Mark A wrote:
> (CNN) — The Democratic National Committee’s new campaign to spotlight John
> McCain’s connection to big oil and highlight McCain oil industry
> contributors like Exxon ran into some inconvenient news this week when a new
> report revealed the Republican isn’t the oil giant’s favorite candidate.
>
> An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found Barack Obama has
> received more money from Exxon’s employees, including top executives, than
> John McCain.
>
> And the company isn’t the only energy behemoth to favor the presumptive
> Democratic nominee: Chevron and BP executives and workers have also sent
> more money to the Illinois senator than to his fall rival.

A few more details to accompany the information above:

McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver
in the oil and gas industry, though -- Koch Industries, Valero,
Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list
goes on. McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. -- $91,000
to Obama's $8,000 -- which has gotten some attention. And,
overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money
from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to
about $394,000.

And the full story is available here from the source:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...ward-mcca.html

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:29:01 +0000, Lucius Accius wrote:

> McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money
> from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to
> about $394,000.

No wonder Obama has started to talk about drilling.

Mark A wrote:
> "Lucius Accius" <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote in message
> news:hzcnk.170302$gc5.121797@pd7urf2no...
>> A few more details to accompany the information above:
>>
>> McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver
>> in the oil and gas industry, though -- Koch Industries, Valero,
>> Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list
>> goes on. McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. -- $91,000
>> to Obama's $8,000 -- which has gotten some attention. And,
>> overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money
>> from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to
>> about $394,000.
>
> With the possible exception of ConocoPhillips, those are not big oil.
>
> Actually, since these contributions are from employees (including hourly
> workers), not the companies themselves, the contributions reflect the area
> of the country they are located in more than anything to do with oil.
> Employees are working in Texas and Oklahoma (where ConocoPhillips has a very
> large number of employees) are more likely to vote Republican regardless of
> what industry they work in.
>
> The oil that is produced, the lower the price of oil, so there is no real
> correlation between what is in the best interests of the oil companies and
> presidential policy.
>
> It is clear from the article that the top executives of the big oil
> companies (Exxon, BP, Chevron) favor Obama in terms of their political
> contributions,and that is a fact Jack.

Actually, it's not. You can do the searches and look at
the raw data here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.php

Here's the list of McCain's Exxon contributors:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/se...K&amt=a&sort=N

You'll note that there are 33 contributors giving a total
of $41,016, for an average contribution of $1242.91. You'll
note that there are quite a few executives in the list.

Here's the list of Obama's Exxon contributors:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/se...K&amt=a&sort=A

51 contributors giving $43,913, for an average of $861.04.
You'll see many fewer executives on this list.

Interestingly, attorney Stephen Kitchen donated to both.
$2300 to Obama and $4600 to McCain.

I'll leave BP and Chevron as exercises for the reader.

In article <_mlnk.68976$nD.30254@pd7urf1no>,
Lucius Accius <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote:

> Mark A wrote:
> > "Lucius Accius" <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote in message
> > news:hzcnk.170302$gc5.121797@pd7urf2no...
> >> A few more details to accompany the information above:
> >>
> >> McCain leads the money race with nearly every other top giver
> >> in the oil and gas industry, though -- Koch Industries, Valero,
> >> Marathon Oil, Occidental Petroleum, ConocoPhillips, the list
> >> goes on. McCain also has a big edge with Hess Corp. -- $91,000
> >> to Obama's $8,000 -- which has gotten some attention. And,
> >> overall, McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money
> >> from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to
> >> about $394,000.
> >
> > With the possible exception of ConocoPhillips, those are not big oil.
> >
> > Actually, since these contributions are from employees (including hourly
> > workers), not the companies themselves, the contributions reflect the area
> > of the country they are located in more than anything to do with oil.
> > Employees are working in Texas and Oklahoma (where ConocoPhillips has a
> > very
> > large number of employees) are more likely to vote Republican regardless of
> > what industry they work in.
> >
> > The oil that is produced, the lower the price of oil, so there is no real
> > correlation between what is in the best interests of the oil companies and
> > presidential policy.
> >
> > It is clear from the article that the top executives of the big oil
> > companies (Exxon, BP, Chevron) favor Obama in terms of their political
> > contributions,and that is a fact Jack.
>
> Actually, it's not. You can do the searches and look at
> the raw data here:
>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.php
>
> Here's the list of McCain's Exxon contributors:
>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/se...me=&employ=exx
> on&state=%28all%29&zip=&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=N
>
> You'll note that there are 33 contributors giving a total
> of $41,016, for an average contribution of $1242.91. You'll
> note that there are quite a few executives in the list.
>
> Here's the list of Obama's Exxon contributors:
>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/se...me=&employ=exx
> on&state=%28all%29&zip=&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A
>
> 51 contributors giving $43,913, for an average of $861.04.
> You'll see many fewer executives on this list.
>
> Interestingly, attorney Stephen Kitchen donated to both.
> $2300 to Obama and $4600 to McCain.
>
> I'll leave BP and Chevron as exercises for the reader.

Which one gets the most from lawyers? Big labor unions?
--

"Mark A" <xxxxxxx@xxxxxx.com> wrote in message
news:Krmnk.7505$kh2.5715@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> "Lucius Accius" <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote in message
> news:_mlnk.68976$nD.30254@pd7urf1no...
>> Actually, it's not. You can do the searches and look at
>> the raw data here:
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.php
>>
>> Here's the list of McCain's Exxon contributors:
>>
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/se...K&amt=a&sort=N
>>
>> You'll note that there are 33 contributors giving a total
>> of $41,016, for an average contribution of $1242.91. You'll
>> note that there are quite a few executives in the list.
>
> Your analysis is a bunch of half-truths and lies. Overall, the top
> executives of Exxon, BP, and Chevron gave more money to Obama. The exact
> title of the article on OpenSecrets.org website is "Oil Industry Leans
> Toward McCain, But Big Producers Favor Obama". I think the author of the
> article understands the facts better than you do.
>
> The theory that the big beneficiary of offshore/Alaska drilling is oil
> companies is wrong. The main beneficiary is the US Treasury (American
> public) because the majority of the money (taking into account initial
> investment, expenses, and taxes paid by oil companies) goes to the US
> Government who owns the land. Not to mention the fact that if there was
> more oil supply the price of oil will decline.
>


I think you should be very quiet about this until you as well informed as
Lucius. Or, until you reach the age of 18. Whichever comes first.

Mark A wrote:
> "Lucius Accius" <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote in message
> news:_mlnk.68976$nD.30254@pd7urf1no...
>> Actually, it's not. You can do the searches and look at
>> the raw data here:
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search_donor.php
>>
>> Here's the list of McCain's Exxon contributors:
>>
>>
>> http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/se...K&amt=a&sort=N
>>
>> You'll note that there are 33 contributors giving a total
>> of $41,016, for an average contribution of $1242.91. You'll
>> note that there are quite a few executives in the list.
>
> Your analysis is a bunch of half-truths and lies. Overall, the top
> executives of Exxon, BP, and Chevron gave more money to Obama. The exact
> title of the article on OpenSecrets.org website is "Oil Industry Leans
> Toward McCain, But Big Producers Favor Obama". I think the author of the
> article understands the facts better than you do.

Nonsense. Spin the words of the story how you like, but it's
obvious from a quick perusal of the raw data that top executives
of Exxon gave more money to McCain, and lower level employees gave
more money to Obama.

Here are McCain's executive contributors:

JENKINS, WILL EXECUTIVE $2,300
KRALL, MICHAEL W VICE PRESIDENT OF DRILL $1,000
MOELLER, THOMAS REFINING DIRECTOR $2,300
NELSON, RALPH DAN EXECUTIVE $1,500
PRYOR, KATHERINE EXECU $2,300
ROUSE, JAMES JOHN VICE PRESIDENT $2,300
WEED, GARY VICE-PRESIDENT $2,300
THOMPSON, JON PREsident $500
------
$14,500

And here are Obama's:

BADERSCHNEIDER, JEAN VP $2,000
FLEMING, ALTON treasurer $2,300
HARNEY, BRIAN M planning executive $500
MCELVY, GERALD W PRESIDENT $600
SARGENT, ALEC EXECUTIVE $2,300
------
$4,700

I had to do a bit of googling to find the positions of several
of the contributors. The ones that I obtained that way are
listed in lowercase.

Sure looks to me like McCain's take from Exxon executives was
triple that of Obama's.

> The theory that the big beneficiary of offshore/Alaska drilling is oil
> companies is wrong. The main beneficiary is the US Treasury (American
> public) because the majority of the money (taking into account initial
> investment, expenses, and taxes paid by oil companies) goes to the US
> Government who owns the land. Not to mention the fact that if there was more
> oil supply the price of oil will decline.

I'd like to see you back up the claim that most of the money is
going to the US Treasury. I think Exxon's record profits would
discount that.

And if anyone wants to see the numbers from the opensecrets site
consolidated by contributor, here they are (you're welcome to
visit the site to verify the numbers). First McCain:

ALBA, CHRIS GEOLOGIST $1,000
ASZMAN, MICHAEL J MANAGER $250
BOSS, JOANN M CHEMICAL EN $1,500
CAINE, GREGORY ENGINEER $250
CANTER, CHARLES RETIRED $1,000
CURRAN-WESCOTT, SHARON RETIRED $2,300
DANKWORTH, DAVID MANAGER $200
DENEKE, PAUL ENGINEER $300
DENTON, ROBERT ENGINEER $250
FITZGERALD, CURTIS M PENSION FUN $1,000
GOODWIN, PETER ATTORNEY $1,000
HACKER, JAMES MANAGER $801
JENKINS, WILL EXECUTIVE $2,300
KITCHEN, STEPHEN E ATTORNEY $6,900
KRALL, MICHAEL W VICE PRESIDENT OF DRILL $1,000
KRENIK, KEVIN L GEOLOGIST $500
MCGILL, DANIEL W TAX MANAGER $500
MOELLER, THOMAS REFINING DIRECTOR $2,300
MURPHY, KEVIN ADVISOR $250
NELSON, RALPH DAN EXECUTIVE $1,500
PARSONS, JAMES ATTORNEY $2,300
PRYOR, KATHERINE EXECU $2,300
ROUSE, JAMES JOHN VICE PRESIDENT $2,300
RUBLE, DAVID BUSINESS ADVISOR $1,000
SCHMALZ, KARL TAX ATTORNEY $500
SETHNA, PAUL ACCOUNTING MANAGER $1,000
SOWERS, CHRIS SYSTEMS ENGINEER $215
STIRRETT, DAVID D ENGINEER $1,000
THOMPSON, JON PRE $500
VERONA, EDWARD S PUBLIC AFFAI $1,500
WEED, GARY VICE-PRESIDENT $2,300
WITT, JOSEPH ENGINEER $500
YAHN, DAVID OPERATIONS MANA $500

And now Obama:

ANDERSON, KUMARI L ENGINEER $500
BADERSCHNEIDER, JEAN VP $2,000
BAILEY, MIRANDA-LIN LAWYER $500
BASS, FREDA WILKERSON FINANCIAL M $2,300
BATTY, JUDITH N ATTORNEY $2,300
BIELENBERG, PATRICIA RESEARCHER $250
BLOCH, ROGER GEOLOGIST $250
BROWNING, PAUL mgr intl crude $2,300
BUFORD, DEENA L PHYSICIAN $2,300
BURKE, RITA FINANCIAL MANAGER $250
CARRETHERS, MILDRED MANAGER $500
CHARLES-FIELDS, SYBIL REPLENISHMENT PLANN $250
CLENDENEN, WILLIAM research planner $2,300
DAY, DENISE GLOBAL TRAINING ADVISOR $1,000
FARENBACK-BRATEMAN, JEFFREY RESEARCH & ENGINEERING C $500
FARIELLO, THERESA ATTORNEY $500
FISCHL, HANS GEOTECHNICIAN $250
FLEMING, ALTON treasurer $2,300
GOLDBERG, JOSH COMMUNICATIONS ADVISOR $250
GORDON, TANYA PLANNING MANAGER $250
GRAHAM, ED ENGINEER $250
HAND, CLAIRE ATTORNEY $500
HARNEY, BRIAN M planning executive $500
HENRICHS, JEFF ANALYST $563
HIGGINS, MICHAEL MANAGER $250
HILLIARD, ALBERT $250
JACKSON, LORIE PUBLIC AFFA $2,000
JANSSEN, JUDITH ATTORNEY $500
JONES-DARVILLE, CAROLYN NA PAYABLES OPERATIONS M $250
KENNEY, GREGORY ATTORNEY $1,500
KING, DEBRA D MANAGER $500
KITCHEN, STEPHEN E ATTORNEY $2,300
LEE, JOANN ATTORNEY $1,000
LYONS, BRENDA ACCOUNTANT $550
MADDEN, MARLA PROJECT MANAGER $250
MCELVY, GERALD W PRESIDENT $600
MCGOWAN, PATRICE SHIFT SUPERVISOR $400
MOORE, CARLETTE ATTORNEY $450
NORTON, VICKY GEOLOGIST $250
O'CONNOR, THOMAS ENGINEER $500
RICHARDSON, DARNELL SR RACKMAN $-1,800
ROY, RANDALL ENGINEER $250
RUNNER, STEVEN ATTORNEY $200
SARGENT, ALEC EXECUTIVE $2,300
SPARTZ, JANET ACCOUNTANT $250
SWEET, MICHAEL GEOLOGIST $250
TAYLOR, JAMES GENERAL MANAGER $2,300
UZODIKE, CHUKWUELOKA PROCUREMENT SERVICES $2,300
WALDROP, JASON ENGINEER $250
WALTER, TOM ENGINEER $1,500
WILLIAMS, JACINTA ENGINEER $1,700

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
newsan.2008.08.09.13.27.56.281041@e86.GTS...
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:29:01 +0000, Lucius Accius wrote:
>
>> McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money
>> from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to
>> about $394,000.
>
> No wonder Obama has started to talk about drilling.
>
And that $394,000 correlates very closely with a phenomenon called "hedging
your
bets", IMHO

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:59:41 -0400, tak wrote:

>
> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@e86.GTS> wrote in message
> newsan.2008.08.09.13.27.56.281041@e86.GTS...
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:29:01 +0000, Lucius Accius wrote:
>>
>>> McCain's campaign has gotten three times more money
>>> from the industry than Obama's has -- $1.3 million compared to
>>> about $394,000.
>>
>> No wonder Obama has started to talk about drilling.
>>
> And that $394,000 correlates very closely with a phenomenon called "hedging
> your
> bets", IMHO

Where's the money coming from? He said he wasn't going to take 'public'
funding, but those numbers are hardly anywhere near what he's spending.

Mark A wrote:
> "Lucius Accius" <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote in message
> news:%monk.171884$gc5.58415@pd7urf2no...
>> Nonsense. Spin the words of the story how you like, but it's
>> obvious from a quick perusal of the raw data that top executives
>> of Exxon gave more money to McCain, and lower level employees gave
>> more money to Obama.
>>
>> Here are McCain's executive contributors:
>>
>> JENKINS, WILL EXECUTIVE $2,300
>> KRALL, MICHAEL W VICE PRESIDENT OF DRILL $1,000
>> MOELLER, THOMAS REFINING DIRECTOR $2,300
>> NELSON, RALPH DAN EXECUTIVE $1,500
>> PRYOR, KATHERINE EXECU $2,300
>> ROUSE, JAMES JOHN VICE PRESIDENT $2,300
>> WEED, GARY VICE-PRESIDENT $2,300
>> THOMPSON, JON PREsident $500
>> ------
>> $14,500
>>
>> And here are Obama's:
>>
>> BADERSCHNEIDER, JEAN VP $2,000
>> FLEMING, ALTON treasurer $2,300
>> HARNEY, BRIAN M planning executive $500
>> MCELVY, GERALD W PRESIDENT $600
>> SARGENT, ALEC EXECUTIVE $2,300
>> ------
>> $4,700
>
>
> It seems amazing that you came to a different conclusion than the
> non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics at http://www.opensecrets.org

I don't think I did. I just went back and reread the article
and they said nothing about executives at all. They refer only
to oil industry "employees". You're trying to spin the article
in a misleading way. The author has several responses in the
reader comment section in which he emphasizes that the numbers
he cites includes all employees, not merely executives.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...ward-mcca.html

The "big producers" of the headline refers to the biggest oil
companies: Exxon, Chevron, and BP as opposed to the smaller
oil producers which favored McCain. "big producers" does not
mean "top executives".

> But given that you have a political agenda and have only spent a few hours
> on this, I guess it is not so amazing after all.

And you have no agenda? I'd say your agenda is causing you to
read things into the article that simply aren't there. When
information validates your preconceived notions, that is when
it is most important to maintain a sense of skepticism, because
it's all too easy to get sucked into believing something false
if it validates your beliefs. Not that there's anything false
in the article. It all seems accurate to me. You're just
reading more into than is actually presented.

And, "a few minutes" is more accurate than "a few hours". The
contributor information is readily available on the website.
I just grabbed it, consolidated multiple donations from single
individuals, and googled a couple people to find their job.

> Furthermore, I don't think you have a good understanding of who the top
> executives at Exxon really are. A Director level is typically middle
> management with maybe 25-30 employees reporting to him/her on average (in
> some cases much less). When that article said top executives, they are
> talking about the top people in the company, probably no more than the 25
> top executives.

At companies I've worked for, directors were considered
executive level employees, at least as far as SEC disclosure
requirements were concerned. But sure, if you think that
Exxon's Refining Director for Europe, Middle East and Africa
is a middle manager responsible for 25-30 employees, we can
omit him from the list.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Europe-Eng...ch_Moeller.asp

> Another ridiculous listing you had is the following:
>
> PRYOR, KATHERINE MRS, GREAT FALLS,VA 22066, EXXON MOBILE CHEMICAL
> COMPANY/EXECU
>
> EXECU??? She was probably an executive secretary. This site lists her
> occupation as a homemaker:
> http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/n...name=Katherine
> The Exxon Executives do not live or work in Virginia or Wash DC.

On the disclosure form available from the FEC, she's listed
as "EXECUTIVE" employed by "EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL COMPANY":

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?28991305867

That may actually be the position of her husband Stephen Pryor:

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?25990261766
http://www.lafayette.edu/news.php/view/11863

But sure, let's omit spouses of executives from the list as
well. With those two gone, that drops McCain's total to
$9,900, only double Obama's total, rather than triple.

> I am sure the rest of your analysis is equally suspect, but I don't have the
> time to waste analyzing every one of your claims. Why don't you confront the
> author of the article with your analysis and see if they retract their
> story.

There's nothing he needs to retract. As far as I can tell
the article was completely accurate. I have minor quibbles
with some of his wording since it can obviously lead to
misunderstanding by some, but it's not inaccurate.

Mark A wrote:
> "Lucius Accius" <_nospam_@_nospam_._org_> wrote in message
> news:dMsnk.172148$gc5.32461@pd7urf2no...
>> I don't think I did. I just went back and reread the article
>> and they said nothing about executives at all. They refer only
>> to oil industry "employees". You're trying to spin the article
>> in a misleading way. The author has several responses in the
>> reader comment section in which he emphasizes that the numbers
>> he cites includes all employees, not merely executives.
>
> Here is the article I quoted from CNN. If you think their claims are wrong
> about exectives, maybe you should contact them for an explanation or
> retraction. I assume that CNN has done their homework of the details in the
> report, but I don't know for sure:
>
> "(CNN) - The Democratic National Committee's new campaign to spotlight John
> McCain's connection to big oil and highlight McCain oil industry
> contributors like Exxon ran into some inconvenient news this week when a new
> report revealed the Republican isn't the oil giant's favorite candidate.
>
> An analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics found Barack Obama has
> received more money from Exxon's employees, including top executives, than
> John McCain."
>
> NOTICE that they say "top executives".

No. They say "employees, including top executives". When you total
all employee contributions (including top executive contributions) to
Obama, that number exceeds the total of all employee contributions
(including top executive contributions) to McCain. But if you total
only top executive contributions, then McCain comes out ahead at least
two to one. Admittedly, CNN's wording is a bit ambiguous. I suppose
that it could be read as "Barack Obama has received more money from
Exxon's employees than John McCain, and has also received more money
from Exxon's top executives than John McCain" but that's a bit of a
stretch. And the original CRP report is less ambiguous. And the raw
data is not ambiguous at all.

>> At companies I've worked for, directors were considered
>> executive level employees, at least as far as SEC disclosure
>> requirements were concerned. But sure, if you think that
>> Exxon's Refining Director for Europe, Middle East and Africa
>> is a middle manager responsible for 25-30 employees, we can
>> omit him from the list.
>
> You are confusing a Director who sits on the board of Directors (who are not
> necessarily employees), with the title of Director.

No, at the company I worked for the Director of Engineering (and I
assume other directors as well, but I could be wrong) was considered
an executive at least as far as the SEC was concerned when it came
to disclosure information. He was required to report all stock
transactions just like the other executives of the company.

> In most companies you
> have non-management employees, 1st line managers, directors (2nd line),
> senior directors (3rd line), etc, etc, etc. In this particular case, the
> title was Director of Drilling, so we know for certain that he does not sit
> on the Exxon Board of Directors. There are probably many, many Directors in
> the Drilling Dept and they report to many, many other mangers and executives
> up the chain.
>
> In the case of oil companies, who do not drill their own wells (they hire
> oil drilling companies to that), a Director of Drilling (probably one of
> many such Directors of Drilling around the world) may not even have 10
> employees working for him.

His actual title turned out to be "Refining Director for Europe,
Middle East and Africa", and a bit more googling reveals that he is
"manager of ExxonMobil refining for all of Europe, the Middle East
and Africa." My guess is that he has more than 10 employees working
for him. But it doesn't matter. We've excluded him from the list at
your request.

> You also made a "mistake" by assuming the (truncated) title EXECU (Katherine
> Pryor) was a "top executive" of Exxon, when it in fact she was most likely
> an Executive Secretary (her previous job was listed as homemaker).

It never actually occurred to me that she might be an Executive
Secretary. I saw the "EXECU" and the size of her contribution (the
maximum of $2,300) and assumed that EXECU was a truncated EXECUTIVE.
I should have checked, but it didn't occur to me to do so. As has
been wisely observed, the most dangerous assumptions are the ones we
don't know we're making. But in this case it turns out that she is
not an executive secretary, she is the wife of (or perhaps daughter of,
or sister of, or someone who just coincidentally has the same last name
and address as) an Exxon president. And, just as with the Refining
Director, I've pulled her from the list of McCain executive donors.
And yet, he's still received twice as much as Obama from Exxon
executives.

> These are just examples of why I said your seem to have an agenda that is
> distorting the facts. In my case, I merely quoted CNN, word for word.

No, you selectively quoted that part of the CNN story that supported
your political agenda, without mentioning that it was merely an excerpt
of a longer article, or providing a link so that others could get the
full story. Here's the link that you didn't provide, by the way:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...l-favor-obama/

My initial reply was not much more than an excerpt from the original
CRP report to provide more context and a link to the full report for
those who wanted to know more. You then responded with this:

It is clear from the article that the top executives of the big
oil companies (Exxon, BP, Chevron) favor Obama in terms of their
political contributions,and that is a fact Jack.

when in fact that is not clear at all from the article. If one's
political agenda drives one to do so, one could conceivably twist an
ambiguous statement in the CNN article in that direction, but it's
certainly neither clear nor a fact. Jack.

Even if one did get the idea from that statement that Exxon executives
favored Obama, shouldn't that raise immediate alarm bells? If I had
read that, or contrarily, that Sierra Club executives favored McCain, my
immediate response would be "That doesn't sound right! Did I read that
right? That makes no sense; why would they support him? Let me dig
into this before I go spouting off about it." At the very least, I'd
want to try to learn more about the motivations behind that support so I
could understand just what's going on.