Obama reelection 2012

[Moonlight J]

Good source, but the wrong page. This is the relevant one.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.php?ind=E1500

Just glancing at this list, if 4/5 were Obama supporters, it looks plausible that they were chosen appropriately.

Now the question is, why didnt you bring this out first?

J

No, it is not. You called into question mine & OA's statement about Big Oil being heavily GOP donor.

Or that a vast majority of oil and gas companies are Republican donors?....You = Do you read from a script?

Nobody is arguing the link you put out there. Big Oil contributes 88% to the GOP while Alt Eng companies are 63% to the Dems.

[onejayhawk]

No, it is not. You called into question mine & OA's statement about Big Oil being heavily GOP donor.

Nobody is arguing the link you put out there. Big Oil contributes 88% to the GOP while Alt Eng companies are 63% to the Dems.

My mistake. I thought the point was the Newsweek article that ST, excuse me, FS posted two pages back. As to the side comment, I am suitably answered.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

I know that the article made the point, and that's exactly what I stated in my post. I was pointing out that your excerpt did not - please read carefully!

Yes, I do apparently have a reading comprehension problem, I appreciate your civil manner in pointing it out, I was probably deserving of some snark.

Anyway, as I pointed out in my original post, there may be another side to the story. It would be interesting to see how many Obama bundlers were denied loans or grants. Either way, I do think there are legitimate concerns that monied interests are overly represented by our government. And I'm not willing to dismiss this as a non-story because green business owners might tend to the liberal side.

[Wonderboy]

Some excerpts from an interesting article on Obama's chances of reelection from the Daily Beast:

(T)he results of presidential elections are pretty much strictly a function of economic conditions, and if those are bad (defined by various measures, chiefly the jobless and growth rates), the incumbent will lose.

By that theory, Barack Obama is pretty well doomed. And yet I don’t know a soul who thinks he doesn’t stand a decent chance of winning next year. Why? It’s not the Republican candidates. They haven’t instantly grown appreciably sillier than they were before the last couple of weeks...So it’s not that. I say it’s Congress. The Republicans in Congress, specifically. Obama’s secret weapons in this election are Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, and the way things are headed they’re going to have economic-determinist political scientists going back to the drawing board in 2013 and adding a corollary to their theory: if economic conditions are bad, the incumbent will lose, unless the people have decided to blame the bad economy on the opposition party in Congress.

The most important and interesting poll question asked in recent memory is the one Suffolk University finally thought to ask last week, surveying Floridians about various matters in their state. People were asked if they thought the Republicans were “intentionally stalling efforts to jumpstart the economy to insure that Barack Obama is not re-elected.” In response, 49 percent said yes, and just 39 percent said no. Among liberals, 75 percent said yes, and among moderates, fully 59 percent said yes (to 31 percent saying no). Interestingly, even a third of conservatives said yes . Forty-nine isn’t a majority, but it’s close, and Florida isn’t the country, but, if anything, it leans a little to the country’s right...

(I)f it happens, a situation with no precedent in our relevant national history. The economic-determinism model works because it assumes what we on all sides of the political argument have always assumed: that the economy is the president’s responsibility. But if the Democrats play this the right way, the economy will be just as much the GOP’s responsibility as the president’s...Worse still for Republicans, to the extent that the economy is on the upswing by November 2012, Obama will be getting the credit for any improvements, since it’ll be clear to majorities that at least he and the Democrats are trying to do something; and to the extent that the economy is still stalled, majorities will fix blame for that on the Republicans, for voting no-no-no-no-no en bloc to everything.

(E)ventually, the GOP nominee will have to deal with this. Yes, that candidate will speak of the future and his plans...(b)ut the GOP’s reputation is so low, and its image (and reality) as obstructionist so steadily solidifying, that it’s going to hang like the stink of garlic around the nominee’s neck.

http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-secret-weapon-094500379.html;_ylt=AnarbyvZn2eltnWJis9mbFms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ4Z2p1cTllBG1pdANTZWN0aW9uTGlzdCBGUCBQb2xpdGljcwRwa2cDYWY0MGFkOGYtMWRkZi0zMTJkLWIxM2ItNTQ0YzAyZDNhYmIwBHBvcwMzBHNlYwNNZWRpYVNlY3Rpb25MaXN0BHZlcgMyZTViMTNiMC0wOTJiLTExZTEtODM3YS0xYjEzYTljNWU2ODA-;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Now, I fully admit that the most important sentence of the article is "if the Democrats play this the right way", relying on the Dems showing some political smarts, which they seem genetically incapable of doing.

[The Feral Slasher]

Grants for alt-energy programs available
Most companies in that industry are liberals
Competitive grant program determined winners
Most winners were contributors to Obama program

Thus

grants given to liberal donors rather than on merit.

Got it

After reading the excerpt from the article below why are you so sure that loans and grants were based on merit ? You don't think it is possible for any bias to sneak into the decision making process ?
------------
One might think that the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has doled out billions in taxpayer-guaranteed loans, would be directed by a dedicated scientist or engineer. Or perhaps a civil servant with considerable financial knowledge. Instead, the department’s loan and grant programs are run by partisans who were responsible for raising money during the Obama campaign from the same people who later came to seek government loans and grants. Steve Spinner, who served on the Obama campaign’s National Finance Committee and was a bundler himself, was the campaign’s “liaison to Silicon Valley.” His responsibilities included fundraising, recruiting more bundlers, and managing Obama’s relationship with a cadre of very wealthy donors. After the 2008 campaign, Spinner joined the Department of Energy as the “chief strategic operations officer” for the loan programs. A lot of the money he helped hand out went to that same cadre of wealthy Silicon Valley campaign donors. He also sat on the White House Business Council, which is made up of Obama-supporting corporate executives.
--------------------------

Here is another article about rewarding of campaign contributors. You seriously think that campaign bundlers are treated the same as I am by our government ? They don't get any special consideration from the Obama administration ? You think there contributions were made because they like Obama's policies, without any expectations attached ? Sorry, I just don't believe that. I think it is wrong no matter who does it, Democrat, Republican, or other.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...71-503544.html

The report found that 80 percent of Obama bundlers who raised $500,000 or more for Mr. Obama - many of whom are being asked to do the same for his reelection bid - ended up in "key administration posts," in the words of the White House.


More than half of Mr. Obama's ambassador nominees were from this group. One of them, Cynthia Stroum, became U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg; she resigned shortly before the release of a State Department report that deemed her "aggressive, bullying, hostile and intimidating."



Mr. Obama's bundlers were also granted White House access - they and their families "account for more than 3,000 White House meetings and visits," according to iWatch. (There were 800 bundler visits to the White House in just the first few months of the administration.) The report also found that "[a]t least 18 other bundlers have ties to businesses poised to profit from government spending to promote clean energy, telecommunications and other key administration priorities."


Mr. Obama's decision to reward his donors follows the pattern of his presidential predecessors. But it flies in the face of his campaign promise to reduce the clout of moneyed special interests.

[cardboardbox]

ST, excuse me, FS posted two pages back

Is FS really ST? I dont notice much similarity in their style.

[The Feral Slasher]

Grants for alt-energy programs available
Most companies in that industry are liberals
Competitive grant program determined winners
Most winners were contributors to Obama program

Thus

grants given to liberal donors rather than on merit.

Got it

Forgot this excerpt in my last post:

The Department of Energy’s inspector general, Gregory Friedman, who was not a political appointee, chastised the alternative-energy loan and grant programs for their absence of “sufficient transparency and accountability.” He has testified that contracts have been steered to “friends and family.”

[The Feral Slasher]

Is FS really ST? I dont notice much similarity in their style.

Plus I'm not crazy.




Just kidding, ST, wherever you are.

[onejayhawk]

Is FS really ST? I dont notice much similarity in their style.

No, but I suspect they would get along. I literally typed what I was thinking, not tying to be witty.

J

[Moonlight J]

Unless he moved to the west coast, the two are not the same

[cardboardbox]

Plus I'm not crazy.

Just kidding, ST, wherever you are.

who were you on the old website?

[Wonderboy]

Plus I'm not crazy.

You have us fooled.

I kid! I kid!

[onejayhawk]

You have us fooled.

I kid! I kid!

Now you have us fooled.

J

[The Feral Slasher]

who were you on the old website?

Mostly just lurked, don't think anyone would remember me.

[The Feral Slasher]

You have us fooled.

I kid! I kid!

You did make me laugh, well done.