Thursday, August 07, 2008


Here's a bit more of the change that you guys, or at least some of you guys, are and have been waiting for:

As we close up a week wherein Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, on the stump and in a TV ad accused rival Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., of being "in the pocket of big oil," and doing the industry's bidding -- not to mention a week during which the Democratic National Committee launched an Exxon-McCain '08 website to drive home this Democratic talking point -- the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics points out that the issue is a bit more complicated than it first would appear.

McCain has received three times more money from the oil industry in general -- $1.3 million for McCain compared to approximately $394,000 for Obama. But that said, Obama has received more campaign cash than McCain has from the employees of some of the biggest oil companies -- Exxon, Chevron and BP.

This might seem to complicate Obama's continual use of Exxon-Mobil on the stump.

Of course, it is a little unfair to tag Obama with the contributions of employees of one company or another. He has no control over where people work, and many people do not believe that their interests as citizens correspond with the interests of their employer. Indeed, it is undoubtedly true that at least some of these contributions came from people who are for whatever misguided reason ashamed that they work for Big Oil and are trying to buy themselves some social respectability by openly and notoriously contributing to Barack Obama's campaign. "Hey, I may work for ExxonMobil, but that's only to put bread on the table."

I prefer to respect what I do for a living and the value that I confer in doing it. Perhaps that is easy for me; my company makes products that literally save lives every day. But then, so does ExxonMobil. Neither our products nor the patients who benefit from them reach the hospital in time without ExxonMobil's product.

Barack Obama has attacked the profitability of my industry, he has insulted my job ("corporate chieftain"), he vows to enact regulations that will make my job massively more difficult, and he promises to confiscate a much higher proportion of my income (raising my marginal tax rate by approximately 17%). Wild horses could not drive me to give money to his campaign even if I agreed with him on foreign policy (which I do not). I do not need social respectability nearly as much as I enjoy self-respect, and I imagine I would also feel that way if I worked for ExxonMobil.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Aug 08, 06:38:00 AM:

"I enjoy self-respect, and I imagine I would also feel that way if I worked for ExxonMobil."

Well put.

Everytime that I talk to a liberal they go on and on and on about how big oil is destroying our lives. So I ask some pretty basic questions: "did you get solar panels for your house yet?" NO. Too expensive. "Oh but you just bought yourself x, and y and z non essential items", oh well I need those because...

If EVIL is in your life, then it's your job to resist it. They complain about the credit card companies, about big oil, about Wal Mart.

Don't buy crap you don't need with your credit card from Walmart.Ride your bike more often. Do what you feel you need to do to make an impact, but hold your head high as you do it. You're from the United States of America for the love of god! Act like it.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Aug 08, 06:51:00 AM:

Similiarly, I like to bust the enviros about how much plastic they use in their everyday lives. And ask ... do you realize we exported production of our most polluting products to third world and developing nations, and that you contribute to the pollution over there by consuming products made from them? that usually shuts them up.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Aug 08, 08:39:00 AM:

Sen. Obama has to walk a fine line.

On one hand, he has to maintain his credibility as a "progressive", and on the other hand, he has to remain appealing to the centrist plurality of the electorate in this country.

What to do, what to do.

Denunciations of big corporations are as old as Jacksonian politics (then it was the Bank of the United States). Sometimes valid, sometimes not. But Obama is either factually challenged or knows he can confound the less than well informed, regarding "big oil". The ten largest oil companies in the world are......State Owned. Gee, maybe we should get after Petrobras or Aramco.....NOT! These "companies" are probably the goal (mis-managed as they are compared to Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, etc.) for Obama's "New America", where some political crony runs a multi-billion dollar company. The models are FHA and FMHA. And those are pretty "ringing" successes these days, aren't they?

So every once in a while, the mask slips on Obama.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Fri Aug 08, 11:25:00 AM:

When talking about Hussein and democrats in general, why don't observers point out that they are in the pocket of big labor? The lords of labor have bought most democrat politicians. The labor lobby contributes millions to the dems and owns them like a player owns his hos.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Aug 09, 03:09:00 PM:

Damn those charlatans who are beholden to Big Labor, those teeming and dirty masses who think that a count of people conveys power in a democracy. As soon as we get this plutocracy off the ground, we can put them in their place.


Big Labor? Really? If you want to argue that the opinions and policies of the rich deserve more credence than those of others, (as evident in rabid laissez faire econ and uncapped political donations,) just come out and say "Plutocracy, thumbs up." At least then we could argue openly rather than by proxy.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Sun Aug 10, 01:36:00 PM:

Big Labor has shit to do with democracy.

By definition, there are fewer 'rich' people than 'not rich' people.

Voting is free.

Please reset your argument.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?