And I am absolutely positively sure it's a 100% as-Gawd-is-my-witness coincidence.
Ten senior Hess Corporation executives and/or members of the Hess family each gave $28,500 to the joint RNC-McCain fundraising committee, just days after McCain reversed himself to favor offshore drilling, according to Federal Election Commission reports.Wait, wait, there's more.
The Washington Post reported last week that campaign contributions from oil industry execs rose in a big way in the last half of June, after McCain drew a huge amount of attention by reversing his opposition on June 16th to the federal ban on offshore drilling.So how much IS a flip flop worth? From TPM's numbers it looks like about $300K.
Nice job.
32 comments:
Yes, it is slimy and suspicious, but you may be pushing things too far by attributing every dime of these donations to McCain's flip-flop on offshore drilling. Lots of other things were happening in June that would have led to increased donations from oil company people to the McCain campaign.
Most obviously, Obama secured the nomination on the Democratic side, and Obama (at least at that point) appeared to be 100% committed to applying an apallingly stupid windfall profits tax on oil companies. In fact, Obama is still (occasionally) talking about the windfall profits tax these days. Although with all of the back-and-forth changes to his positions these days, who can really know whether his support for the windfall profits tax will survive until the election, or whether he will act upon it even if it does.
If I worked in the oil industry, and someone who (claims to) support the windfall profits tax finally securred the nomination of either party, I would be donating the maximum amount permitted by law to the other side, too. That would be especially true if the other side came out and announced that they had changed their mind of offshore drilling, of course.
So McCain's flip-flop is certainly part of this trend, but it's far from the whole story.
And by your logic, now that Obama has also flip-flopped (well, let's be fair and call it "hedged" or "waffled") on offshore drilling, we should also start seeing oil donations coming into his coffers. But we won't. And we shouldn't, as long he clings to that windfall profits tax of his.
It was a stupid idea in the 1970s, and Obama really shouldn't be running for Jimmy Carter's second term.
John K: Nothing beats this though; Hussein Obama-- I would have been right in Iraq if thinks had turned out differently. LOL LOL LOL
John K: Speaking of the oil industry, I still do not see you left wing kooks powering your cars with anything but gas. What gives? Some alternative energy sources you can use; horses, mules and, this is my favorite for you liberals, donkeys. Don't forget to heat your food with cow dung this way you can avoid the hypocrite label when talking about McCain and off shore drilling.
Right, because John K (and John McCain) believes the long term solution is oil and natural gas and coal. So the US can once again look like Beijing does now. The "Apres moi, le deluge" philosophy/policy.
John K: Can anyone tell me where I can buy a car that runs on wind power? Or perhaps an electric car that I can recharge on the turnpike and only takes say 5 minutes to do this so I can continue my trip? Ed, Jaywillie, cathcatz...some help here. LOL LOL LOL LMAO
Well, if the Congress would stop giving the oil industry 4 billion dollars (which passes the Senate because of the filbuster threat of the Republicans) and instead give anything to the solar and wind industry, you might see some enhancements to the electrical grid.
Meanwhile you can take a train or a bus and maximise your miles per person per gallon. You can drive a hybrid or a small car like the Yaris or Fit. You can drive 55 miles per hour to maximise fuel economy. Or you can choos not to drive on the turnpike.
By the way, some "left wing kooks" power their cars with bio-diesel or french fry oil. Not me, I happen to agree that home solar, home wind turbines and a retrofitted diesel car are still too expensive (even used VW TDI's are real expensive). In part because our government have not encouraged these industries.
we won't have it to use and abuse forever. so why NOT conserve now? i don't get the mindset of a person who simply flat out refuses to see that there are other options, and that the options that we have now, can be improved upon. right now, hybrids are the best options, only not the most affordable. then again, the money spent on a hybrid today, will certainly be offset by a savings in fuel costs over the long term.
Actually, John K, I bike. So I don't use gasoline. But thanks for playing.
And regarding the windfall profits tax, I agree, it would probably be useless. That's why I support nationalizing the energy industry. Why do we keep using the public treasury to enrich an ever-dwindling number of shareholders? These companies have our country in a stranglehold, and operate an illegal collusive cartel to boot. So instead of a windfall profits tax, natioalize the whole industry.
Homosexual activists give money when candidates say the right things for them. As do pro-choice organizations, environmental groups, and a host of other lobbies. Campaign promises (or sometimes even hints) often lead to increased donations from those who would benefit. Big deal. For better or for worse, it's part of the political game that everyone plays.
John K: So you bike, where on the turnpike LMAO or the Parkway East LMAO or when it rains LOL or in the snow and ice LMAO. I bike LMAO Man that is funny.
John K: Did I read that someone wanted to nationalize the oil industry. LMAO Now we have a nationalized public transit, PAT, that is in debt and can't function, Sec 8 housing that produces nothing but crime (check Atlantic Monthly for that one) and we want to turn over the oil industry to govt wonks. Oh man, the left thinks so highly of themselves which makes it all the more amusing. Left wing kooks with GED's running the oil industry. LMAO These are the same geniuses who couldn't run a commune with 50 people in it.
John K:
Well, to answer your question, I don't drive on the turnpike. I live in the East End of Pittsburgh, and I work downtown. So when it rains, I still bike, like this morning. Guess what... it doesn't hurt. And since I'm not made of sugar, or in your case, shit, I don't melt when I get wet.
And regarding your faux humor on nationalizing the oil industry, first off, every properly funded government endeavour works properly. For example, the Post Office. Ask any UPS exec why they haven't gotten into smallhandling (letters and such) and they will tell you that there's no profit in it (I know, I used to work for UPS). Yet the USPS works, and works well. Yes, they have to raise their rates from time to time, but show me a corporation which doesn't.
And if you want an example of nationalized oil companies working... look at Citgo, the American distribution arm of Venezuela's national oil company... or look at CNOOC Ltd. (CEO), China's largest oil company, mostly owned by the government. It is well-run, and even profitable.
So this canard that the government can't do anything right is simply a self-fulfilling prophesy of the right, when they appoint cronies and morons, like Brownie, for example, at FEMA, who have no experience, no education, and and no will to do a good job.
You, sir, are a moron.
Well, D, first you would have to prove that the oil industry is an "illegal collusive cartel". I heard Ron Suskind on NPR this morning saying he had proof that someone right at the top of the administration fabricated information about WMD's in Iraq (he also had proof that the administration had intel that there were no WMD's in Iraq). But it won't make a difference because no one wants a scandal of that magnitude, especially now when the economy is in the toilet (a nice juicy intern would be a different matter, apparently). Meanwhile, the oil business is the same thing. Heck, we should nationalize the health insurance industry and turn it into a single payer system. But both oil and health insurance are too powerful. Maybe in a few years, after Barack’s universal healthcare plan has floundered a bit, and healthcare has gotten really expensive, we’ll get a single payer system. Meanwhile, the best we can hope for with the oil companies is to make them irrelevant.
One thing I will say about solar or wind, once you make the initial investment, you only need maintenance after that. You can stop or at least pay less of the monthly electric bill. The only questions are when the breakeven point is, and are you giving up something by not waiting for better and cheaper technology.
John K: Well there you go "D". You biked to work in the rain and you think I want someone like you, without the intelligence to stay out of the rain, (something animals do on a regular basis) running the oil industry. LOL LOL LOL LMAO You can't run a hippie commune.
John K: Okay here you go, basic economics. When you nationalize an industry, the consumer loses their money, the producer loses their product and the State gets richer. Not for the betterment of their citizens but for the enhancement of govt's lifestyles. And you use Chavez as an example. LOL LOL LOL LMAO Oh man!
John K:
You're obviously a troll, but hey... feeding trolls is fun.
Bottom line is, I bike to stay in shape. And frankly, biking up Liberty Hill every day, regardless of the weather, is one hell of a way to do that. Plus, I don't have to pay $75 a month for a bus pass, nor do I have to pay for gas at $4+ a gallon, $5/day in parking, plus maintenance on my car in order to get to work.
So when you really boil it down... who, frankly is the dumbass? The person who puts up with a little dampness on his way in to work, which is easily cleaned off with a towel and a change of clothes (which i bring with me every day, regardless of the weather), or someone who spends a ridiculous amount of money driving to and from work every day, just so he can pad his fat ass even more with a lack of exercise, and pay for it to boot?
I think pretty much everyone here will agree, especially after reading your nonsensical posts and your literally insane penchant for using LOL and LMAO, that the dumbass is you. If you really LOL and LMAO as much as you type, then you strike me as a particularly deranged lunatic that would probably be more at home Western Psych than traipsing around in public.
John K:
Actually, I find it interesting when you talk about basic economics. You make assertions, yet you provide no proof to back it up. Take, for example, your dubious claim that,
"When you nationalize an industry, the consumer loses their money, the producer loses their product and the State gets richer."
Let's look at Venezuela. For the first time in literally centuries, the profits from their oil industry are being spread to literally the lowest of the low. The benefits of mineral rights that should be owned in the public trust are actually being distributed to the people, rather than being horded by an extremely rich and extremely tiny economic patrician class. So in this way, actually the consumer is not only paying less for energy, they are also reaping benefits from the profit that is realized. Essentially, it is socializing the benefits of a public resource, rather than privatizing them. By nationalizing, the private interests no longer are producers. Sure, they are service providers, but they do not own the resource itself. Therein lies the fallacy of privatization. When you privatize a public good, the public never sees the benefit. The excess economic profit (which, in economic theory, is technically considered economic inefficiency) gets siphoned off to the coffers of the ownership class, rather than providing any sort of good for the public at large.
The state, while it controls the resources, is not necessarily getting richer, so long as the state is redisrtibuting the gains from the use and sale of the public domain. You are simply mad that Chavez is not allowing the oil concerns to screw the poor.
And if you doubt that the oil revenues are being used to improve the lot of the poor in Venezuela, I suggest you visit there. I have, and I have numerous friends who live there. It's amazing how the circumstances on the ground always differ from the accounts we receive from the pro-corporate fascist media, and by proxy their blog trolls.
Pay no mind to the most persistent of the resident trolls. He is literally quite daffy, and while I feel bad for him in a sense, if spewing nonsensical venom on this blog about liberals and lefties after each round of druggie limbaugh listening gets him through each day, then consider it an act of extreme philanthropy on the part of the 2PJs.
D, you should read "Oil on the Brain" The author does not seem to have a particular agenda, except that maybe we need to move to new technologies and get off oil. She does not think the Venezuela is particularly thriving, but she goes into some detail about why she thinks that. It is a very good read for to get a kind of gestalt on oil, and in particular what it is doing to the world.
And yeah, John K knows jack about economics or if he does, he doesn't show it.
John K: Two points--"D" next time you bike in the rain, take along a bar of soap and shower up. Save money and sewage costs. LMAO
So after Chavez nationalized the oil industry, just who gets the profits? The people? LMAO
Castro nationalized all the industries in his country. And two years ago he hit on this scheme to help out the poor by providing every kitchen with a free rice cooker. Something in this country that costs $15 to 35 dollars. But, and this is funny, he had to back off because the electrical grid could not support it. Why? Because why should an enterpreneur invest in improving an electrical grid if the state gets all the profits. Cuba, liberal paradise. LMAO
A liberal and their money are soon parted. Which is why if Obama gets in, I make a lot of money. LOL
EDHEATH:
Thanks for the heads-up on the book. I will definitely check it out. It sounds interesting.
John K:
Every time you post, I have to giggle at just how ridiculous you sound. I love it when a troll punks himself. It makes me feel all giddy and warm inside.
Let's look at your first point. I shower before I leave home, and since the ride is about 20 minutes from point to point, and primarily downhill (from the top of Penn Ave, at least), I don't get that sweaty. And when it rains, I hardly sweat at all, because a) I'm in great shape, and b) it's pretty cool, especially when rolling along at 35 or 45 mph down Liberty hill. So I hardly need a shower once I get to work. Now, on the way home, that's another matter altogether, because as we all know (except in John K's warped universe) what goes up, must come down... or in this case, if I go downhill to work, I have to climb the hill going home. But it's ok, because I go straight to the gym, the JCC in Squirrel Hill, and get a shower there once I'm done with my workout. Then it's all downhill again going home. So, thanks for the recommendations, but I already have everything worked out, thanks.
And to answer your question about profits in Venezuela, actually the public gets the bulk of profits in the form of food, education, and social subsidies. Now, had Venezuela not been trashed at the hands of the very wealthy landowners and industrialists of primarily European descent over the centuries, the squalor would not have been so bad once Chavez took office. So now, there is a social welfare system that actually helps people in need, rather than lining the silk-lined pockets of the ownership class.
But you have to ask yourself. Under what circumstances would someone supposedly so heinous be able to take office? (and I would lump Castro into this category as well, seeing as he managed to take over Cuba with something like 200 poorly armed revolutionaries) Perhaps it was a result of supposed free-market forces being so bad for the vast majority of people... and frankly, this is the lesson we are learning in the US currently.
Sadly, the only reason a black man has even a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Presidency is due to the monumentally flawed policies of Friedmanite economics and corporate fascism.
And regarding Castro, one of the main reasons his country is in such dire straits is due to his totalitarianism surely. but just as causative is how the US, Cuba's closest major neighbor, has created a stranglehold on Cuba's economy. You think Cuba has failed on its own? If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I wanna sell you.
And I don't know if you've noticed, but with your dumb-ass economic ideas being followed by Bush, the dollar is at its weakest state, EVER. So it won't be long now, sadly, before that $15 to $35 for a rice cooker will be too much for many people in this country. Oh wait, it already is.
And as far as you making money if Obama gets in... here's my LOL. That's only if you have a bet with a bookie.
McCain's flip on this issue probably has a lot to do with his pledge to give Big Oil $4 billion in tax breaks, as well.
I hope its not the case that "the only reason a black man has even a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Presidency is due to the monumentally flawed policies of Friedmanite economics and corporate fascism.". I still believe in neo-classical economics as one tool among many to understand the effects of policy, and I like to point out cases of market failure where I believe I see them. As for Obama, I hope part of his success in the primary is due to the fact he writes and delivers good speechs. That is, in my opinion, one of the most important talents a President needs.
EDHEATH:
I guess what I am saying is this. This country is still dealing with the long-term latent racism of centuries of slavery and apartheid. We've never come to grips with this at all, hence the racist campaigning of McCain. What I meant was, the only reason Obama has a chance is that the country is so messed up that people are willing to try almost ANYTHING new... and what could be more new than a black man in the White House. This is not to besmirch Obama as a candidate, or as an orator... much to the contrary. He has skills that have not been seen in the American political landscape in decades. It's more of a commentary on the US than Obama.
Am I the only commenter here who thinks Obama sounds like a blithering idiot when he's deprived of a teleprompter?
Yes you are. He's shown himself to be extremely articulate on the fly. Certainly much more than McCain or, obviously, Bush.
He does have an unfortunate verbal tic, but most really intelligent people I know have something similar. Most memorablen for me is Alastair McIntyre, a very well-known neo-Thomist philosopher/professor. I had a couple of his classes while I was at Duke in the mid-90s. He has since moved to Notre Dame. He would always fill the verbal silence with a little cough and a hmph...
John K: "D" start going out more and talking to some other people. Hussein Obama cannot talk without a teleprompter or the questions prestaged. He babbles without handlers. Come on "D", you don't talk to 50% of the population in this country. Expand your horizons.
I agree that McCain and Bush are horrendous speakers, but I didn't think that was a disputed matter around here. I wanted to give my honest, gut reaction to Obama's impromptu speaking abilities. Thus far he seems to be far less than impressive in that regard. I'm surprised no debate-watching Hillary supporters jumped in to agree with me.
D,
I heard that Professor MacIntyre could be quite a character.
...he told a very bright acquaintance of mine, for instance, that his paper was quite remarkable in how wrong it was with respect to just about everything in it...
Post a Comment