I’m Barack OILbama and I Approve this Message

It is what Barack OILbama doesn’t tell you that should cause some concern. His latest ad airing in PA and IN claims he doesn’t take money from oil companies. At first, you’d think OILbama has set a high ethical standard by which we may judge his character.

Once you examine the ad, you realize he is merely stating that he obeys federal law. It’s been ILLEGAL for a lawmaker to take money from oil companies since the 1907 Tillman Act. Sorry, Barack, you can’t bamboozle us with that one. It’s time for a little de-hoodwinking.

I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.

I hate to say it but OILbama is ALMOST telling the truth. He doesn’t DIRECTLY take money from Washington lobbyists; he has D.C. lobbyists who bundle money for him. That’s an important distinction for OILbama because otherwise he might be called a liar.

As it turns out, OILbama has two two oil industry executives who bundle money for him: George Kaiser, the Chairman of Kaiser-Francis Oil Company and Robert Cavnar, President and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC. These two oil company executives can’t have their corporations directly give OILbama any money. That would be illegal. But what they can do is solicit contributions from individuals within their corporations and other oil industries, and it’s all perfectly legal. But it is slimy as hell. An analogy surprisingly appropriate for Big Oil, in so many ways.

But let’s back up a little and get to the beginning of the ad before returning to de-hoodwink the rest of this. OILbama starts his ad with this audacious statement:

Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.

Hmmm … you remember those oil executives I mentioned a little while ago? A little-known fact that OILbama surely doesn’t want you to know, is that he actually receives campaign contributions from this big, bad Exxon company he warns us about. $30,850 to date, in fact. Of course, he doesn’t receive the contributions directly from Exxon because, as is now clear, that would be illegal. But that doesn’t stop OILbama from soliciting money from the employees of Exxon, because well, of course, it is in their best interests to support OILbama because like he is going to crack down on the windfall profits and all that.

Sure he will. Just like he cracked down on the nuclear power energy companies with his mysterious legislation that he passed but he didn’t really pass because it never saw the light of day. I’m sure this had NOTHING to do with the fact that the Exelon Corporation is one of Obama’s largest campaign contributors. Nothing to see there. No impropriety there. Nope, none at all. Shhhh…. Wink Wink.

Newsweek spells it out very clearly:

Obama’s Oil Spill

We’re not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we’d note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he’s received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?

We’ve noted before that Obama’s policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting. It’s true that he doesn’t accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Get that? He takes money from spouses of lobbyists. And we might expect that a spouse of a lobbyist would act in an unbiased fashion because, well, it’s just that they like Barack. It couldn’t possibly be that OILbama might be in the bag for helping out the oil industry even though his ad says he won’t. Or could it?

Let’s examine a few facts, shall we? Namely, one fact that the OILbama campaign thinks no one is paying attention to. And that is the obvious truth that OILbama himself is DIRECTLY responsible for the “windfall profits” he now claims he is against. Sort of like “I actually voted for the windfall profits before I voted against them.” or “I was actually against this war before I started funding it into perpetuity.” You sense a pattern?

The Family Guy, Barack OILbama, stood up for his dear Cousin Dick (Cheney), and voted for his 2005 Energy Bill. The very same Energy Bill that gave “windfall profits” to Exxon Mobil and lots of other Big Oil companies that OILbama, now that he is running for President, is so suddenly against. But he will “stand up” to them. You believe that, don’t you? I mean, he is an upright guy with only the country’s best interests in mind, right? Couldn’t be otherwise. Heaven forbid!

Well, fortunately for us there is at least one person running for President who doesn’t have a problem with telling the truth. And one candidate who didn’t vote for Cousin Dick’s massive giveaway to Big Oil. As I am sure you have discovered, the person I am talking about is Hillary Clinton. Hillary not only didn’t vote for Cousin Dick’s Energy Bill, she has been actively working to correct the abuses that Barack OILbama helped bring about.

Despite the fact that Hillary is being outspent heavily in this race, she refuses to allow OILbama to get away with lying to the American public which is exactly what OILbama is doing. In a radio ad called “Real Life,” Hillary sets the record straight.

Real Life

In his TV ads, Barack Obama sounds like he’ll take on the oil companies.

“I don’t take money from oil companies.”

What he doesn’t tell you is that “no candidate does….they cant,” according to the Annenberg Center’s Factcheck.org…It’s been against the law for companies to donate to candidates for a hundred years.

Listen to Barack Obama some more.

“Now Exxon’s making forty billion dollars a year and we’re paying three fifty for gas.”

Obama also doesn’t mention that he voted for the Bush Cheney energy bill.

It was called a piñata of perks and the best energy bill corporations could buy.

Hillary Clinton voted against that bill.

She’s the one who will make the oil companies pay to set up a new strategic energy fund that will cut our dependence on foreign oil .invest in new clean energy, and create five million new jobs.

It’s time for president who takes on the oil companies in real life, not just on TV.

“It was called a piñata of perks and the best energy bill corporations could buy.” What an excellent line and so very true. But Hillary wasn’t satisfied to merely air an ad to counter the OILbama lies, her campaign called upon the OILbama campaign to take down their misleading and factually inaccurate ad.

Axelrod says will not revise Obama oil ad despite Clinton complaints.

“As Senator Obama returns to Pennsylvania today, questions remain on why Senator Obama aired misleading television ads claiming he doesn’t take money from oil companies,” the Clinton campaign said in a statement. “ In response to his continued misleading rhetoric, the Clinton campaign will hold a conference call today to discuss Senator Obama’s troubling pattern of saying one thing and doing another and announce it is airing a new radio ad in response to Obama’s discredited television ad.

And Axelrod’s response? Well, as is typical, he stands behind his message even though it has been discredited by numerous sources. Of course, a little inconvenience called truth has never stood in the way of the OILbama campaign.

“I have a different view of that,” Axelrod said. He said he was right because Obama does not take money from political action committees. “I think it was accurate the way it was,” Axelrod said when I asked if he would be revising the oil ad.

A different view? Do tell, David. You mean a hoodwinking view? A bamboozling view? Or is it just an OILbama view? Because the facts tell a different story. You remember those things, don’t you, David? Facts… those silly little things that truth is made from.

Like this:

Clinton Fights Obama TV with Radio

Corporate contributions are prohibited in federal election campaigns, while the employees of companies can contribute to candidates. And, the Clinton campaign spokesman says: “What Sen. Obama does not tell you, while even though he can not take money from oil companies, which nobody can, he has taken $200,000 from employees of oil companies… Two of his bundlers are top-executives of oil companies.’’

Or perhaps this:

Obama’s Oil Spill

When the Clinton campaign criticized Obama’s ad, calling it “false advertising,” Obama’s campaign quickly noted that he didn’t take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We’d say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company’s or an organization’s individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC’s donations go. But a PAC can give no more than $5,000 per candidate, per election. We’re not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron’s PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

So I guess in OILbamaland, there is good money and there is bad money. Good money is the kind that helps you buy a mansion even if it comes from a jailed slumlord fixer. Whoops, I mean that is bad money. Or is it good money because it helps OILbama? I always get those two mixed up.