| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/27 |
| 2008/8/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50775 Activity:low |
8/3 Hess Oil Executives gave huge contributions to McCain campaign just
days before his drilling reversal
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.php
\_ So who gave to Obama then?
\_ So just to be clear, you DO admit McCain is a corporate tool
right? Even though you are being obviously dishonest in your
attempt to paint Obama with the same brush, can you at least
accept that McCain is a dishonest pol in the pockets of the
engery companies and anyone else who is willing to pay?
(P.S. I'm not happy with Obama's windfall tax idea either.)
\_ So just to be clear, you admit McCain is a corporate tool? But
you are trying (poorly, wrongly) to try to claim that's ok
because Obama does it as well, right? Since you are wrong about
Obama can you just accept that McCain is a dishonest pol in the
pockets of the energy company and anyone else who is willing to
pay his way?
(P.S. Before you bring it up, I'm not happy with Obama's
windfall tax idea either.)
\_ When did he reverse himself on drilling?
\_ http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080804.htm
\_ [!facepalm] Read the speech and now revising my opinion.
He's not reversing himself, no matter how it's being
portrayed, and if you read his speech, you'll see a
well-thought-out plan:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/57br62 (PBS)
\_ Let's see. Don't open new offshore drilling until the
old ones are dry. AKA, keep stuff in reserve rather
\_ So wait for current reserves to run out making sure
there's a gap between running out and starting up?
Newsflash: we don't make enough oil for our needs right
now.
\_ When you are spending more money than you are
making is the right response to burn through
your savings or to cut back, try to get a better
job, and save your savings for when you might
really need them?
\_ His proposal is to get the oil-monkey off our
back by the time that happens. -!pp
\_ "get a better job" in this example
than burn through it right now. That's always been his
position. There is something which is unsaid which is
hopefully by refusing to burn through all our oil RIGHT
NOW we will transition to other energy sources before
any of the reserves are needed which means we will never
have to drill there.
\_ I thought Obama supported a compromise between the
pro and anti-drilling forces. Here in grown-up land
we think that compromises are a good thing, even though
we have had to suffer the last seven years with a "you are
either with us or you are with the terrorists" President. |
| 5/27 |
|
| tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/oil_company_executives.php 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. reversing his opposition on June 16th to the federal ban on offshore drilling. These Hess contributions, however, hadn't been reported until now, and they will give more ammo to those arguing that McCain is being rewarded by campaign contributions in exchange for pro-industry positions. Here's a table detailing the contributions: J Barclay Collins Hess Corp. Executive $28,500 24-Jun Susan K Hess Homemaker Homemaker $28,500 24-Jun Norma W Hess Retired Retired $28,500 24-Jun John J O'Connor Hess Corp. Senior VP of Finance $28,500 24-Jun F Borden Walker Hess Corp. Businessman $28,500 24-Jun Norma W Hess is the widow of oil magnate and company founder Leon Hess, and Susan K Hess is the wife of Hess chairman and CEO John Hess. Neither a spokesperson for Hess nor the McCain campaign immediately responded to requests for comment. Late Update: It turns out that $28,500 is the maximum that can be given to the RNC, but because this particular victory fund collects money via various channels, an individual donor can actually give more than that to it. Permalink avatar These kinds of loopholes have existed forever to allow rich donors to circumvent campaign contribution limits. The kind where Bob Smith contributes the maximum amount and so do his wife and kids. It becomes virtually impossible to track where the money actually came from. So you get these kinds of cases where you can have Janitors that donate $28K. Permalink avatar There is a large difference between a rich person's spouse or child donating money and the office manager. In the case of a immediate relative, it is probable money/salaries are within joint accounts and basic common property issues. In the case of an office manager with a husband that is alleged to not be wealthy, it is a lot easier to prove illegal and unethical actions occurred. Lets say a person never donated to a campaign before and then donates an amount that equates to roughly 30-50% of their annual income. Now lets say that the person got a bonus from her company in the amount that equals the donation. Lets say the bonus occurred out of the normal payment cycle for the year, etc. Unless we are not understanding the issues here or she and her husband inherited a lot of money or some other pre-existing family wealth was available, this person is screwed. Permalink avatar If Obama's ad can get the MSM to take notice of this- that would be awesome. If the media would take notice of any Obama ad, I think that would be awmesome in general. If they did not ignore it then they'd feel compelled to come up with some sort of "balanced" report where they take a closer look at Obama's donors and sorta mask on McCain's. On June 20th, Bill OReilly asked: WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU: REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS? He went on to attack Obama for his failure to support offshore drilling. Around the same time, John McCain campaign recieved $285,000 for oil execs. Barack Obama's conversion in favor of offshore drilling on the road to the White House will ease the standoff in the US Congress over energy but forging a veto-proof bill still faces big hurdles. The Democratic presidential candidate said he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader package, signaling support for legislation unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators just before Congress recessed on Friday. "My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama told The Palm Beach Post in Florida on Friday. "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." He's not in favor of it and doesn't like it (and regularly says as much), but he's willing to compromise to limited and restricted drilling as part of a much bigger energy package. Though it won't affect prices for over a decade, and even then barely. The enviromental costs, and tourisism hit(a big chunk of the economy for many coastal towns) is huge. What I'm saying is that we can't drill our way out of the problem," he told reporters. "And if we can come up with a genuine bi-partisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don't like, or the Democrats have to accept some things that they don't like, in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of energy independence, then that is something I am open to." "I think is a positive step, so there are a whole bunch of good things that have been proposed by this bi-partisan group," Obama said. "I remain skeptical of some of the drilling provisions, but I will give them credit that the way they crafted the drilling positions are about as careful and responsible as you might expect for a drilling agenda." Obama said while he is opening the door to a compromise, he will not support a plan that suggests drilling is the answer to the nation's energy problems. Anyone who cannot tell the difference between supporting a thing and saying that you would be willing to accept allowing it as part of a compromise should be denied the franchise. One can see why he has offered a compromise (no not flip-flopped) when looking at the Rasmussen numbers. The majority (slightly) seem to think McCain is better at handling energy now. Probably in large part due to misconceptions about offshore drilling. I think this thread kind of dispells that notion McCain is better at handling energy issues, wouldn't you say? Rather he is trying to gain some ground on renewable energy options, by offering a compromise. it's the lack of integrity, and the fact that no good will come of this "compromise", but environmental degradation which will impact the economies and the health of small coastal towns. So there can be no energy policy unless we allow the oil companies to drill off the coast, cause real harm to the health of our citizens, keep us on oil, and degrade the environment, which will give an economic hit to towns on the coast? That's playing to the polls, regardless of human life, and the environment. So there can be no energy policy unless we allow the oil companies to drill off the coast, cause real harm to the health of our citizens, keep us on oil, and degrade the environment, which will give an economic hit to towns on the coast? And given the influence of the oil lobby on vast numbers in Congress, I'm not too surprised by that. I'm not trying to put down your ideals or disagree with your concerns about offshore drilling. If that perspective didn't exist and provide some level of pushback, the compromises we'd be looking at would be even less inspiring. But I agree with Publicola below that the compromise Obama is backing seems pretty reasonable in the context of the current realities of corporate influence and public opinion. Permalink avatar By all means, demand purity on this issue. Just understand that no drilling is going to occur in the next 3-5 years (the drilling equipment is booked for that time period drilling on existing offshore leases) and the legislative process is about compromise. So for example the bill being floated in the house would create a 50 mile band around the Florida coast line. So you give up on something that is not likely to come to past (and if it does it will be severely limited in scope) to get immediate investment in alternative fuels and rollback tax cuts on the oil companies (the 2005 tax cuts and others). Permalink avatar Then clearly you haven't read them very closely. You don't have to support Senator Obama and my unqualified support of him doesn't constitute an endorsement of his every position. Permalink avatar It amazes me how still today people use the term flip flopping' to discredit or insult candidates. The term is so loosely used that it has almost no meaning (not that it had much meaning in the first place). C... |
| www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080804.htm Archives Monday, August 4, 2008 CAMPAIGN NEWS Obama Defends Shift On Drilling Sen. Barack Obama on Friday suggested he could support an energy package that would allow some offshore drilling, a shift from his previous opposition to lifting the congressional ban on such activity. In its lead story, the CBS Evening News reported last night that "critics" say the move is opening Obama "to charges of flip-flopping," and his "new stance could give" Sen. John McCain "fresh ammunition" to continue to hammer at him. ABC World News, in its lead story, reported that McCain "switched positions first. Reluctantly, Obama followed suit this weekend, bucking Democratic leaders in Congress. Tonight, for the first time since he sewed up the nomination, Obama is on the defensive with leaders of his own party." The race is now on to spin the change of position as either a flip-flop or as a smart adjustment to political realities. Wall Street Journal says critics "are branding" Obama's move "a flip-flop, but Sen. Obama is citing it as an example of a central tenet of his candidacy: a willingness to bridge divisions to address long-festering problems." that the Arizona Republican's turn toward drilling, which he had once opposed, showed how McCain would respond decisively to a crisis," while Obama's supporters "argued that his willingness to consider a bipartisan proposal including more drilling showed how the Illinois Democrat would pursue compromise to achieve results." Former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, on Fox News Sunday meanwhile, claimed Sen. Daschle explained that Obama previously favored additional drilling once the land already in use was fully exploited. AP reports that Obama's campaign is going on the air with a new TV spot that accuses McCain of too-close ties to the oil industry. Obama's ad says, "After one president in the pocket of big oil we can't afford another." The AP adds Obama's ad "trumpets his proposal to revive a windfall profits tax on energy companies and asserts that McCain favors tax breaks for the oil industry. Both Candidates Highlighting Energy Issues In Michigan Both candidates are signaling that this week, at least in its early part, will be all about energy and all about wooing voters in the key state of Michigan. East Lansing State News reports, "Democratic party officials say" Obama "will unveil his national energy plan during his visit to Lansing at 11 am today." Obama: Seat FL, MI Delegates The fate of the disputed delegates from Michigan and Florida was a hot topic during the Democratic primary, as Hillary Clinton had secured a majority of them. AP reports that with the nomination firmly in hand, Barack Obama said in a letter that he now "wants convention delegates from Florida and Michigan to have full voting rights at the party's national convention." This "virtually guarantees the delegates will have full voting rights." New York Times reports that the move "is likely to cause consternation among party officials, who have struggled to maintain some authority over the primary calendar. Restoring full voting rights will essentially be giving a green light to other states to ignore the primary calendar next election." Palm Beach Post reports that Obama's move "may take away a line of attack from Republicans, who attempted to score points by ridiculing Democratic presidential candidates for ignoring a bellwether state like Florida." Obama and the Democratic Party are trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,' Greer said. AP, in an article tiled, "Obama Backs Away From McCain's Debate Challenge," reported over the weekend that Sen. John McCain's "challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall." The Hill adds that the Obama campaign announced that Rep. Rahm Emanuel will "take the lead on negotiating the specifics of the debates on behalf of the Obama campaign." New Names Surface In Veepstakes As the time for candidates to announce their running mates approaches, several new names are cropping as potential running mates. On ABC's This Week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi touted Texas Rep. Chet Edwards, who represents President Bush's district, as a potential running mate for Barack Obama, saying, "For years, our colleagues have said to him, why don't you run for president? He's a master of needs of our military and their families. Roll Call reports, "As he attempts to pursue a final burst of policymaking," President Bush "is stepping hard on the toes of" Sen. John McCain, "adopting issues and positions that are unhelpful or even harmful to the candidate." The "politically questionable moves" come at a time when Bush's "dismal" poll ratings are already helping the Democrats. As examples, Roll Call suggests Bush's sending of a high-ranking diplomat to talks with Iran, Bush's apparent acceptance of a "time horizon" for withdrawal from Iraq, and Bush's decision to sign a housing bill "that included some $4 billion that will assist Democratic-leaning housing advocates who want to register millions of anti-McCain voters." USA Today reports "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday ruled out a vote on new offshore oil drilling even as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he might be open to a compromise that included it." The Speaker "called proposals to allow more offshore drilling a deceptive 'decoy' rather than a solution and indicated she would bar a vote on any bill that included it. that supports the oil (companies), big oil at the cost and the expense of the consumer,' she said on ABC's This Week." permit a straight up-or-down vote," Pelosi answered, "What our colleagues are talking about is something that won't have an effect for 10 years and it will be 2 cents at the time. If they want to present something as part of an energy package, we're talking about something. But to single shoot on something that won't work and mislead the American people as to thinking it's going to reduce the price at the pump, I'm just not going to be a party of it." Wall Street Journal, House Minority Leader John Boehner advocates "unlocking America's vast energy resources" by removing government limits on where "energy development" can take place, such as "far off our coasts, on the remote North Slope of Alaska, and in the Inter-Mountain West." He adds that if Pelosi "would allow a vote on our comprehensive energy plan... we could create more American jobs, reduce America's energy dependence on nations with ties to global terrorism, cut emissions to promote a healthy environment, and raise our quality of life." Washington Times, "some Republicans say they are prepared to vote against a resolution to fund the federal government for the 2009 fiscal year unless Democrats agree to lift an offshore drilling moratorium. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is circulating a letter encouraging colleagues to demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, strike the drilling moratorium from the budget resolution." Claire McCaskill, on CNN's Late Edition, alleged that the Republican Party, "as usual, is taking their marching orders from big oil. They've refused to extend tax credits for wind and solar this week. They've refused to take action against excess speculation. They've refused to do anything except what big oil wants. Long term, the only way to get us out from underneath foreign oil is to turn to alternatives, which the Republicans are not interested in unless we're dealing with big oil." New York Times seems to agree, writing, "It's hard not to be exasperated and even a little frightened by the Senate's selfishly partisan approach to the nation's energy challenge in the days leading up to its August recess." Washington Times reports this morning, "Neither President Bush nor Congress has acted to appoint members to a commission intended to boost US energy independence in the three years since Congress enacted a law establishing the panel." The Times adds, "White House officials defended the failure to establish the United States Commission on North American Energy Freedom, saying this is a time for action, not commissions." Joe L Barton, the r... |
| preview.tinyurl.com/57br62 -> www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/obamaenergy_08-04.html Online NewsHour TRANSCRIPT Originally Aired: August 4, 2008 Report Transcript: Obama's 'New Energy for America' Speech Following is a transcript of Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. File photo BARACK OBAMA: We meet at a moment when this country is facing a set of challenges greater than any we've seen in generations. Right now, our brave men and women in uniform are fighting two different wars while terrorists plot their next attack. Our economy is in turmoil and our families are struggling with rising costs and falling incomes; with lost jobs and lost homes and lost faith in the American Dream. And for too long, our leaders in Washington have been unwilling or unable to do anything about it. That is why this election could be the most important of our lifetime. When it comes to our economy, our security, and the very future of our planet, the choices we make in November and over the next few years will shape the next decade, if not the century. And central to all of these major challenges is the question of what we will do about our addiction to foreign oil. Without a doubt, this addiction is one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced -- from the gas prices that are wiping out your paychecks and straining businesses to the jobs that are disappearing from this state; from the instability and terror bred in the Middle East to the rising oceans and record drought and spreading famine that could engulf our planet. It's also a threat that goes to the very heart of who we are as a nation, and who we will be. Will we be the generation that leaves our children a planet in decline, or a world that is clean, and safe, and thriving? Will we allow ourselves to be held hostage to the whims of tyrants and dictators who control the world's oil wells? Will America watch as the clean energy jobs and industries of the future flourish in countries like Spain, Japan, or Germany? Or will we create them here, in the greatest country on Earth, with the most talented, productive workers in the world? We know that we cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing. Not when we purchase $700 million worth of oil every single day from some the world's most unstable and hostile nations -- Middle Eastern regimes that will control nearly all of the world's oil by 2030. Not when the rapid growth of countries like China and India mean that we're consuming more of this dwindling resource faster than we ever imagined. But we also know that we've been talking about this issue for decades. We've heard promises about energy independence from every single President since Richard Nixon. We've heard talk about curbing the use of fossil fuels in State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973. Back then, global warming was the theory of a few scientists. Now, it is a fact that is melting our glaciers and setting off dangerous weather patterns as we speak. Then, the technology and innovation to create new sources of clean, affordable, renewable energy was a generation away. Today, you can find it in the research labs of this university and in the design centers of this state's legendary auto industry. It's in the chemistry labs that are laying the building blocks for cheaper, more efficient solar panels, and it's in the re-born factories that are churning out more wind turbines every day all across this country. Despite all this, here we are, in another election, still talking about our oil addiction; You won't hear me say this too often, but I couldn't agree more with the explanation that Senator McCain offered a few weeks ago. He said, "Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country." What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them. And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. Against an energy bill that -- while far from perfect -- represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure. Now, after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal he's really promoting is more offshore drilling -- a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence. George Bush's own Energy Department has said that if we opened up new areas to drilling today, we wouldn't see a single drop of oil for seven years. And Senator McCain knows that, which is why he admitted that his plan would only provide "psychological" relief to consumers. He also knows that if we opened up and drilled on every single square inch of our land and our shores, we would still find only three percent of the world's oil reserves. Three percent for a country that uses 25% of the world's oil. Even Texas oilman Boone Pickens, who's calling for major new investments in alternative energy, has said, "this is one emergency we can't drill our way out of." Now, increased domestic oil exploration certainly has its place as we make our economy more fuel-efficient and transition to other, renewable, American-made sources of energy. It is a political answer of the sort Washington has given us for three decades. There are genuine ways in which we can provide some short-term relief from high gas prices -- relief to the mother who's cutting down on groceries because of gas prices, or the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and can't even afford to drive around and look for a new one. I believe we should immediately give every working family in America a $1,000 energy rebate, and we should pay for it with part of the record profits that the oil companies are making right now. I also believe that in the short-term, as we transition to renewable energy, we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. But we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres they currently have access to but haven't touched. And if they don't, we should require them to give up their leases to someone who will. We should invest in the technology that can help us recover more from existing oil fields, and speed up the process of recovering oil and gas resources in shale formations in Montana and North Dakota; Texas and Arkansas and in parts of the West and Central Gulf of Mexico. We should sell 70 million barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks. Over the next five years, we should also lease more of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska for oil and gas production. And we should also tap more of our substantial natural gas reserves and work with the Canadian government to finally build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline, delivering clean natural gas and creating good jobs in the process. But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away. Last week, Washington finally made some progress on this. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I've worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I've been calling for on this campaign. It's a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy. It incl... |