Question #2: Oil in 2008 Elections

Yesterday, I asked DUers what they thought the public’s reaction to higher gas prices would be, in terms of the November elections (Your Opinion, Please). I am hoping that DU:GD-P will begin to transition towards discussions of issues that should be of interest and provide reasons to unite as a party. The responses to my question resulted in what I considered one of the more interesting threads on GD-P.

Today, I’d like to do a follow-up on the same topic, that approaches the same issue from the opposite direction. It is a topic I have been thinking about since last week, when I had an interesting phone call from a person who I think has a good grasp of both our nation’s history, and current events. He said that he was under the impression that some of the top oil executives have become concerned in recent months about what an Obama presidency might represent.

It is important to keep in mind that the global economy is based on oil. Everything from the gas that fuels your car, to the oil that is needed to run the US military-industrial complex depends upon access to large quantities of oil. It is the source of hundreds of thousands of petro-chemical products that Americans tend to take for granted in their everyday lives. Indeed, oil has been called "the lifeblood of modern civilization."

The influence of oil on our society has a long history. It replaced coal for fueling the trains that defined American transportation; it was instrumental in advancing the use of automobiles and air travel; it heats millions of homes in the winter season; and the profits from the oil industry has allowed for the buying of many, many politicians over the decades.

The influence of the oil industry on the Bush-Cheney administration is obvious. VP Cheney had secret meetings with "energy executives" that the judicial system ruled are beyond congressional oversight. There are good reasons to believe that the administration’s policies in Iraq and towards Iran have more to do with insuring access to the Middle East’s oil supply than to Iraq’s access to Niger’s yellow cake uranium.

The potential for an Obama administration to work towards changing America’s relationship to oil is, as my friend noted, of growing concern to oil executives. Certainly, they have benefited from their cozy relationship to this administration. They do not feel your pain at the gas pump. As Obama said during the discussion of Senator Clinton’s proposed suspension of the gas tax, history shows the oil company’s would simply manipulate the prices to maintain their huge profit margins.

When Obama speaks about "change," he appears to imply both a change in the government’s relationship with the oil economy, and for citizens to change the way they view consumption. This is evidenced by Obama’s suggesting that Al Gore would play a significant role in his administration.

Thus, my question: how do you think the oil industry might try to influence the 2008 election?

Thank you for your consideration.

H2O Man

Don't see that happening this time around...

:evilgrin:

will definitely try to manipulate public perception by similar tactics this fall. Likewise, they are going to make troop reductions in Iraq and pretend that progress is being made there.

McCain will also attempt to be on the side of the common folk in issues relating to oil.

We know from Woodrow Wilson's writings that Congress has an obligation to inform the public, which is equal to their duty to legislate. And, as noted on page 40 of The Senate Watergate Report, Congress tends to betray this duty. Thus, it is going to be up to people at the grass roots level to bring these issues to the public's attention in the most meaningful of ways.

There are a number of related tactics we can use. As noted yesterday, people should be taking advantage of every opportunity -- at the gas station and in the grocery store -- to initiate discussions on the economy.

More, we can use both Congress and the media to our advantage. During the upcoming months, people should be writing letters to their Representatives and Senators, asking questions about energy policy. The politician's responses provide information to be used in letters-to-the-editor, which is the most read section of most newspapers during campaign season.

We should also be using Al Gore's two most recent books as resources.

Of course they did not come out and say "before the elections" but that is what they were reffering to, now we see they are already making some adjustments....so I figure long about October we will see them make a move....now will America ask questions about the timing? Probably not, they will be to busy filling those tanks.......Crisis over.....

I'm not sure if we have a "Fighting Quaker" today. But I think that there are people in the military who have spoken out against the Bush-Cheney foreign policies.

For those citizens unfamiliar with him, however, we may need to use our modern-day Snidley Whiplash, VP Dick Cheney, to illustrate our points.

But it isn't the end of the world, it's the very thing we should be running on and taking to the American people. Show the pictures of Bush walking hand in hand with the saudis, and then go to shots of windmills and solar farms..........it's time for a leader who isn't in the pocket of big oil. Even my strongest republican friends understand that, and agree with me.

$10 gas will certainly affect spending on other goods........bottled water, soft drinks, designer label clothing..........and higher food prices will change our eating habits.....but we're not like those poor third world folks who are starving.

We need a Democrat in the White House, and we need to move forward instead of looking back to the "good old days".

I agree 100%. Thank you.

round trip by car from Nashville to Orlando is $35 more. $17.50 each way. If you're going on vacation, and you're planning to spend, say $200 a day, you don't have to shift your spending much to compensate for that 35 bucks.

don't get me wrong, I hate giving that money to the oil people as bad as anyone, but we've just as well start thinking long term. Think about all those years the Europeans were paying so much more than us. They shifted to smaller cars, better mass transit, trip planning..........in short, we've never had to make hard choices, and now we will have to. When we realize it's not going to be as difficult as we'd thought, then we can move forward with alternatives.

I try to drive as little as possible. There are weeks when I do not drive at all.

into Iraq, that was a clear signal to big oil they would be engaged by resistance to their dominance. I think the oil interests will be in a disinformation campaign that aligns itself with current ideology. They will push that higher prices are the result of environmentalists stopping refineries and drilling through their talking head surrogates and talk about the so called "free market". They will push the idea it will take years for alternative fuel sources as well as bio fuels creating food shortages and higher prices. Obama needs to stress the need to cut this umbilical cord and hold his ground with factual counters to their arguments. McCain will take a different tack by pretending he is for alternatives while continuing current foreign policy with the argument of fighting terrorism and promoting our "interests" and "protecting" Israel.

Thank you.

save what we've seen in every election past. They will certainly donate to McCain, and likely funnel money (through consulting groups, advertising agencies, and other fronts) into 527 groups and PACs dedicated to taking Obama and other Democratic candidates down. Beyond that? I don't see much. In past, they haven't done much with energy issues during campaign seasons.

I think the real energy war starts December 2008.

I think that they have an ability to influence the way the media covers the election campaign. It seems likely to me that we will see, for example, the retired military analysts on the cable stations making the case that we need to "stay the course" in Iraq for national security.

the finance industry, or the defense industry, or the pharmaceutical industry, or the fast-food industry. The right-wing fiscal-conservative machine certainly provides quite a bit of the backing for the right-wing political noise machine, but this is going to be the type of election where everyone is fighting to their maximum abilities. I don't think the oil industry is going to be particularly influential, except by virtue of the amount of cash it has to pour into RW attack groups. I certainly don't think they're going to be dictating message or setting the terms of the battle; the right wing works because it operates as a cohesive unit.

I still respectfully disagree. First, as noted in the OP, many industries (including the finance industry) are based largely on the oil industry. It is interesting to consider the annual budget of the oil industry in comparision to any government's budget.

More, I think that recent history has shown the influence of oil on elections. Politicians from LBJ to Nixon to the Bushes and Dick Cheney have had rather close associations with the oil industry.

But I certainly can respect that you and others see things differently.

Is it the the oil executives, the speculators, the suppliers, the producers . . . Bush and Cheney . . . ?

We've got to agree on a target. In the meantime there are those associated with environmental advocacy who insist that high prices are good because consumption will drop and we will be forced to alternatives. Hard to tell which interest or combination of interests will get the most support for their 'solutions'.

"positives" from the rise in prices; one example is any increase in car-pooling.

There are also very real "negatives," such as the resulting increase in grocery prices.

My family can get by, but I am aware of the problems that many others face. As a retired social worker, I can think of many individuals and families on limited incomes that will suffer from the rising costs. I think that as democrats, that is a target that we should all agree upon: making sure there really is a social "safety net."

They can't afford to let Obama win.
They will go after Obama like nobody's business.
They do not want to pay higher taxes, and Obama supports a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

My attitude toward the environment has changed drastically over the last dozen years. I don't fly at all anymore and I hardly drive more than once a day. I plan most of my trips to the store by going directly from work instead of going home first. My shopping at the mall days are over, I don't even waste my time driving there anymore.

My gas consumption has dropped significantly and I weatherized my house. I bought a newer, more gas efficent furnace in 1998 to replace the old electric heat pump that the house orignially had. I've bought over $2000 of insulation to help keep the heat in the house and to prevent it from leaking out of the roof. I also totally sealed all cracks around the windows to prevent heat loss in winter.

Energy conservation is not all that hard to do, plus it almost paid for itself.
I feel better about my carbon footprint being smaller and I don't get on anyone's back for not being as eco-friendly as me.
I recycle all garbage, glass, cardboard, and paper, too.

I've been green now for some time and it was not as hard to do as I first thought it would be. My brother and sister have also gotten more green to help the environment and cut down our dependence on foreign oil as well.

Change begins in the home.

Right on target, as always.

Thanks.

At the same time I think they are going to start scrambling to find some new technology, which could be good.

I would very much like to see some sort of a plan on how to get us through this necessary change to renewables. So far I see nothing and frankly it is the biggest issue on my plate. If I cannot feed my kids, heat my house, or get to work.... how can I possibly focus on anything else? Just thinking about it causes massive anxiety and brings tears to my eyes.

So far I have seen nothing from any candidate that gives me any hope on this topic. gas tax holidays? renewables and electric cars 15 years from now? those things mean nothing if we can't survive until then.

We need to change our thinking about our relationship to this planet, as Al Gore has pointed out in his recent books. Until we change that consumer-oriented thinking, no answers will come to us. And no administration is going to be able to institute that change from on high, though Obama's promise to place Gore in a top position has promise. We have to change.

Who fashioned a policy & piece of legislation that nods to all the naysayers, offers 'tax incentives' as a way to placate people that think it is possible to wrangle in BigOil with legislation; and parcel out meme about alternative sources of energy that Cheney & BigOil never had any intention of following up on in that the profit margins simply aren't worth the time of their day. And all while keeping the nuclear energy option mysteriously open which we hear sent aloft every so often like little black balloons. Just waiting for that perfect storm/matrix of price, discomfort & squeeze to come together when every reasoned thought and consideration is tossed out the window on behalf on the New World Order, still, "the oil industry (already has) influence(d) the 2008 election"...

If "an Obama administration('s goal is) to work towards changing America’s relationship to oil"? Then why didn't he start here: H.R. 6

It's easier to understand why dem folks like Landrieu supported it. But to me it seems clearer that Obama, with his eye very-very early some 18 months into his senate seat; and perhaps especially after his loss vis-a-vis a congressional run, was going straight for the palm pumping, game piece setting components of DC too quickly in efforts, very internalized, shrewd efforts to position himself within that framework that ultimately takes America into war, gouges prices, nods to futures & commodities exchanges that finance it all, no, not necessarily for me...

I do find the levels of personal ambition as is found in Barack Obama to be troublesome. Hillary just wants in there because she's been so close-in perhaps it may be suggested. But Barack Obama is ponying up to many of the people and institutions that have been entrenched since the foundation of America and cause things to happen when one, or a group of people think otherwise (I refer you to a piece my sainted brother Willy made me read when it came out in Rolling Stone years back now, but after JFK being shot in Dallas...Dallas, many would conclude not so random a locale after all in response to JFK's thought to hamper BigOil's grip on the American economy) So the handshaking cannot be discounted as much other that political preening on the part of Obama imo.

If it can be asserted, and it can be, that there is/was a Black Jesus; then I do not give but prepare you for: The Black MacBeth. In a world where the relationship has already been sent askew between oil, Detroit, and state/freeway infrastructures that were supposed to have balanced the rest of it keeping commerce flowing.

Ford, this very day; if way too late, announces the discontinuation of many low-MPG models as the infrastructure collapses and BigOil is heard to say, "Fuck Them! They don't have a dog in this fight."

And where people aren't able to understand the importance of crumbling infra...they will neither understand that pavement is made from oil as well. Where Obama bellies up to BigOil, he does so imo cause he knows he *has* to to survive as a politician.

The resultant of that union is yet to be realized as "The wheel is in spin". But something in the pit of my stomach tells me that many Obama supporters are about to have some of their greater lessons in life laid right at their feet. They will then be made to decide in ways quite beyond these simple, popcorn-esque, "He has a nice smile" and "I like him cause I like him" gambits

The Clintons are without ambition? She just wants in because she been there? Oh and of course Bill & Hil would never 'pony up. or pander, their hundred mil + just dropped into their laps because they are such nice people. And the little hissy fit she's been throwing is merely because she's worried about 'we the people' just as they were when he passed NAFTA. Seriously!

Not looking at what Obama *has been* doing. Good job, if I were you I'd back-charge the Obama campaign for such services as yours and are found in the OP above :thumbsup:

Tosh

everyone who runs for the presidency is ambitious. And that can be a good thing, or a bad thing.

I think the post you responded to illustrates the divisions in the party that the republicans will seek to exploit. I do not think they will have much success.

Just as the cons couldn't believe their eyes last week when they lost 3 important elections, they and the oil execs are still not grasping what is going on in this country. People are as fed up as gas tanks are empty. They have probably convinced themselves that the crowds that showed up for Obama in Portland were really there for the band that played first. They probably also think that Obama followers are a cult, and the enthusiasm for him is the result of personality rather than considering what he represents, a turning of the page, or perhaps opening an entirely different book. They have, and will continue to, misread the situation. And just like they and the Clinton have relied on playbooks from the past, their reaction will be what it has always been. Slimey swiftboater Tim Griffin, remember him, has already been hired to do oppo research on Obama. Now they will convince some people, but less than they have in the past because people are now beginning to believe 'their lying eyes' and *'s approval reflect that.

Further, I, predict that there will come a time when it won't just be 'the people' fighting the oil greed. As poster #4 pointed out, rising oil prices will affect everything. Business is going to slide for everyone. Do we seriously think the boards of Shearson-Lehman etc. are going to take this lying down? I see a mighty battle looming as more and more dollars are eaten up by petro needs.

industry depends to some extent on oil, the implications of the current trends are not good. Perhaps as much as in any other area, this is where Obama's call for citizen participation is essential. We are going to have to make changes in our way of life, and not all of them will be easy or comfortable.

Oil has 'fueled' all our world wars and its influence in our lives is without a doubt all encompassing. Fortunes will be lessened when oil becomes less and important. Power is threatened. I don't put ANYTHING past these people. Fortunately, I think Obama and his immediate team, as well as the DEM leadership behind him know the dangers out there and will do their best to thwart the plan... of which I am sure there is one.

They will certainly be behind 527s and other forms of propaganda. They also may attempt more criminal activity which I don't want to give any more energy to by saying or writing it out. I think it has crossed all our minds already.

Obama needs to have such a strong VP that removal of him and replacement by his VP will not stop the ideas and legislation he proposes.

fund a lot of congressional races, so that if Obama wins the election, they can try to keep him from being effective. The democratic party should be focusing on coordinating the presidential and congressional races, rather than the continued in-fighting over the nomination.

;)


As for funding congressional races, I think the Republicans tried that in special elections in Mississippi and Louisiana and Illinois, and lost all three races.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/05/democrats_win_miss_special_ele.html