From the new west blog: Presidential campaign funding
Obama Signals With Decision About Campaign Funding
By Jill Kuraitis, 6-19-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Since Barack Obama nailed down the Democratic nomination for president, he has made it clear there will be no obligated money in his campaign. He doesn’t accept PAC money, money from registered lobbyists, and now he has announced his campaign won’t accept about $80 million in public financing, either.
On his website, Obama declared in a video, “The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”
With the Obama camp dominating the Democratic National Committee, the DNC won’t be accepting any PAC or lobbyist money, either. Chair Howard Dean said in a statement, “The DNC and the Obama Campaign are unified and working together to elect Barack Obama as the next president of the United States. Our presumptive nominee has pledged not to take donations from Washington lobbyists and from today going forward the DNC makes that pledge as well.”
“Senator Obama has promised to change the way things are done in Washington and this step is a sure sign of his commitment. The American people’s priorities will set the agenda in an Obama Administration, not the special interests.”
We should have demanded this long ago from all candidates. It’s no small thing.
It’s also no simple thing. Some of Obama’s own allies in the fight for strict ethics in campaign financing are ticked off about the public financing refusal. His Senate partner in reforming the system, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, issued a press release today saying, “This is not a good decision. While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not. The entire system must be updated.”
In other words, what about future primary candidates and down-ballot candidates whose campaign funds will be affected by this decision? And what about the legislation which has Obama’s name on it to overhaul the public financing system by allowing more matching funds in primaries and letting primary candidates spend more if their opponents opt out of public financing? If Obama is elected, Feingold will almost certainly go ahead with it.
That could be awkward, but Obama seems determined. It appears he’s made a sweeping decision to try to send a message to voters that it’s time to call bull on the tweaking and faking and feinting that government officials engage in when they talk about campaign finance reform. Power threatened and fought with passive-aggressive tactics has been the rule.
Such a big decision by the front-runner for the presidency signals a willingness to make hard choices. Let’s give the idea a chance, and see how voters will take it.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Senator Obama has said many times, "Lobbyist will not run my White House."
Getting rid of the extremely negative impact of lobbyist is one of the major reasons I support Senator Obama.
McCain has flip-flopped on many things. Yesterday he told the citizens of Missouri about a gas tax holiday he knows Congress will never approve.
Prior to McCain's event in Missouri yesterday, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri said in a conference call that McCain's plan would cost the state 6,000 jobs and $167 million in federal gas tax dollars for Missouri's roadways.
"The people of Missouri can smell a phony deal a mile away," </b> she said. "Frankly, that’s what John McCain’s gas tax is. He knew it wasn’t going to have any meaningful impact on people’s real pain – our dependence on foreign oil."
McCaskill said it was "a promise he knew he would never have to deliver on."
The "Could McCain Have Come Up with a More Ill-Suited Economic Advisor Than Phil Gramm?" is one of many examples for the damage caused by lobbyist specifically gas prices and the subprime housing damage.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/87999/?cID=936047#c936047
As to the topic at hand and Obama's decision, a couple of articles over at CQPolitics are calling BS on his explanation: http://www.blogs.cqpolitics.com/beyond/2008/06/obamas-ethics-allies-are-not-p.html
and
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000002900695
Jill gives a pretty tortured rationale for why this is a good thing. Almost as if she slept in a pretzel mold last night.
Your comment is specious on several levels.
1) Obama doesn't want to be limited in the money he receives but neither does McCain. The fact is that McCain is not able to raise the kind of money he would if he receives public funding. Let's not confuse capability with desire. Don't believe for a moment that if McCain COULD raise more money he wouldn't do the same thing.
2) Yes Obama has raised much more money than McCain. However McCain's money has raised money too. Just because Obama has raised more money doesn't mean he's more obligated, nor does it mean that those who are donating the money are dictating his policy. What should be looked at here is whether the donors are in conflict with the candidate. Such is the case with McCain who seems to change positions on things like off coast drilling to appease his donors. Obama is consistent in his platform and his donors are consistent with his platform.
3) Yes Obama will owe those who support him. That's a good thing when there is no conflict like there is with McCain and his donors.
And any mention of public financing is incomplete without mentioning that McSame has been breaking public financing laws since January, because he opted in to the primary system, used the system to qualify for ballots and loans, and then decided he was going to opt out. By using the financing to his advantage (i.e. he got a loan using public financing as collateral and didn't have to pay to collect signatures to get on the ballot in a number of states), he is locked in, and by opting out he broke the law.
McSame's public financing games are criminal, while Obama's have not been.
And Craig disingenuously produces one dead link, and one that doesn't say what he claims (at the CQ story he cites, the MCSame campaign is quoted calling "B.S." on Obama's fundraising, that is a LOT different than the reporters doing the same; the reporters actually cite numbers like I do, indicating that Obama's public financing by small donors is real).
His explanation strikes me as hollow given his unbelievable and shifting reverend Wright explanations and that whole mess. In my opinion, Obama is just another politician who uses the truth as a maleable commidity to be shaped as needed. He went for the money to get the money, the explanation cover is a farce just like his other explanations.
FactCheck has called BS on many of Obama's claims including the source of McCain's money: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_lame_claim_about_mccains_money.html
Then there is the Obama embellishment on universal healthcare: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_inflated_health_savings.html
As I said, just another politician.
>>>>>>>>>
A Lame Excuse
However, the first of the two reasons he gave for his decision doesn't square very well with the facts. In a video recording sent to supporters, Obama said:
Obama: We face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNC's income.
McCain – As of the end of April, the McCain campaign had reported receiving $655,576 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total receipts of $96,654,783. His campaign also took in $960,990 from PACs, amounting to just under 1 percent of total receipts. The two sources combined make up less than 1.7 percent of his total.
RNC – The Republican National Committee has raised $143,298,225, of which only $135,000 has been come from lobbyists, according to the CRP. That's less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It also took in about 1 percent of its receipts from PACs, CRP said. Taken together, that's about 1.1 percent from PACs and lobbyists.
Footnotes
The lobbyist figures we give here could stand some minor refinement. The totals might be reduced somewhat if the CRP used Obama's rather narrow definition of "lobbyist." Obama makes a point of refusing money from those who are currently registered to lobby at the federal level. The CRP has a broader definition, counting money from anyone working at a lobbying firm, registered or not, state or federal, and their families as well. By CRP's definition Obama himself has taken in $161,927 from lobbyists.
On the other hand, CRP does not count registered lobbyists who work in-house for corporations, industry groups and unions, but classifies them with their industries. Adding those in-house lobbyists to the total could increase the amounts somewhat. But adding donations from in-house lobbyists and subtracting donations from those who don't meet Obama's strict definition would not be likely to change the total by much, and certainly not by enough to justify Obama's claim that McCain and the RNC are "fueled" by such donations.
Also, for what it's worth, the Democratic National Committee has historically been far more reliant on PAC and lobbyist money than the RNC. In 2004, PACs provided about 10 percent of the DNC's total fundraising and only about 1 percent of the RNC's total, according to the CRP. Obama, after he sewed up enough delegates to win the party's nomination, sent word to the DNC to stop accepting PAC and lobbyist donations.
<<<<<<<<<<<
Amazing, isn't it?, that Obama rises above the fray to ask the DNC to forgo PAC and lobbyist donations AFTER sewing up the nomination? JAFP (Just Another Flimflaming Politician)
dad, did it occur to you that Jill uses her own name while you hide behind a nom de guerre to insult her? Just my opinion, but she has real character and courage to honestly and openly state her opinions under her real name. Your excuse is what?
You strike me as a person who's made up your mind first, then started to find ways to explain it. There's no point in discussing issues with such a person.
Craig--
Your response is at least thoughtful. Still my point stands in that 1) Whatever argument you should make for Obama's indebtedness stands with McCain as well. 2) The question remains as to whom you are indebted. If the ones you "owe" are those who want to shape policy which differs from the ones you say are running on its only then that becomes an issue. There's a huge distinction between buying a policy and supporting a candidate that is running on the policies which you advocate. You can't just discredit a candidate for receiving contributions. That's not democratic!
On your stats you make a point. It's all in what you call a a PAC and so on. The bottom line is that really you can make anyone "honest" and you can make anyone "corrupt" by looking at who is and isn't a lobbyist and what is and isn't a "PAC".
Bottom line its absolutely wrong to suggest that the McCain camps outrage is over anything other than the simple fact that they know they can't keep up with Obama in fund-raising.
How could you, who ever you are, know this to be true?
If you are comfortable with the likelihood that a McCain presidency would be very bad for progressive policy positions, then by all means support him in November. If you are OK with the near certain overturning of Roe v. Wade by the USSC (after McCain replaces one of the few remaining liberals), by all means support McCain in November. If you are OK with the state of health insurance in the country, by all means support McCain. If the economy is something you are pleased with, by all means support McCain.
If you are truly a supporter of Senator Clinton for reasons that go beyond her gender (such as the policies that she would have implemented had she been elected President), then your support for McCain is not only irrational, but a slap in the face of what Senator Clinton wants to accomplish for our country.
Regarding the experience issue, it is not the sole criterion by which we should judge fitness for this office. I could provide you with the "resumes" of two former occupants of the Oval Office. One barely had any significant national political experience. The other had over two dozen years holding a variety of elected and appointed positions in the federal government.
The one lacking much experience is generally regarded as the greatest President in our nation's history (Abe Lincoln). His predecessor, James Buchanan is regarded as one of the worst despite his vastly superior experience.
BUT: I am also a women who has not forgotten that this nation only gave women the Right To Vote FIFTY YEARS after the Right To Vote was given to black people.
Hillary, for all her faults and for any/all the characteristics about her that have been shoved up her nose throughout this campaign, the most flagrant of them all is the FACT that since long before the campaign began she was fair game for ridicule by many, if not by most. Compare all that to the VAST difference in the treatment that has been given to Obama ... even to the FACT that the press has magically erased his middle name, Hussein, so as not to "offend". That same press had NO reservations about even asking Hillary's daughter about her father's affairs and indiscretions. Courtesy contorted, or so it seems to me ... flagrantly and offensively so.
Is anyone prone to remember the sordid "toys and games" that have been openly marketed ~ without comment (other than wise cracks) or concern by the press ~ regarding Hillary since day-one (for openers insert a picture of the Hillary Nut Cracker)?
Compare those often-cruel products being marketed and the still-on-going remarks aired by the press as well as the television "humorists" with the recent OUTRAGE expressed by the press ~ and the NAACP, of course ~ regarding the Obama Sock Monkey that was produced by a firm in Utah that was IMMEDIATELY condemned as being "racist".
All of which carries a very strong message to women, their daughters and their granddaughter that it IS okay/fine to openly and flagrantly discriminate against women ... even when it is the only women EVER to have been seriously considered for the highest office in the USA ... but it is not only Politically Incorrect but a sin against all humanity to do so when the candidate has black skin.
How can that go unnoticed by anyone who lives or breathes in the USA today?
The AP has *TODAY* reported that:
"Shortly after announcing that he would rely on his vast network of private donors, Obama launched a bold new advertising campaign that signaled a desire to compete in a mix of traditional battleground states and Republican strongholds while trying to win over independents and disaffected Republicans after eight years of President Bush.
"America is a country of strong families and strong values. My life's been blessed by both," Obama says in the ad slated to run in 18 states. "If I have the honor of taking the oath of office as president, it will be with a deep and abiding faith in the country I love."
"Obama is seeking to become the first black president and race has proved a hurdle; he reminds voters he's of mixed race with pictures of his white Kansas mother and grandparents though none of his black Kenyan father." (AP)
If you'd like to check out Obama's "strong family" values with which his life has been blessed, you might like to access this link ~ published in Chicago where his political roots are planted: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0703270151mar27,0,589824,full.story
If you'd like to check out his "... deep and abiding faith in the country (he) love(s)" you might wish to read an interview published in Christianity Today magazine in January, 2008, where Obama was quoted regarding his beliefs: " ... I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years."
What you don't already know about that "same church for almost 20 years" can be found at http://www.tucc.org/about.htm ~ including but not exclusive to "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black ... We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization."
According to the AP article Obama has his flag pin secured in his lapel and he is headed out into the world to tell them whatever they want to know ~ whether it is true or not ~ and he certainly has the BIG bucks in his jeans to do so.
Also according to the AP, "On Thursday, McCain said he will accept the public money, which means he can't accept private contributions for his campaign. Still, Obama's clear financial advantage over McCain is offset in part by the resources of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money in the bank than its Democratic Party counterpart. Both national parties can spend money on behalf of the presidential candidates."
We are, my friends, just about to find out what the PRICE of our White House IS ~ in terms of dollars, race *&* gender.
And, just how many lies and misrepresentations we will be told by either candidate before their friends and families move into the Lincoln Bedroom for the next 4 years.
My God BLESS America ~ PLEASE!!!
Would that help, Rose Mary?
But now that you mention it, I suppose that if Obama decided to change his name from Barack Hussein Obama to Barack Bob Obama it would fit right in with all the other "changes" he's made during the course of this campaign.
You reeeallly don't need me to give you a list all those ~ do you?
Mr. Google could probably give you one that all-encompassing.
Rose, McSame has flip-flopped on over 40 issues in the last two weeks, do you really want to start a war of flip-flops?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
From the point of view of campaign strategy, Obama has good reasons to avoid locking himself into the public financing system. He has proved that he can raise huge sums of money on his own, much of it from small donors. He does not want to disarm in the face of likely Swiftboat-type attacks on his character, mounted by conservative groups not directly affiliated with the McCain campaign. But none of this alters the fact that he has gone back on his word.
The Pinocchio Test
Barack Obama probably wishes that he had been more careful in the wording of some of his earlier statements about the public financing system. His carefully parsed retreat on public financing is similar to his hedging on an earlier promise to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and North Korea "without preconditions" during his first year as president. In this case, however, the turnaround is even more blatant.
<<<<<<<<<<<
The chance to financially swamp John McCain ~ and maneuver for an enormous general election advantage ~ proved too great an allure.
Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups."
But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama - and running commercials against McCain.
Yep. The nose grows. On an almost-daily basis.
Rose, you ever heard of Freedom's Watch. Bunch of millionaire creeps that run a McSame 527. They are running ads. Rove is even an adviser; he is also an adviser to McSame. From what I heard that is illegal but I guess since McSame is already breaking Campaign Finance laws I suppose they figured they'd just go big.
I do not have a problem with a candidate that determines an earlier decision was wrong, unless they are changing directions to fool voters.
Obama is doing what is needed to compete against the lobbyist money McCain will receive. Having "the people" donate is not unethical or done to fool people. In fact, Obama's decision has been a necessary negative to his image.
Lobbyist have controlled the government for far too many years and we are all paying the price, while they line their pockets.
McCain's Flip-Flops to Fool Voters
McCain's flip-flop on offshore drilling was done to make voters think he was doing something that will ease gas prices. Experts say it would be 20 years to get a pay-off for drilling offshore.
McCain continues to campaign about a gas tax holiday that is a gimmick that Congress will never approve. McCain knows it is a gimmick to fool voters.
>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps 60% of oil prices today pure speculation
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley today are the two leading energy trading firms in the United States. Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase are major players and fund numerous hedge funds as well who speculate.
In June 2006, oil traded in futures markets at some $60 a barrel and the Senate investigation estimated that some $25 of that was due to pure financial speculation. One analyst estimated in August 2005 that US oil inventory levels suggested WTI crude prices should be around $25 a barrel, and not $60.
That would mean today that at least $50 to $60 or more of today’s $115 a barrel price is due to pure hedge fund and financial institution speculation. However, given the unchanged equilibrium in global oil supply and demand over recent months amid the explosive rise in oil futures prices traded on Nymex and ICE exchanges in New York and London it is more likely that as much as 60% of the today oil price is pure speculation. No one knows officially except the tiny handful of energy trading banks in New York and London and they certainly aren’t talking.
By purchasing large numbers of futures contracts, and thereby pushing up futures
prices to even higher levels than current prices, speculators have provided a financial incentive for oil companies to buy even more oil and place it in storage. A refiner will purchase extra oil today, even if it costs $115 per barrel, if the futures price is even higher.
As a result, over the past two years crude oil inventories have been steadily growing, resulting in US crude oil inventories that are now higher than at any time in the previous eight years. The large influx of speculative investment into oil futures has led to a situation where we have both high supplies of crude oil and high crude oil prices.
Compelling evidence also suggests that the oft-cited geopolitical, economic, and natural factors do not explain the recent rise in energy prices can be seen in the actual data on crude oil supply and demand. Although demand has significantly increased over the past few years, so have supplies.
Over the past couple of years global crude oil production has increased along with the increases in demand; in fact, during this period global supplies have exceeded demand, according to the US Department of Energy. The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) recently forecast that in the next few years global surplus production capacity will continue to grow to between 3 and 5 million barrels per day by 2010, thereby “substantially thickening the surplus capacity cushion.”
Dollar and oil link
A common speculation strategy amid a declining USA economy and a falling US dollar is for speculators and ordinary investment funds desperate for more profitable investments amid the US securitization disaster, to take futures positions selling the dollar “short” and oil “long.”
For huge US or EU pension funds or banks desperate to get profits following the collapse in earnings since August 2007 and the US real estate crisis, oil is one of the best ways to get huge speculative gains. The backdrop that supports the current oil price bubble is continued unrest in the Middle East, in Sudan, in Venezuela and Pakistan and firm oil demand in China and most of the world outside the US. Speculators trade on rumor, not fact.
<<<<<<<<
The real gimmick to fool voters is to arouse anger to support a windfall profits tax that does not lower prices by even one cent nor increases production by one drop all the while deflecting the attention from the market makers like Goldman Sachs. In my opinion I welcome any politician, including Obama and McCain, to take a closer look at things and adjust their positions to drive out the 60% cancerous specualtive premium.
http://kcblueblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-attempts-to-take-missourians-as.html
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
McCain Attempts To Take Missourians As Fools On Energy Policy
Republican John McCain was in Missouri today to talk about his energy policy. In a blatant attempt to swing voters angry at gas prices back his way, McCain is claiming to stand up to big oil.
As goes everything else he's been claiming of late, McCain is purposely trying to mislead Missourians by failing to tell the truth.
The truth is that McCain has over 15 Big Oil lobbyists as his top advisers on his campaign and deeply involved in energy policy. It gets worse...
Over the course of his career he has taken over $1,069,000 in political contributions from Big Oil.
$485,000 of which has come IN THE LAST YEAR ALONE!
Seems rather apparent his reasons for deflecting attention from the speculators and protecting their interests. It would really upset the applecart to deflate the 60% speculation premium.
You make me laugh. Yes, apparently Exxon has given $32,500 and $18,801 to McCain. Of course if you were entirely honest you would have divulged that Exxon has given a total of $563,379 to the Republicans and only $130,989 to the Democrats. You might also stipulate that since 1989 of the $9,479,343 that Exxon has donate 87 percent have gone to Republicans. It's easy to lie by telling the truth isn't it? That 14,501 dollar difference is hardly going to be what sways Obama if he has to make tough energy decisions.
When discussing lobbyists I remembered that The Hill ran this column: thehill.com/leading-the-news/sen.-obama-finesses-his-lobbyist-ties-2007-04-19.html
The entire article on Obama's lobbyist ties is an interesting read. However, regarding Goldman Sachs, the largest energy speculator, there is this:
>>>>>>>>>
David Heller and Bruce Heyman are big Obama fundraisers and managing directors at Goldman Sachs. Last year, Goldman Sachs spent $3.3 million on lobbying. The company hired firms such as DLA Piper, Rich Feuer Group, and the Duberstein Group to influence lawmakers.
James Dinan, the founder and CEO of York Capital Management, is another Obama bundler. His company hired Dutko Worldwide to lobby on asbestos issues in 2005 and 2006.
Some Obama fundraisers have obscured their professional affiliations. John Schmidt did not list his employer on Obama’s April fundraising report. But a comparison of his name and address with old Federal Election Commission records shows that he works, or at least did until recently, for Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, a firm that lobbied the federal government on behalf of 70 clients during the second half of 2006. Its client list included Chevron, Motorola, Verizon, Visa, JP Morgan and Credit Suisse.
Other Obama fundraisers work for companies that have hired lobbyists to work on issues of the jurisdiction of Senate committees on which Obama sits.
<<<<<
It will take at least 4 bars of Ivory and a quart of bleach to wash the stink off.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=E01&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U
These companies short the dollar and take a long postion in oil. They create the 60% speculative premium in the price. In a $140 per barrel price, that is $84. The commodity value is only $54. In my opinion, the true commodity value is $70, which makes the speculative premium only $70. Let's take a policy change needle and pop the ballon and to hell with Goldman Sachs investment and ties in Obama. I have nothing more to add and didn't intend to discuss this here except Linda brought it up.
Yes I am aware that "individuals" working for Goldman and various oil companies have made donations to Obama.
Many bloggers have been distorting the donations to indicate that Obama has been taking donations from Oil Companies rather than "individuals."
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.php
There are approximately 2400 Goldman employees.
Approximately 367 employees have made donations
Approximately 104 employees donated $750 or less
Approximately 56 employees donated $1,000 to $1,800
About 50 of the 104 employees donated $200 to $250
If Goldman was footing the bill, all employees would be donating the maximum amount.
It is about 24,000 or about $24.00 per employee
>>>>>>>>>
Wall Street securities firms and major U.S. banks are hedging their bets in the 2008 presidential election with major campaign contributions to the leading presidential candidates of both the Republican and Democratic parties, according to an analysis by a leading campaign funding watchdog indicates.
"No matter who wins the presidential election this year, Wall Street will have an indebted friend in the White House," Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics told WND.
The center, a non-partisan campaign funding watchdog group, has posted the data on its website, OpenSecrets.org.
The "top contributor" lists shows the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain and Mitt Romney have all received contributions from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley.
Credit Suisse is a top contributor to Obama, Romney and McCain but not to Clinton.
"The Wall Street firms and major U.S. banks are all big companies with lots of individual employees who make political campaign contributions for a lot of different ideological persuasions," Ritsch emphasized.
Still, he affirmed the Center for Responsive Politics sees patterns that indicate the Wall Street firms and banks solicit employee contributions.
"We know these firms organize presidential election funding campaigns, because we can track a group of people from a particular firm who give money on the same day to the same candidate," Ritsch said.
"The bundling of individual contributions that goes on in these firms may not be officially sanctioned," he added. "Maybe what's involved is some senior officer or other person who goes around the office to organized campaign contributions to a particular candidate."
Ritsch told WND his group sees this pattern of organized campaign funding going on more within Wall Street firms and banks than elsewhere.
"While campaigns to get employees to make presidential elections campaign contributions may not be officially sanctioned," he said, "we know bundling happens, and we see it going on more frequently at the Wall Street banks."
<<<<<<<<<
Obama's misdirection on oil is no surprise to me as he channels the anger away from the speculators like GS with his windfall profits tax scam and protects their intests with a no new drilling position.
Note that "individuals" have donated $176,271,227 more than what has been donated to McCain.
Other has donated $6,524,992 more to McCain. "Who" is other?????
Obama
"Individual" contributions $264,493,051 100%
PAC contributions $-750 -0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $946,977 0%
McCain's Source of Funds
Individual contributions $88,221,824 91%
PAC contributions $960,990 1%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $0 0%
Other $7,471,969 8%
The investment banks relationship to oil speculation and subprime loan defaultshas has nothing to do with donations that Obama has received.
Former Senator Phil Gramm (Texas-Oil), McCain’s Primary Financial Adviser has been one of the most damaging politicians ever.
Gramm and McCain worked against Hillary Clinton’s original health care initiative.
Gramm is primarily responsible for the deregulation of the energy futures trading market and the banking industry that caused the subprime mortgage failures.
Of course, McCain, Gramm, and Gramm’s wife have made big bucks from lobbyist, investment banks (UBS) and oil companies.
Michael Greenberger, JD, Director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security (CHHS) at the University of Maryland and a professor at the School of Law, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security, and a former director for trading and markets for the Commodity Trading Futures Commission (CFTC,) has been telling Congress about the Enron loop-hole since around 2001-2002, but Congress failed to take any action.
Greenberger has testified before Congress 2-4 times a year, still no action from Congress.
Greenberger pointed out in June 2002 that a proposed new Commissioner wrote the Enron loop-hole. Walter Lukken is now the current Acting CFTC Chairman.
Foxes guarding the chicken coop
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/06/26/cftc
This column is about Obama's explanation. He has been roundly criticized for his convenient explanation, and earned 3 pinnochios for his efforts. The digression into McCain seems a typical response when Obama's actions cannot be supported.
Airlines are in major trouble. The housing industry, food, etc. etc.
I do not care in the least if Obama changes his mind to have the money to fight the Republican swift boat ads. Past history is clear that the swift boat ads will not stop.
Did you read any of the information about Phil Gramm? The scope of his damage is unbelievable. Trying to correct the damage is extremely difficult. It is far more complex than a Goldman dominating the energy markets, which Congress was told several years ago.
Many members of Congress sold their souls to Wall Street way before Obama started in politics. The Republican controlled Congress failed to take needed steps after Enron. The Democrats have been talking about it for about two years, Senator Levin being a major play, but no action.
The $571,330 from a small number of Goldman Sachs's employees is peanuts. Employees of any company have a right to contribute. The fact is a much larger number of "individuals" are donating small amounts to Obama.
What is the source of McCain's other? $7,471,969
Obama has talked about increasing regulatory oversight for the banking industry.
In the last few weeks, there has been four Senate bills and two House bills related to oil/speculation submitted. The Democrats are talking big, but I am not holding my breath. The Republicans and Wall Street are saying the laws will cause investing to leave the US.
The Democrats would never make ads like the Tennessee ad done about Michelle Obama. The Democrats are not perfect, but they would not attack Cindy McCain.
There have been several well-written opinions about why Obama decision to opt-out was the best thing to do. I have heard several media make the same statements.
Bruce Weinstein, who writes an ethics column for Business Week, told CNN's Kiran Chetry on Friday that he sees Obama's action not as coldly calculating, but as "praiseworthy," because "it's important to keep a promise, but there are other things sometimes that are more important. ... Let's say you promise your daughter you're going to take her whitewater rafting ... but it turns out that weekend the river is raging. You would say, 'In this case, it's more important to avoid the danger of the water than to keep my promise.'"
"The spirit of the law that John McCain co-sponsored in 2002 was an attempt to make sure that everyone's voice is heard," Weinstein went on. "But the way it's played out, unfortunately, is that some special interests and political action committees are able to bypass the spirit of the law and to raise funds and engage in some unfortunate activities. And I think that's what Obama is trying to avoid, to make sure that everyone's voice is heard."
Obama declines public money while asking the public for money. Good for him!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-declines-public-mone-by-GeoRip-080621-712.html
Is that why he earned 3 pinnochios from the Washington Post fact check?
When the defense of Obama takes the form of attacking McCain et al., then that is very weak in my book. This column is about him. I have not ever, and will not defend McCain. That being said, I won't stand by and let Obama have a free pass.
Did you know that Goldman Sachs is the largest contributor to the DNC as well: opensecrets.org/parties/contrib.php?cmte=DNC&cycle=2008
Even a leopard frog without wings could connect these dots as to why Dem positions protect market speculators. The co-opting window dressing of their bills is laughable.
And/or that political party generated "opinions" and "commentary" are somehow or other related to the truth, the whole truth and nothing BUT the truth?
Is it just totally unrealistic to expect anyone to actually figure out which and what and then-what is a totally SLANTED bit of so-called-"news" even if it does appear in print?
Has no one even happened to notice that the Democratic Congress has an even LOWER public approval rating than the Republican President ... neither of which should bring joy to heart or mind of a single one of us?
Has no one noticed that BOTH of these candidates are members of that Congress?
I find that absolutely AMAZING!
A handsome smile with whitened teeth,
A voice with golden tones,
Will hardly save the USA
From vultures pickin' bones.
If you just happen ONCE to find
A *Statesman* in the crowd
PLEASE stand upon your soapboxes
And scream it VERY LOUD!
The younger that your age might be
The lesser is your chance
To call to memory ONE you've seen
Who's taken such a stance.
But you WILL see the bright lights shine
Upon a handsome face,
The cameras roll as promises
Become our next disgrace.
You'll see a guy from off the street
Become a millionaire.
You will be told it's only money;
It is their fair share.
But all that glamour, more deception,
Will not pay your bills.
You are the lucky one if it
Is not your blood that spills.
So if you're of the mind to spend
Your heart, your soul, your life
Upon whatever leaves their lips
You've sure earned your own strife.
If you care not they lied to you,
If you look not for TRUTH
Then stand in line and pay the dues
At any fool's booth.
... or so it seems to me ...
"Even a leopard frog without wings could connect these dots as to why Dem positions protect market speculators." Respectful? No!
Obama is not breaking a promise to take public financing because he never made such a promise, which your 3 pinnochios verified.
How were the pinnochios reached for something Obama never promised to do? Second what difference does it make?
Obama is not accepting the public financing because he would have had to take 527 group and lobbyist money to compete with the money McCain would receive from the groups. Instead Obama will be receiving public financing from individuals; therefore, he is in fact receiving public financing. Put the $85 million towards the deficit.
Your "3 pinnochios from the Washington Post fact check" is first of all, one person's opinion. Second, the author acknowledges that Obama never said he would definitely accept the public funding:
"The Facts
There is some dispute over whether Obama ever formally pledged to participate in the public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same. ... If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
How did you reach the conclusion the Democrats are protecting market speculators? Although I do know the Christopher Dodd is probably suspect.
Goldman Sachs and other investment banks are not the only cause of speculation. The amount of speculations has not yet been proved. Whether there is even any speculation is still speculation at this point.
I do not disagree that Goldman Sachs has been a major contributor to current financial issues, but it was the Republicans, mainly Phil Gramm, that buried the legislation into a bill without ever having a floor hearing.
Dec 2000 - Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was attached as a rider to an 11,000-page appropriations bill. It was written by Wall Street attorneys, one of the attorneys is now the Chairman (Republican) of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
After the Enron disaster, it was the Republicans controlled Congress that did not take necessary action to correct the problem.
Now both parties need to work together, but the problems are not going to be easily corrected.
Very detailed information, although the author did not consider the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was also a major cause of the subprime loan defaults, repealed laws put in place after the Great Depression setting up protective barriers between commercial banks, investment banking firms, and insurance companies.
http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=14659&pageID=3
http://www.northplattebulletin.com/index.asp?show=news&action=readStory&storyID=14690&pageID=3
From Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:
>>>>>>>
’When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ’it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ’whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ’which is to be master– that’s all.’
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ’They’ve a temper, some of them– particularly verbs, they’re the proudest–adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs–however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’
’Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice ’what that means?’
’Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ’I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’
’That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
’When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ’I always pay it extra.’
’Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
’Ah, you should see ’em come round me of a Saturday night,’ Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side: ’for to get their wages, you know.’
(Alice didn’t venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can’t tell YOU.)
’You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir,’ said Alice. ’Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called "Jabberwocky”?’
<<<<<<<<<<<<
Regarding my frog comment, it was not respectful. I am feeling a bit cranky about politics. Sorry. I want problems solved. I am sick to death of the bob and weave posturing.
>>>>>>>>>>
Democrats reading from their talking points are completely opposed to Bush and McCain proposals to open up new oil drilling offshore and onshore. The Democratic argument — which I heard again last night on my show from Robert Reich — is that it will take ten years to lift new oil, which will never help today’s price problem. Obama says exactly the same thing, as do Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the rest. But they’re forgetting the role of oil traders.
Oil futures markets have contracts that run out five years and beyond. If these traders — or “speculators” — believe new oil supplies are on the way in the future, they will sell those out-year contracts. And before long market arbitrageurs will backward-ize those price drops toward the spot market, bringing prices down there as well.
In other words, trader/speculators can be very handy instruments of energy (and economic) policies. If demand exceeds supply they are buyers. But a prospective future supply increase makes them sellers. In a free market prices move both ways. And if Sen. McCain would take the time to learn this he could respond accordingly to Obama’s silly criticism that we shouldn’t drill because it will “take too long.”
<<<<<<<<<
As I said above, a change in national energy policy that supports exploration and production would drive down the speculative premium. Why does Obama side with the speculators with his restrictive do nothing exploration and production energy policy and against the interests of average Americans who have to drive to work, school, and the like? Support development and end the arbitrage practice of shorting US currency and going long on the commodity.
Besides, I have read your postings supporting the "free market" system. Do you now contend that speculation, which is a fundamental force in that system, is now not a legitimate part of it? I hear tap-dancing again...
Then I read this from NewsBusters written by Noel Sheppard:
newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/20/olbermann-blames-mccain-bipartisan-clinton-signed-enron-loophole
>>>>>>>>>
This would be quite a scoop for Olbermann if there was any truth to it. After all, the Senate's version of CFMA, co-sponsored by Gramm, was never debated or voted on.
By contrast, it was the House that got CFMA through the legislative process by initially passing H.R. 4541 with almost unanimous support. In fact, the final vote cast on October 19, 2000, was 377-4. 180 Democrats, including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), voted in favor of this bill.
Of course, as Gramm was in the Senate, he couldn't vote on this House bill. I guess such facts eluded the oh-so-intelligent Olbermann.
Months later, this bill became part of a larger, end of the year consolidated appropriations act, H.R. 4577, which passed the House by a vote of 292 to 60. Only nine Democrats voted against it. The bill was later approved with a voice vote by the Senate -- without objection -- and signed into law by President Clinton on December 21.
As such, blaming this loophole on then Sen. Gramm, and tying it to McCain, defies any logic or intellectual honesty on the part of Olbermann and his MSNBC producers.
Color me unsurprised.
<<<<<<<<
If Sheppard is correct, then this is just more dirty politics as usual. We, mere mortals, can only assess what we have before us and hope the talking heads like Olbermann are not pulling our tails.
Regarding speculation, I believe last June, the price of oil was in the $60-70 range. For the sake of argument, assume no speculative premium at all in that price. Now the price is about $140. The $70 delta is largely speculative premium. Drive that down and people win.
When prices are kept artificially high someone is laughing all the way to the bank. In additon to the market speculators, could it be those that have a stake in corn ehtanol are laughing too? See the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?em&ex=1214366400&en=bf288b4414f2c278&ei=5087
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry’s most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon — and so did Senator Barack Obama.
Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country’s second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates...
Nowadays, when Mr. Obama travels in farm country, he is sometimes accompanied by his friend Tom Daschle, the former Senate majority leader from South Dakota. Mr. Daschle now serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and works at a Washington law firm where, according to his online job description, “he spends a substantial amount of time providing strategic and policy advice to clients in renewable energy.”
Mr. Obama’s lead advisor on energy and environmental issues, Jason Grumet, came to the campaign from the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan initiative associated with Mr. Daschle and Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who is also a former Senate majority leader and a big ethanol backer who had close ties to the agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland...
Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.
“We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market” and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month in an interview with a Brazilian newspaper, O Estado de São Paulo. “Besides, it is wrong,” he added, to tax Brazilian-made sugar cane ethanol, “which is much more efficient than corn ethanol.”
Mr. Obama, in contrast, favors the subsidies, some of which end up in the hands of the same oil companies he says should be subjected to a windfall profits tax. In the name of helping the United States build “energy independence,” he also supports the tariff, which some economists say may well be illegal under the World Trade Organization’s rules but which his advisers say is not.
Many economists, consumer advocates, environmental experts and tax groups have been critical of corn ethanol programs as a boondoggle that benefits agribusiness conglomerates more than small farmers. Those complaints have intensified recently as corn prices have risen sharply in tandem with oil prices and corn normally used for food stock has been diverted to ethanol production.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Is there anybody left in politics that has clean hands that we can trust to work on behalf of the people?
And if you want to know EXACTLY how much of your money each candidate took from you ~ without your permission &/or without even the permission of their contemporaries in Congress ~ you can always check that out in The Pig Book @ http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Senate_-_alpha.pdf?docID=3023 for an alphabetical listing of those "earmarks" they passed on to their favored persons and places.
Since this article IS about Obama and his MONEY, let's start with him:
The 2008 Pig Book tells us he gave $97.4 MILLION. This site at this link does not tell you this, but you WILL find that Barry-Bob saw to it that the hospital where his wife sits on the Board received at least $1 MILLION from the pot ... and it bought her an increase in her wages (as I recall going from something-like $100,000-ish to $350,000-ish).
And his Democratic Primary competitor, Clinton, handed out $296.2 MILLION.
Seems to me like that's a whole lot of the big bucks to grease the wheels of the two Democratic Party candidates that have captured our hearts and our ink most recently. How could we possibly go wrong with EITHER?
On that same alphabetical list at that same website, McCain is listed as having supported ZERO projects with ZERO dollars. I doubt if we would find that true for each and every year he has been in the Senate but it did put YOUR money where HIS mouth has been on this subject most recently.
Earmarks are certainly not the entire story regarding the financial responsibility of any member of our Congress.
But what earmarks ARE = the INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL ACTION OF A SINGLE MEMBER OF IT, even by-passing the games played in D.C. and the bargaining between those we send into that zoo ~ where much tooooo often that bargaining and vote-trading between them is done for the single purpose of trading their votes in order to try to buy YOUR votes in order to maintain THEIR own job security ... which is an entirely separate purpose than trying to maintain YOUR job security or secure YOUR future in some manner or fashion.
All of which goes directly to the answer to the SILLY question you asked, Craig: "Is there anybody left in politics that has clean hands that we can trust to work on behalf of the people?"
Answer repeated: NO.
A real leader gives credit where it is do and shares it generously.
From FactCheck:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama goes on to tout his legislative accomplishments, and those claims don't stand up as well under scrutiny. In order to establish his bona fides as a politician who cares about working families, Obama cites his success with three relevant bills. But he doesn't mention that two of the three pieces of legislation were actually passed by the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate. Obama's campaign tells us that when he says, "I passed laws moving people from welfare to work," he is referring to the bill that created Illinois’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in 1997. Obama was one of five original sponsors of the bill, which set limits on public assistance and required welfare recipients to outline plans for moving into the workforce. The law that "cut taxes for working families" is a 2000 bill, on which Obama and 35 others were later added as cosponsors, instituting an earned income-tax credit for the state. Both bills affected only Illinois residents.
The only national law in Obama's ad is the one that "extended health care for wounded troops," and it's dubious whether he can claim full responsibility for that one. H.R. 4986, which became public law 110-181 in 2008, includes provisions from several Obama-sponsored bills. His ideas made it into law, but Obama was not a sponsor or cosponsor of H.R. 4986 itself.
Finally, it has always been our position that it's misleading when a member of a legislative body says that he or she "passed a law," "cut taxes" or makes any similar claim to single-handed lawmaking. It takes more than one legislator to get these things done. In addition to the sponsors and the cosponsors, sometimes dozens of them, the bill needs the support of a majority in both houses. Usually, a governor or president needs to then sign a bill into law, unless the legislature comes up with a veto-proof majority. So for Obama to say that he "passed a law" casts him as a legislative Lone Ranger, hogging credit that properly belongs to other parties as well.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In my opinion, the comment from Corzine, key Obama advisor and former 500 lb. Goldman Sachs gorilla, is really about setting a backfire to keep Goldman Sachs from being burned in the developing rage over specualtion. Goldman Sachs knows corn futures too. The NYT has a very daming tale of Obama and corn based ethanol that I linked above.
When McCaskill first said no to earmarks, Missouri's Republican Kit Bond and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-MO gave her a difficult time for cheating the citizens of Missouri.
It did not work, McCaskill won considerable respect nation-wide. Fighting against earmarks was a campaign pledge.
If you don't believe that dollars going to Obama have any strings of any kind attached to them that will directly end up effecting your life-and-times in the future, it's a "not to worry" and today will just rank along with the Kentucky Derby as one more venue providing more of the entertainment and diversion for which Hollywood is notorious.
If, however, you worry about who will be sleeping on the clean sheets in the Lincoln Bedroom at what cost to YOU, you might wish to pay a tad more attention to the events of the day.
The Los Angeles event comes just days after Obama spurned the public financing system for the general election, opening the way for him to raise and spend hundreds of millions of dollars after the Denver convention in a race in which he's already broken fundraising records.
As noted by the press, Barack Hussein Obama's gala fundraiser Tuesday (today) will attract the mandatory lineup of big-screen talent and boldface names - actors Samuel L. Jackson and Dennis Quaid, model Cindy Crawford and boxing legend Sugar Ray Leonard - and confirm again that the entertainment industry remains one of the most reliable and abundant sources of Democratic campaign cash; and, Hillary Rodham Clinton's withdrawal from the race all but guarantees a Hollywood windfall for Obama. Whether or not McCain will be there passing out the champagne and caviar to the $30,000 ticket holders is doubtful, don't you think?
An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, based on fundraising data released May 21, found Obama had collected more than $4 million from movie, TV and music businesses during the campaign. Clinton had received $3.4 million.
McCain's take: $636,000.
If the White House is for sale to the highest bidder it is time to ask Obama's well-publicized friends and associates how they like their eggs.
... that "Within months of Obama's inauguration, there will be enormous changes in the way Americans consume energy."?
>>>>>>>>>
Obama tarnished his reputation as a new-style politician by deciding not to take public funds for the fall campaign, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican opponent would do the same. He had promised to sit down with McCain to discuss the whole issue of money before making any decision.
Obama's decision may have made political sense, but it was a demonstration of old politics, not new politics, and his reasoning for refusing public funds was as tortured as anything he has had to say in his campaign.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
We already see his word is meaningless.
wish I had seen this thread earlier.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/142892
I am not urging anyone to vote for Obama, or against McCain, on the issue of experience. What I am suggesting is that experience itself is a slippery commodity to measure—that there is no easy way to guess what sort of political career is ideal for a president—and that we would all be better off just listening to what the candidates say and how they say it, and spending a little time looking into what sort of people they are.
Obama spent eight years in the Illinois Senate, and by November will have spent four in the U.S. Senate. Since coming to Washington, he’s served on the foreign relations committee,
and worked on legislation to prevent the spread of nuclear material.
If Obama becomes president, he will have spent more time serving as a state legislator than anyone who has occupied the White House since Abraham Lincoln.
State Legislator
At their best, they keep all the state's significant issues in mind; it is possible to do that in a state legislature in a way that is not possible in Washington.
During the years that Obama served in Springfield, 1997-2005, he was forced to wrestle with the minutiae of health-care policy, utility deregulation, transportation funding, school aid, and a host of other issues that are vitally important to America's coming years, but that U.S. senators are usually able to dispose of with a quick once-over.
State legislators have to do this largely on their own, without ubiquitous staff guidance, because staffing is not lavish even in the more professional state capitols. They enter into day-to-day bargaining relationships over the details of legislation with colleagues of both parties; there is no one else to do it for them. At the end of the session, they are likely to know the strengths and quirks of nearly everyone who serves in their chamber.
But for a smart, curious and hard-working young legislator—for a Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate-can we be so sure that the skill set picked up over eight years in a state Capitol is inferior as presidential preparation to two decades in the pompous, cordoned-off environment of the U.S. Senate? I seriously doubt it.
In 1992, Bill Clinton had been governor of Arkansas for ten years. That’s more experience—in terms of being a chief executive—than Obama has, but in terms of foreign policy, it’s far less.
The experience factor is missing for both. Neither has business world CEO experience or similar level in the public sector as a governor. We simply do not know or have any measure of how either man will do as a chief executive. We haven't had a senator as president since Johnson, and we know how that turned out. Real executive management experience is the test of fire that is sorely lacking here. Here's my take, McCain seems a little bullheaded at accepting suggestions and advice while Obama doesn't seem able to fuction without it. The choice comes down to General Bullmoose versus Max Headroom. Pick 'em.
# Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
* Representing: Arizona
* Votes: 369 votes missed (61.5%), 231 votes cast
# Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
* Representing: Illinois
* Votes: 261 votes missed (43.5%), 339 votes cast
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/06/25/mccain_senate/index.html
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 16:16 EDT
McCain has missed the most votes of any senator
How often has John McCain been away from the Senate? Well, let's put it this way: At this point, he has missed more votes than even South Dakota Democrat Tim Johnson, who couldn't work for almost a year after suffering a brain hemorrhage in late 2006.
Getting back to your campaign ad regarding Obama's experience, did you know FactCheck has caught Obama taking liberties with the truth? See: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_polishes_his_resume.html
>>>>>>>>
The ad talks about laws that Obama "passed," but in fact, he sponsored only one of the three bills mentioned and cosponsored another. The third included provisions from some bills he'd sponsored earlier, but his name wasn't attached to the one that passed. And two of the three laws were accomplishments of the Illinois Legislature, not the U.S. Senate...
...Obama goes on to tout his legislative accomplishments, and those claims don't stand up as well under scrutiny. In order to establish his bona fides as a politician who cares about working families, Obama cites his success with three relevant bills. But he doesn't mention that two of the three pieces of legislation were actually passed by the Illinois Senate, not the U.S. Senate. Obama's campaign tells us that when he says, "I passed laws moving people from welfare to work," he is referring to the bill that created Illinois’ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program in 1997. Obama was one of five original sponsors of the bill, which set limits on public assistance and required welfare recipients to outline plans for moving into the workforce. The law that "cut taxes for working families" is a 2000 bill, on which Obama and 35 others were later added as cosponsors, instituting an earned income-tax credit for the state. Both bills affected only Illinois residents.
The only national law in Obama's ad is the one that "extended health care for wounded troops," and it's dubious whether he can claim full responsibility for that one. H.R. 4986, which became public law 110-181 in 2008, includes provisions from several Obama-sponsored bills. His ideas made it into law, but Obama was not a sponsor or cosponsor of H.R. 4986 itself.
Finally, it has always been our position that it's misleading when a member of a legislative body says that he or she "passed a law," "cut taxes" or makes any similar claim to single-handed lawmaking. It takes more than one legislator to get these things done. In addition to the sponsors and the cosponsors, sometimes dozens of them, the bill needs the support of a majority in both houses. Usually, a governor or president needs to then sign a bill into law, unless the legislature comes up with a veto-proof majority.
So for Obama to say that he "passed a law" casts him as a legislative Lone Ranger, hogging credit that properly belongs to other parties as well.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Not exactly leadership qualities to reveal an inflated ego and a padded resume.
I am also concerned that his ego is a big driving force and he simply is not seasoned enough at making hard choices. Make no mistake the next president is going to have to make some very hard choices, and I am not sure he will be able to do that. He already tries to take both sides of issues.
I'm not sure that McCain is ideal, but he does reason things thru, and the fact that he was willing to not be so idealistic on drilling when oil zoomed to $4.+/gallon reassures me some that he will look at actual circumstances.
You started with an unbalanced statement " By Craig Moore, 6-27-08, "Linda, ever since Obama announced he has been campaigning and has missed many senate votes."
I realize that Obama has some negative ratings, but they are much better than McCains
But I am voting for Obama based on issues that are important to me, most do not affect me, but I strongly believe in Matthew 25. I have seen the lobbyists issue too closely, it is one of the most destructive issue we face, but most people do not understand how much lobbyist control. A few specific reasons for voting for Obama:
* Stopping the terrible Bush administration policies
* Pro-choice
* Nomination of Supreme Court Justices
* ending the Iraq war
* ethics - lobbyists (don't need to go through the employees that work for Goldman Sachs or oil companies)
* Ending Phil Gramm's disaster to our economy - oil prices and subprime mortgage foreclosures.
* Hopefully some improvement in the ever growing number of people that do not have health insurance. The people with such high deductibles they are seriously ill before going to the doctor.
* McCain and his buddy Phil Gramm worked against Hillary Clinton's attempt at a health care initiative in the 1990s
* Not telling voters about a gas tax holiday that every senator knows Congress will never approve because it is a very bad idea.
* No tax on social security for senior citizens making less than $50,000 (ironically senior citizens tend to support the candidate that will do the least for them, fear if the unknown, fear of false Muslim rumors)
* Stopping people like the hypocrite James Dobson from thinking they can dictate policy based on their religion, which ironically shows little concern for feeding and clothing the poor, just abortions and gays
* Obama believes in separation of church and state
* Obama will improve the much damaged US image across the world. Charisma has been one of the characteristics in many successful Presidents. Some people have it and some don't (Hillary & McCain)
Obama Vs. McCain On The Economy
Jun 23, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/23/politics/animal/main4202455.shtml
What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?
Obama: </b> If we don't get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we've seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It's not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that's required to find alternative fuels. I think it's very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.
McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences.
Two things are remarkable here. First, that McCain genuinely seems to believe that Islamic extremism poses not just a threat, but a threat to the very existence of the West. This is science fiction territory. Second, that he apparently can't come up with any better answer to Fortune's question about economic threats. Not energy, not high taxes, not runaway entitlement growth, not healthcare, not globalization, not any of a dozen plausible answers that would have gone down fine with his base. Instead, "His eyes are narrowed. Nine seconds of silence, ten seconds, 11." And then he came up with Islamic extremism.
It's been pretty obvious for a while that McCain is going to try and turn the entire election into a referendum on national security, painting Obama as a 21st century Neville Chamberlain. This seems like an early sign of just how far he's planning to take this. Luckily, Obama seems to be ready for it.
Now tell me the McCain should be President
The organization and its 56 unions will spend a $200 million war chest on this election. Between the AFL-CIO and its chief rival, the Change to Win labor organization, the U.S. labor movement plans to spend around $300 million on the 2008 elections.
Obama met personally with AFL-CIO leaders at their Washington headquarters last week. Promises made, sealed with a buck, have not been disclosed to the likes of us.
The endorsement contradicts Obama's stated objections to special interests.
Obama has voted with the labor movement 98 percent of the time.
The AFL-CIO is a MAJOR player in the lobbying and spending fight. In 2006, labor unions gave $66,302,308 to federal candidates, and 87 percent of that went to Democrats. Union lobbying always reminds politicians who got them elected. That is their intent and purpose. Bret Jacobson, a senior research analyst for the Center for Union Facts, said unions contributed about $100 million to 2006 election efforts, including get-out-the-vote efforts and member communications, with the AFL-CIO pitching in $40 million.
There are at least 80 groups led by the AFL-CIO, including the Service Employees International Union, the Campaign for America's Future, the NAACP, the National Council of Women's Organizations, Grassroots Policy Project and the Sierra Club.
Their lobbying muscle comes from a network of about a dozen unions with lobbyists, including the AFL-CIO, who pitch to wavering senators.
Their current fervent pitch is that declining union membership has occurred because employers are making it hard for workers to organize.
On the same day (Thursday), Barack Obama told top business leaders that politics often gets in the way of solving problems that threaten America's ability to stay competitive in the global economy.
Go figure.
Should we now await BHO's next press release telling us WHY the AFL-CIO endorsement of BHO for president ~ that will give him full access to organized labor's massive bank accounts and political machinery ~ does not make HIM the master at gaming the system? ...
... and/or should not be recognized as fueling HIS campaign with contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs? ...
... and/or will NOT, as he puts it, " ... get(s) in the way of solving problems that threaten America's ability to stay competitive in the global economy." ?
Business leaders maintain that in a crass move to boost union membership, unions are hypocritically ditching private ballots in favor of "card check," which would open the process to union manipulation and strong-arm tactics by union bosses.
According to a recent poll of union and non-union households conducted in January, 87 percent supported the continued use of secret ballots.
79 percent of union households polled said they support secret ballots, though they were not told whether management or unions would take them away.
It IS a tangled web they weave
When first ~ and ALWAYS ~ they deceive
Without a single bat of eye
Or care for deeds that make us cry.
The "secrets" are FAR less me-thinks
About McCain and what he drinks
With gulps and gurgles with his meal
While cookin' up the votes he'll steal.
But each and every single day
BHO has MORE things to say
That contradict words said before
While pushing hard against our door.
If UNIONS ain't no "PAC", don't "Lobby" ...
... all those bucks spent on a hobby?
Are they passin' out fast cars
To members? ~ buy them drinks in bars?
If you are old enough to read
Chicago History you should heed,
Just in case you WANT to know
The "soil" chosen, "seeds" to sow.
If "apples" don't fall far from "tree"
BHO's "roots" are THERE to see.
Buy any package wrapped with bow
If ALL you reeeeeaaaalllly WANT to know.
It ain't at Harvard or at Yale
Where BHO will tell his tale.
It's in YOUR home and in YOUR life
Where "words" can reach to cause YOU strife.
That's true of EVERY candidate
Who's tryin' hard to be YOUR mate,
Who wants to tell YOU what to do
And what is right or wrong for YOU.
Think DEEP and far beyond each word
That spouts from mouths, are what you heard.
Their CHARACTER is what will make
Results that come out for YOUR sake.
A "changed opinion" over YEARS
Is NOT what comes now to our ears.
It's daily dance that "breaks" for HIM.
That "harmony" is VERY dim.
... or so it certainly seems to me ...
Linda, right now Obama has about a 98% chance of being the next president and winning with a very comfortable margin. Perhaps if there is any real substance to the guy the effort should completely forget McCain and turn to acting presidential and uniting the country instead of Homer Stokes holding the broom a-ree-form. All of the Obama Hosannahs seem a little cultish.
I am concerned that McCain is doing a mediocre job of presenting his case against the very charismatic BO. I think Romney would have done better, but what is is, so it will have to play out.
Were did you get the 98% chance of Obama winning?
You still have not listed any issues that would be your reason for supporting McCain. Where is your support that regarding Obama: "Perhaps if there is any real substance to the guy"
More reasons I am voting for Obama:
McCain's Tax Plan
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/tax_returns1.pdf
McCain and his wife, Cindy would save $373,429. That's nearly $400,000 -- per year, not over the course of their lifetimes
Obamas would save nearly $50,000
Barack Obama's Plan
McCains would save less than $6,000
Obamas would save slightly more than $6,000
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/tax_returns1.pdf
What they'll do to your tax bill
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?postversion=2008061115
MCCAIN OBAMA
Income Avg. tax bill Avg. tax bill
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
I will vote for John McCain for several reasons, among them, he is smart enough to realize that BS will not keep our country safe, we have to be willing to stand up and fight if necessary. Then probable need for SCOTUS replacements are another. He is willing to drill for oil. Even if we could have alternative fuels up and available as soon as increased oil supplies, people would not be able to afford to by electric cars or any of the vehicles to use any alternative fuels. We need our own oil ASAP.
All three of those make BO totally unacceptable.
Check your own incomme against those tables and I think you will see they are too general to do more than try to make a point. There are too many variables for them to be particularly accurate.
Now Obama is joining their ranks. Correct me if I'm wrong ~ but as far as I know BHO does not have now, nor has he EVER been given the right to speak for anyone other than the good-old-boys back in Chicago and the State of Illinois.
Today in the news I see that B. Hussein O. is now planning on taking off this summer for "... firsthand observation and consultations with foreign leaders ..." with the stated intent to try to bolster his national security credentials for the fall election. No mention was made as to whether the movie stars or the unions ... or YOU & I ... will be paying for all those secure travel arrangements and the secret service personnel that will surely be accompanying BHO and his entourage but I suspect you and I should certainly plan to belly up to the bar for all of it ... or at least MORE than our fair share.
This foreign tour comes amid questions about whether Obama is at a political disadvantage on national security issues against his Republican rival, who has a long résumé of experience in those subjects both as a former naval officer and from more than two decades in Congress.
"This trip will be an important opportunity for me to assess the situation in countries that are critical to American national security and to consult with some of our closest friends and allies about the common challenges we face," Obama said in a statement released by his campaign.
Does anyone but me wonder WHY it is only NOW that BHO finds the need to even try to figure that out? ... and/or if he reeealllly thinks such a trip just prior to and only for the reason of getting elected will fool us into believing that he has even a smidgen of the knowledge, much less the first hand experience or command of military and security issues as McCain? ... or, WHY you and I should pay the bill for his latest adventure?
I have often wondered just WHEN ~ not IF ~ these trips and meetings with who-knows-WHAT-NEXT representations being made by the likes of Pelosi and Carter and now Obama become an act of treason.
There is just too much at risk in all our international relations with other nations to allow these pompous people to stir those pots without having been given that authority by the citizens ... which NOT ONE of them have.
He has stated that he also is planning to visit both Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming months ~ lucky us.
As has become his daily pattern with all his campaign rhetoric ~ constantly changing to suit his personal purpose on any given day ~ BHO professed to be a staunch opponent of the Iraq war when he wanted to use his opposition effectively in the early stages of the Democratic primaries with Clinton.
Now, as he prepares for his visit to Iraq, two forces are bearing down on his idea of troop withdrawal: (1) a general-election campaign in which terrorism remains one of the VERY strongest issues; and, (2) a relatively improved security situation in Iraq that many attribute to the recent troop buildup.
So his current rhetorical emphasis is now couched more for a general-election audience than for antiwar Democratic activists.
Does THAT sound familiar?
On Friday, appearing with Clinton in Unity, N.H., Obama described the choice for voters in November as one between a McCain policy that would leave U.S. forces deployed for decades or "a gradual, responsible withdrawal from Iraq." Speaking yesterday before the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Obama called the war "ill-conceived from the start," but said, "We have to bring the war in Iraq to a respectable, responsible and honorable end."
I could find no report that he even missed a beat as his dance music changed in either location. Does that mean his dance moves ARE as good as his talent for oratory? Apparently so!
It has been reported by the press that some advisers have acknowledged privately that Obama is now emphasizing the need to be "responsible" in handling Iraq -- rather than emphasizing urgency in getting troops out -- to appear more centrist. This is a substantial adjustment of his original antiwar stance.
So I guess the likes of you and me can just take our pick, right? ... just decide which words we WANT to hear and correctly assign EITHER/OR to BHO ... at least until tomorrow comes and he does a different dance for another drummer that might appear along his path to the presidency.
We may have had to become accustomed to the idiocy of all the campaign rhetoric marching through our streets day after day and month after month.
But I know of NO sin the citizens of this Nation have committed that should make us all pay the high dues that can be forthcoming after BHO does his dance on the international stage.
And it will be at OUR expense when those privately-incurred pay-backs come due.
"I have heard over and over how only the rich benefitted by the tax cuts put in by the Bush administration, but it simply is not true. … The tax cuts are why this country actually grew in spite of 9/11"
The facts do not support your conclusion. As proposed neither McCain nor Obama's plan will do what the country needs to improve our country; however, Obama's plan is less damaging because it does not increase the deficient as much as McCain's plan does. In addition, if the war were ended, eventually the tax cut loss may be reduced. The support is overwhelming that neither McCain nor Obama should initiate tax cuts that will add to the deficit.
As Candidates Warm to Bush Tax Cuts, Economists Warn of Long-Term Effect, March 28, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032703145.html
McCain Offers Tax Policies He Once Opposed - Reversal Includes New Support for Bush Cuts April 25, 2008 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html
TAX CUTS: MYTHS AND REALITIES http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm
Impossible: Finding An Economist Who Backs McCain's Offshore Drilling Claims
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15977.html
The futile search for an expert who supports the Bush/McCain drilling plan
Posted June 24th, 2008