A tangled web of big oil money

Who are you to tell anybody else what to do?

The only offensive you've created so far is to dig yourself deeper into a hole.

So politicians are too smart to allow others to see every single transaction? Who cares?

The Nixon crew of which Cheney and Rumsfeld were members was smarter by far than this lot. Most went to prison. They didn't need to have people stalk them to put them behind bars. They made too many enemies of those they needed to keep on side. And Nixon made it far worse when he demanded undated letters of resignation from all his top people on election day +1.

The difference between Nixon and Bush is that Nixon had enough brains to know when to stop making enemies.

"you broke this point into two totally unrelated statements. how exactly do you not think that will make this report meaningless or atleast less accurate. when you dont have all the data (and in this case that is impossible), you dont have an accurate report. that was my original response and it is my response now."

Has no one ever told you when NOT to use a period. I didn't break the statement your period did. Like this

"every single transaction. politcians are too smart."

And how on earth do you know what an "accurate report" would look like? You know how to do this - write one!

Let's start over. You agree with the report as is or you don't? In which case it's a matter of personal opinion and not surprisingly nobody here seems to agree with you.

What we can never know is what motives make oil people give any money to politicians like Obama.

I said above that if Obama wins without big oil money he can damage them big time - with inquiries into profiteering, price-gouging, market-rigging and impose an emergency halt to price rises if not a rollback. That and he can stop paying for wars on their behalf. Can you prove otherwise?.

The simple fact is this - I have more reasons (and so it seems does the rest of the planet) to trust Barack Obama than to trust either Senator "More Lies Please, Keating Five" McCain or MISS BP Saudi-Alaska, Palin.

When your arguments are better than mine - you win - but not until.

what the hell avery. when i say chill out. i literally meant it. why do you think im launching an offensive against you.

AND NOW for that amazing breakdown of my comments... (notice the sarcasm)

first of all i when i saw " there is no way in hell the authors are going to be able to track every single transaction. politicians are too smart" i mean exactly what i said. you broke this point into two totally unrelated statements. and how exactly do you not think that will make this report meaningless or atleast less accurate. when you dont have all the data (and in this case that is impossible), you dont have an accurate report. that was my original response and it is my response now.

your playing the break down game-incorrectly. your seperating my statements based on periods and punctuation -rather the different arguments i lay out.

and then again. “how do you know the authors arent biased either. if they went deep enough to get the dirt on mccain but not on obama”--thats how it was supposed to be read.

you would think that if the authors were anti-republican they'd want to be in denial about the idea that Barack too maybe cashing on same amount of money that McCain does. maybe more. maybe less. again we can NEVER know.

and i never said i made a transaction-to-transaction history on any candidate.. where the hell are u pulling this from?

and FINALLY the last little bit was me trying to explain that the only way you could verify any of the figures in "donations" were to STALK them. day in. day out.

rvmnedia writes,

"Avery, very interesting article in FP, even if I don't agree with his general thesis about the problems and solutions, but that has more to do with my take on the whole international trading regime than how to engage China.

And honestly, if I were China, I would take the attitude of basically saying who cares about the WTO, IMF and WB, because they are US controlled institutions that they have no need for anyway. China already has enough leverage on the US with investment and debts we owe them, and if they're smart they will keep squeezing us until we cry uncle..."

We agree. Washington has made so many stupid, hubristic, catastrophic policy blunders - the latest ones destabilizing and outraging allies Pakistan and Afghanistan - that, as they used to say - China is in the catbird seat. They watch while we maul ourselves. That we would even consider a G-2 proposal testifies to the depth of our problems.

You're right - the WTO, IMF and WB - are of zero interest to Beijing nor will they touch them. My guess is that Beijing will wither them by recycling US dollars to offer better deals than the WTO, IMF and WB can afford, and with no strings. Russia has already offered to buy ALL of Azerbaijan's natural gas exports at Retail not wholesale prices. That spells clout that no seller can ignore.

The game so far has been to play big-money hardball and with the west so busy strangling itself with graft and corruption while pleading with China to bankroll it - we're just tightening our own noose thinking that at worst it's a padded leash.

Agreed - they understand now that we are far more vulnerable than they are. Like crack dealers to junkies, "they will keep squeezing.." And we'll keep upping the ante to stay in the game.

Kewal91,

Amazing response – “chill out.” Answers it all, does it?

Line by line:

“and no i dont watch fox.” You don't need to. You never answer questions, you avoid them all. You switch to irrelevancies like a weather vane in shifting winds.

“i also know that there is now way in hell that the authors were able to track every single transaction.”

This may come as a total shock but you don't need to run an audit from 1901 to know there's been a bank robbery. Nor will any court in the land demand more than to overcome reasonable doubt. “Every single transaction” isn't an objection it is meaningless. All that is necessary is to provide sufficient and verifiable proof.

“politcians are too smart.” Where on earth have you been the last eight years? The Republicans have been dropping like flies in one scandal after another, when not dropping their pants for each other. Alaska's top dogs are under investigation for abuse of office, not forgetting that in their midst is a certain Governor Palin who left her job as mayor with the town in massive debt, and who is being sued.

“how do you know the authors arent biased either.” Never said I did. How do you know they are?

“if they went deep enough to get the dirt on mccain but not on obama.” Is that a sentence? What makes you assume they didn't go deep enough on Obama - and found nothing? You say they didn't - did you examine every transaction?

“or how about the fact that in order to get the most accurate readings you have to stalk them day in and out to make sure they dont sneak one in...” The most accurate readings”? “Stalking?” “Sneak one in”

What are you talking about? You want to understand why adults regard the Republicans as an unethical geopolitical economic disaster for America? Start reading any major newspaper's financial section. Look at who authorized the gigantic scams over the last 8 years, look at who gutted a massive budget surplus and started a trillion dollar war on two fronts (soon to be 3 or 4!) and put the US in the financial, military and diplomatic toilet worldwide.

Otherwise, let me repeat - ...and the basis for your doubt of this report, objectively, is what? Show me what you've got. I'm hip. Do it or chill.

pls advise.

chill out avery.. when i say you. i mean you generally.. as in you as a member of the society..

and no i dont watch fox. i also know that there is now way in hell that the authors were able to track every single transaction. politcians are too smart. how do you know the authors arent biased either. if they went deep enough to get the dirt on mccain but not on obama. or how about the fact that in order to get the most accurate readings you have to stalk them day in and out to make sure they dont sneak one in...

Avery, very interesting article in FP, even if I don't agree with his general thesis about the problems and solutions, but that has more to do with my take on the whole international trading regime than how to engage China. And honestly, if I were China, I would take the attitude of basically saying who cares about the WTO, IMF and WB, because they are US controlled institutions that they have no need for anyway. China already has enough leverage on the US with investment and debts we owe them, and if they're smart they will keep squeezing us until we cry uncle...

kewal91 writes,

1/ "how do you know some of those people are just amazing at hiding their money resources?"

I don't. Try asking the author and sources. Conversely, how do you know some of "those people" are NOT just amazing at hiding their money resources?

Let's recall that many neo-con Republican stalwarts at the highest income levels - if they are infamous for anything - it is concealing loot offshore in tax havens like the Caymans, and in numbered accounts in foreign banks. Such individuals have the gelt to persuade lawmakers that any taxes on their income is an affront to the economy. Corporations - too often - same deal. So you have millionaire politicians crafting laws to protect other millionaires and multi-billion dollar corporations.

You don't see a conflict of interest?

Do you deny this too?

2/ "and if this report is true.. which i doubt.. McCain is rolling in some cash"

OK, and the basis for your doubt of this report, objectively, is what? It didn't appear on FOX? You think the stats "look" invented?

pls advise.

and if this report is true.. which i doubt.. McCain is rolling in some cash

how do you know some of those people are just amazing at hiding their money resources?

You may find this lengthy article in "Foreign Affairs" interesting and disquieting.

Remember when there was only one superpower left? Remember Free Trade? Remember Global Co-operation? The New Unipolar World Order?

And the “myth” of climate change that all the politicians keep yawping about?

Here's a proposed policy shift and wakeup call.

It would be highly unlikely that such a proposal would be offered without there being massive damage done already to US prospects due to gross economic mismanagement on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Soviet Union's downfall. Mismanagement which Senator McCain supported...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87404-p20/c-fred-bergsten/a-partner...
.........................................

“To deal with the situation, Washington should make a subtle but basic change to its economic policy strategy toward Beijing. Instead of focusing on narrow bilateral problems, it should seek to develop a true partnership with Beijing so as to provide joint leadership of the global economic system. Only such a "G-2" approach will do justice, and be seen to do justice, to China's new role as a global economic superpower and hence as a legitimate architect and steward of the international economic order.”

THE BIG TWO
---------------------------
"Whether in dealing with old or new issues, the basic idea would be to develop a G-2 between the United States and China to steer the global governance process. Other major powers, such as the EU and, on some issues, Japan, would of course need to be deeply involved as well. The new rules, codes, or norms could frequently be implemented through existing multilateral institutions, such as the IMF and the WTO. Some of them might work better through new worldwide organizations created to deal with truly new issues, such as a global environmental organization to manage climate-change policy. But effective systemic defenses against international economic challenges in today's world must start with active cooperation between its two dominant economies, the United States and China.

Given other powers' sensitivities, of course, it would be impolitic for Washington and Beijing to use the term "G-2" publicly. But for the strategy to work, the United States would have to give true priority to China as its main partner in managing the world economy, to some extent displacing Europe. Nothing less is likely to attract China or engage the United States sufficiently to create the effective leadership that the world so desperately needs.”

You definitely can't say Obama has raised MORE from oil companies. AveryMoore is exactly right. It shouldn't even matter anyways because they all know we will be moving away from oil eventually. This will also help them with recommendation and consideration for these companies contributing to alternatives.

An interesting take and one worth rethinking.

Try this on for size. If Obama wins without money from oil - meaning oil was against him - what can he do to punish them?

Windfall profits tax? Launch a series of punishing investigations into price-gouging, market manipulations, halt off shore support for oil wars? Nationalize them?

Call me cynical, but if I was an oil exec I'd pump as much money into Obama's camp as possible. So that if he wins - I don't lose. It ain't charity, it's PR.

Call it covering your bets, stacking the deck both ways, whatever you want to, but nobody in big oil cares whether Obama is a saint, they just have too many billions of reasons not to give him an excuse to retaliate.