Do John McCain’s connections to the oil industry concern you?

McCain recently tapped William Timmons to conduct a study in preparation for the presidential transition should he win the election.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1840722,00.html

Timmons is a lobbyist, and he and his company are currently receiving 0k per year from the American Petroleum Institute.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/why-did-mccain-sell-out-t_b_132269.html

More than 20 top McCain advisers and fundraisers have lobbied for the oil industry.
http://mccainsource.com/corruption?id=0014

After McCain flip-flopped on offshore drilling (in May he said increased drilling was a bad idea, in June he was all for it), oil and gas industry executives and employees tripled their donations to his campaign, exceeding million in June.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/why-did-mccain-sell-out-t_b_132269.html

Does it concern you that McCain has such strong connections to the oil industry?

16 Responses to “Do John McCain’s connections to the oil industry concern you?”

  1. Amy L Says:

    Obviously when McCain spoke up in May he forgot to say ‘Mother May I’ and was chastised for taking the "wrong" position. Yeah, that concerns me. I thought the man had more backbone than that.

    That said, if he could keep what his advisers said in mind as he helped America transition away from the "business as usual" policies that helped us get into this mess, that would be appropriate. But if that were the case, he’d be touting their presence instead of trying to play it down.

    I’m more concerned about Palin’s repeated boasts that she’s from a major oil-producing state and we should open the tap wide open, so to speak. She’s not even trying to sugar coat it one little bit. That speaks volumes.

  2. Tomcat Says:

    No, I think it’s a good thing. You see there is thing called reality, and the reality of the situation is that the US consumes about 390 million gallons of gasoline per day. For each gallon of gasoline the federal government receives about 50 cents of tax revenue. That equates to 195 million dollars a day, or around 71 billion dollars a year from gasoline alone. The federal government loves big oil, even Obama does, even if he lies about it to get elected.

  3. frank S Says:

    No. It shows that he has a concern for the nation’s well being.

    Without oil, the nation, indeed the whole world would de-generate back to the middle ages.

  4. jim z Says:

    No but Obama’s connection to Fannie Mae should alarm anyone. Obama has grown in the corrupt Chicago Mafia style politics where he played the game, was buddy buddy with Ayers the terrorist and Write, his racist preacher (which he subjected his children too), and worked for ACORN that has been directly responsible for fraudulent voting and pushing this housing mess on the rest of us. It is much better to have someone who knows a little about the oil business than someone like Obama who has shown no problem in dealing with the corrupt Chicago politics.

  5. Randall E Says:

    No it doesn’t. There should be more offshore drilling. That’s not the reason oil prices skyrocketed though – the reason is the weak dollar.

  6. Not Rep or Dem!! Says:

    NOt as much as Obama’s connections to dirty politics in CHI, the weathermen and an anti-american racist preacher.

    PS- Huffington Post? A liberal blog is your source??

  7. peter.jungmann Says:

    Certainly a lot less than Obama’s links to domestic terrorists, radical anti-american preachers, Islam and radical housing groups that sue banks and help cause financial crisis.

    No. I like oil, I like burning oil in my machines. More oil is better. Cheaper oil is better.

  8. Jeremiah Says:

    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. davem Says:

    Not at all. I think spending less on Arab oil while drilling for more reliable sources in North America is good politics. I doubt that we’ll be free of foreign oil needs in the short term, but drilling now is much better than not drilling at all.

  10. antarcticice Says:

    The recent Palin bash of obama certainly played widely here in the news (Australia) the boo’s she got from the audience as she tried to link Obama to the activist from the 60s was given a very negative play by all the media groups here. Certainly the media here are suggesting McCain is losing ground, so to answer your question I’m not worried about McCain as I don’t think he’s going to be in the job at the end of the day. Although either guy is going to be a vast improvement over the current ElPrezidenta, once you get past the hype and spin of the election.

  11. nothinglikeamomslove Says:

    Absolutely. But then again, I did not need to see all these sites or know all these details to know he is dangerous for everybody. Hello? he is a Republican. LOL That right there tells me all I need to know. 😛

  12. Naked Says:

    Unlike the financial market, where Obama received large sums of money for Fannie Mae, the many oil companies are models of running a successful. Exxon shouldn’t scare anybody. They do not control the price of oil or gas. They do know how to make money and to exploit their reserves. Again, Obama’s connection to failing financial companies and US terrorists should scare you. Obama’s economic adviser was a one time Fannie Mae CEO.

  13. CAPTAIN BEAR Says:

    I am not American, but you do have my sympathies.

  14. jazzfan Says:

    No. No politician is elected in a vacuum and you can easily question Obama’s connections as well. No wait, you can’t or you’re labeled a racist or said to be attacking him unfairly. Whoever is elected president will have to acquire more energy somehow and the easiest means is to tap some of our own resources while we try to transition to renewable sources. That won’t happen overnight but it will happen if we fund the research and use incentives to make it feasible. We need something in the interim since a mass of people thrown out of work due to exploitative carbon trading or other schemes won’t be able to pay the taxes needed to fund this transition.

    Randall is partly correct in that part of the spike in oil prices is due to the dollar being weakened, but it’s our own Fed that weakened it so we can’t complain too loudly. And much of the increase is the result of oil production being so close to the amount demanded, which made profiteering feasible in the first place. Greater supplies would make that impossible and would make the US energy independent for the first time in many decades.

    Amy, what’s wrong with Alaskans wanting to tap the natural resources in their own state? It seems to me somewhat undemocratic to dictate to them on this, akin to the federal government owning such huge chunks of every western state (compared to any state east of the Mississippi) and then putting those areas off-limits.

    Antarcticice, maybe you should watch the speech again. The audience was not booing Palin, they were booing Obama and she didn’t just try to link him to Ayers, she succeeded due to Obama’s own actions. If he had just denounced him as he’s done with so many other past associations, he’d be rid of this problem so it’s curious that this is the one person he won’t throw under the bus.

  15. BB Says:

    No more than the ties that Al Gore has had with Occidental Petroleum.

  16. James E Says:

    Really Dana I would be much more worried about Obamas oil connections and where all those unreported sub $100 donations came from that let him ignore public funding like McCain has had to depend on. To me it smells like big brother has bought himself another pro oil corrupt politician!