financial difficulty when he begins as a state senator, so he gets put on a retainer by Blackwell's EKI, and then helps Blackwell's Killerspin get hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money. Pay to play.

        And I also won't vote for him because he admitted using cocaine for years.

        I don't want that kind of leader.

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 2:21:37 PM

          bush also did coke and struck a woman while drunk driving, but because he was born again thats alright. get over yourself. alternative energys won't be "viable" unless massive investments are put towards them. as long as private corporations are leading the innovations, then they won't be as cheap as natural gas. unless of course a carbon tax is put in place. We already see and end in sight for oil. Let's lead the world in the development of these energy sources, or we can try to subsidize oil companies as we've been doing since the 70's and hope they keep prices low instead of filling their pockets (which they done with great sucess). coincidently about as long as john mccain has served as a senator.

          • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:24:27 PM

            I didn't vote for Bush either, and he has always denied using cocaine,while admitting being an alcoholic in college. At least alcohol is legal for college age people.

            When was the last time Obama used cocaine?

      • Posted By: mk2008 @ 08/05/2008 1:12:05 PM

        bad bad 'big oil' !! Bad mr. OIL! he puts gas in my car and allows me to work! bad mr. oil, bad!

        • Posted By: jnakhoul @ 08/05/2008 2:24:23 PM

          now your entire life revolves around bad mr.oil and he'll gladly screw you out of it and put you in his pocket.

  • Posted By: chandler @ 08/05/2008 2:08:25 PM

    Obama has far more well thought out plans for the major issues facing our country.
    John McCain's plan for social security is "all options are on the table".
    His speaks about international relations in broad, childish strokes because he doesn't understand the nuance of the situations in Iraq, Iran, Israel, etc.
    His health care plan will do nothing to help the millions and millions of American's whose current health care plans will fail them if they get any type of long term health condition. McCain even voted against the GI Bill! He won't even stand up for health care for veterans!

    (and pearson, you have been reading too many extremist websites.)

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 3:22:12 PM

      Obama changes his mind all the time. Which plan are you referring to, the one that the coalition is putting forward, or the one he wrote to pander to one constituency or another, or the one that he hasn't told us about, like his vote on the FISA legislation, that will benefit the corporations that are supporting his campaign, the communications industry and banking and insurance industry etc?

  • Posted By: Dan Rains @ 08/05/2008 12:00:53 AM

    The question that arises from this article is why oil and gas company surrogates donate to both candidates in the first place. Why not just donate to McCain, or just donate to Obama? An undecided will see that there are some oil company surrogates who want Obama, and some that want McCain, so how can the whole issue of who is more in bed with the oil companies make any difference to an undecided? To me, the matter isn???t which candidate is more in bed with the oil companies. It's WHICH oil companies the candidates are in bed with. Because the whole issue of the production and control of this valuable commodity is loaded with complicated interrelationships involving public consumption and changing market conditions including the constant threat of market speculation, I think an undecided voter will have a hard time knowing which candidate to choose on this issue. So I think an undecided voter should look at how the Republican administration under George W. Bush may have been influenced by the oil industry in taking the USA into the pre-emptive war in Iraq, which many Americans believe is an immoral war, and which many people believe the oil industry surrogates and military industrial complex wanted for their own monetary benefit at the expense of 100,000 dead Iraqis and over 4,000 dead American soldiers, and then ask themselves: who supported that war? And who supports that war now? An undecided may see that this candidate is John McCain, who continues to support the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and a connection between John McCain and George W. Bush and the oil company surrogates that support them. For this reason I wouldn???t be concerned about the matter of who gets more money from the oil company surrogates. I would be more concerned about what these oil company surrogates hope their candidate would do, once elected.

    I believe what our government did in Iraq at the apparent behest of the oil company surrogates, whether pressured directly or indirectly, was wrong. It was a terrible choice made by George W. Bush, and it was supported by the Republican Administration, including Senator John McCain. I think America will have a hard time recovering from this historically immoral attack. Barack Obama, forasmuch as he may be wrong or right about what to do with strategic oil reserves, has indicated that he does not support blood for oil. In that respect I???m with those oil company surrogates that support him, and so I believe Barack Obama is the right choice. The Republicans have had their chance when it comes to the commodity of oil. I think it???s time to let the Democratic Party have a crack at it.
    Because of this issue I will vote for Barack Obama in November, and I encourage undecided voters to consider my reasons for supporting him.

    Cheers!

    • Posted By: oshacraig @ 08/05/2008 12:39:08 AM

      Enter Your Comment You are correct in many ways. We cant save the world from torturers and rapist like the Iraq gov. under Sadaam and the little Sadaams. I guess if Africa had oil we would stop those murderers huh. Just thought I would throw that in. I see the facts you have stated and are well put. I just cant have a 143 day wonder in office in these times. I am also very unimpressed with his choice of advisors. The ones behind the scenes make my skin crawl. God Bless Us all for those who believe.

      • Posted By: americancitizen200 @ 08/05/2008 2:45:30 PM

        I guess what your telling me is the devil you know HUH! better think again we need to take this country away from big corporations. You better think of you rpocketbook instead of how long someone has been on the seen. Are you struggling? can you manage day to day? are you worried about your kids college education? If your not worried I guess you should vote for McCain.

  • Posted By: 4th gen floridian @ 08/04/2008 6:16:22 PM

    You Need To Add ..... the $$$ Given By BIG OIL... To RNC!

    Together, I Bet You, It Is OVER $ 2 Million!

    • Posted By: Innocentious @ 08/04/2008 6:25:01 PM

      So you support what Obama says by wild conjecture... Not looking good, and if Obama recieves half that then what do you say? A quarter? What about from Hollywood, or Enviromental Movements or any industry for that matter. What about Lawyers and other groups. If I were in the Oil Industry ( just a worker employed by the Oil industry, thats all that can contribute really ) and I hear Obama saying that he is going to tax my industry more, what should I think, Oh let me send that guy some money, I am sure that my bosses won't have to cut back on my potential to earn more just because the government is going to tax my company more, Or are they going to say, wait this is MY livelyhood we are talking about and send money to a canidate who isn't saying I am working for the devil incarnate. Hmmmm... I wonder....

      • Posted By: Cloudosmoke @ 08/05/2008 8:31:45 AM

        A lot of conjecture going on in your statement.

        • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:38:48 PM

          Go look at my posts on the article about Obama raising unlimited convention funds.

  • Posted By: PhrankW @ 08/04/2008 6:21:43 PM

    When McCain changed his position on off-shore drilling his campaign received significant funding for his campaign. When Obama changed his position, the oild industris will have to give up BILLIONS in subsidies to the benefit of the whole American People. It is my understanding thaqt the bi-partisan compromise that Obama is supporting also has many other really positive changes effecting the centfral issue of the next decade: the establishment of a new, economy based on renewalble energy. (As for the difference between the figures from ""best available sources", please tell us what the Obama campaign says. If wee're "hig information" eneough to read you, we are capable of making our own evaluations.)

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:37:28 PM

      They both voted for Bush's energy bill. Don't let Obama pull the wool over your eyes.

  • Posted By: love234america @ 08/04/2008 7:38:59 PM

    Obama was recently in Houston for fundraising and racked in a lot of $$$$$$$$'s from the energy industry. He's a hypocrite. He probably promised them lots of things which have not been reported. He speaks with glided lips and apparently has two sides of his month that his voice emerges.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:33:22 PM

      sometimes he gets talking so fast trying to say two different things at once, that he actually stutters.

  • Posted By: azringmaster @ 08/04/2008 8:06:40 PM

    Interesting how McCain wants to lower Corporate Tax Rates. Is this to make it easier for CEOs to make their profigt numbers, and win BIGGER bonuses. Another example of the Rich Republicans foisting profits for their buddies, at the expense of the individual tax payer. I wish I could deduct my expenses from my income. Like those poor overtaxed oil companies. Further, your article admits an UNKNOWN PORTION was passed to McCain.... and Obamas team is wrong??? Figures dont lie, liars figure.

    • Posted By: pearsoncrz @ 08/05/2008 2:32:22 PM

      No, it's a way to keep people employed and increase dividends to those living on fixed income, like retirees who live on their 401K and pension plans that depend on dividends for funding.

      You are exhibiting your lack of knowledge about who invests in the market, and who benefits when American corporations do well. Yes, management does well, but so do the workers and retirement plans and individual investors.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse