Obama isn’t a candidate. Come 2012, if he is still taking their money, I want to see that fact on the front page of every paper in the world.
We’ve established that you’re mad. What in the world do you mean by “sabotage” in this context?
I don’t mean to imply anything criminal. I am simply not that way.
I suppose the comprehensive approach would to be to make campaign contributions, and especially oil company donations, THE issue. If a candidate is taking oil money, they aren’t just lying through their fangs with every despicable word that hisses through their lips. They’re… well, help me out here 
How do we kill these campaigns? I mean, do you really want to be represented by someone in league with the Devil, whose prima facie intention is to sell the public up the river for the sake of oil interests?
You’re a little long on assertion and a little short on support. Why should I vote against a candidate that takes oil money? Perhaps that’s a reason I should vote for them. Please show otherwise.
Secondly, if they’re not taking oil money, whose money are they taking? Is that better or worse than oil money?
Fight them by insisting on public support of election campaigns with a 4 month window. There is over saturation with 3 and 4 year campaigns for president and 2 years for house and senate. Lets get the equal time provision back too.
I support public financing of campaigns, but until that day, I see no problem with a candidate taking oil money. It is completely unimportant. How the politician votes while in office is another matter.
If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who support a carbon offset program, opposes drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, and wants to raise the gas tax to build better public transportation, why should I oppose him for taking Big Oil’s money to buy TV ad time to tout his record on those issues?
If Chevron wants to give money to a candidate who wants to drill everywhere, subsidize gasoline, and spill oil from sea to stinky sea, then I’m not going to vote for him anyway.
You have chosen an issue that is all optics and no substance. We should vote on substance, and there’s plenty of bigger issues out there than who donated to who: war, jobs, abortion, civil rights, etc.
But you can never know for sure which they are if they take oil money. They could show their true colors any day.
I don’t think it is optics. Any company is now allowed to contribute any amount to any political candidate. If you don’t think that gives these companies influence over the government, you might be a little nutty. If you haven’t noticed any oil-company influence to our detriment from oil companies, well dammit Jim, I’m a blogger not a doctor!
And the other issues you mention, most of them owe something to the oil bonanza of the last 100 years, no?
You could say that about any candidate who takes money from anyone. And you probably should.
I’m not opposed. Which group of donors is as pertinent as oil donors? Pottery Barn?
You name it, there’s a lobby for it. Every conceivable significant industry and every large corporation has lobbyists, and so do other large groups like unions. Why single out oil and not nuclear energy or banks or lawyers or technology companies or broadcasters or defense contractors or drug companies? I’m not trying to minimize the situation, but you should realize that highlighting just oil companies is myopic.
Except for the inexorable global fact of peak oil that is.
Peak oil isn’t a fact. And even if you think it is, this does apply to other industries and issues.
Why don’t you cough up with the examples of politicians who said they would oppose ANWR when they were campaigning, and then voted for it. Or any other oil-related issue which a candidate did a flip-flop once they were in office. None of this “oh I’m sure there are lots of examples” kind of dodge, I want you to name names.
What the heck are you talking about?
The CRP’s claim that Obama received more money from BP than any other candidate is actually true, with a caveat: it’s only true if you count the donations of individuals employed by BP as well as direct corporate donations.
Since Obama raised more money than any other election candidate in history, you’re likely to find he received more donations from virtually any company than anyone else, if you include employees.
Of course, in the absence of any compelling (or even uncompelling) reason to believe BP encouraged its employees to donate to Obama, it’s a pretty meaningless statistic.
Death. Taxes. Peak oil. It is a fact of that order. I don’t think this is even debatable.
Maybe you mean we are not currently living in a post-peak world? Ok, that is a valid position. But if you mean that this whole peak oil business is ‘just a theory’ or some such, I hope we can have a polite conversation about why you think so.
I don’t see how you can say that. The oil companies achieved full success in their attempts to influence our government. Look at the state of the MMS- you can blame the government itself for negligence, but the active intention to subvert the MMS originated from oil interests.
The oil industry has systematically subverted our government with the result being a catastrophe of historic proportions, not to mention a persistent twisting of energy policy away from rational alternatives which leaves us vulnerable to a perhaps comparable (or even worse) catastrophe if this country gets hit unprepared by the worst effects of the peak oil phenomenon (or in the best case an extended addiction to oil). Whatever the intentions of the oil industry, their effect on our nation has been literally worse than that of our arch-enemy, Al Qaeda.
One can accurately say with a perfectly straight face that purging (yes, purging) our government of oil-industry influence is a matter of national security. As Einstein said, “Madness is doing the same thing yet expecting a different result.” Why in the world would we stick with the status quo, Marley?
Am I unfairly singling out oil companies? What other industry can compare to the above?
The financial sector? Defense? Agriculture? Mining? Hell, any heavy industry.
You keep saying that, but how have they done more or worse than dozens of other industries. You seem willing to lay all the blame at their feet.
Pharma, Auto, Banking, Mining, Health Care, the list goes on.
I can see you don’t think it’s debatable. But I should probably be more specific: some people think civilization is going to collapse after oil demand exceeds supply. That’s what I really think is crap. Whether oil production is in a permanent decline or not I don’t know. But we’ve had threads about peak oil before and you’ve got one now, so if I’m interested in reading more I’ll read it. I don’t think you’re supporting your point that we can’t trust politicians who take oil money but we don’t need to pay attention to the other industries that are funding them.
Paper pushers push a lot of paper. I suppose a mountain of paper falling over is a problem, but it just isn’t the same thing.
These guys have a real job. They break an awful lot of shit, but at least some of it is ostensibly the bad guys. And they did defeat the Nazis, let’s not forget that. They influence the government if you ask me, but at least this can be defended on constitutional grounds. I don’t think the founding fathers intended for a bunch of God-damned oil companies to be seizing the reins of national power.
The damn agriculture lobby has helped mankind grow in population from 300 million to almost 7 billion. Those mother fucking motherfuckers! :mad:
I must admit this is a real job. The trouble with mining is mass coal + global warming = everything costs more than coal.
Yah well those are likely also real jobs. Darn. Heavy industry has to figure out how to go green without losing its masculinity.