“Need I bring up Robert Byrd again?”

Psh. The pull-my-finger joke of the right wing. It just never grows old, does it, Mr. Tea?

That changed and they became pariahs during the Civil Rights movement, and rightfully so, but it is indisputable that the Klan and the Democrats were allied in the south.

Need I bring up Robert Byrd again?

J.

That one tickles me a bit, to steal the words of the inimitable Captain Reynolds. Throughout nearly its entire existence, especially during the heights of its power, the Ku Klux Klan stood solidly with the Democratic party.

In all seriousness, I don’t think you’re worth arguing with.

So why did you bring up Exxon employees and use them to support your position?

But that’s not what Obama said. He said he SUPPORTED the ban and he SUPPORTED the ruling declaring it unconstitutional. He expressed no disagreement with either side.

That’s not flip=flopping, that’s trying to have it both ways. And to hear that from someone with a background in constitutional law, it’s even more egregious.

J.

I’ll be far more interested in seeing how their votes get counted in November… that is, presuming that the lawyers Al Gore sent to Florida with specific instructions on how to disqualify military absentee ballots back in 2000 don’t try to disenfranchise them again.

Oh, and Quaker? According to my calculator, 188 of 82,000 works out to 0.229% — almost three times higher than the 290 of 370,000 (0.0789%) that covers military deployed overseas.

In both cases, I’d agree that the numbers are far, far too small to represent anything — but it’s Oliver who keeps bringing them up and rigging the numbers to support his own position.

Personally, I’d rather debate what the candidates have achieved in the past, what they’re saying and doing now, and what they’ve promised for the future instead of polls and surveys and “who’s taken more money from what people.” Unfortunately, Obama has some weaknesses there — no real record of accomplishments to cite, and a constantly evolving and mutating stance on issues.

My favorite example: he was editor of the Law Review at Harvard and a professor of constitutional law. But he has exactly zero published papers on legal matters. Further, in regards to the Heller case (DC gun banning), he staunchly supported (and still supports) DC’s right to ban guns, AND he supports the Supreme Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional. So we have a legal scholar who supported a policy that he agrees was unconstitutional. The phrase “WTF?” comes to mind.

But if you’d rather hash out precisely who’s gotten more money from whom, and whether or not that’s a good or a bad thing, that’s fine with me. I’ll ignore it most of the time, and point out egregious distortions when I see them and feel like pointing them out.

J.

So according to Jay Tea the ones that do don’t really matter.

Nice… much appreciated.

Really, and what would that be exactly? Do you have examples?

Punch that in your calculator, Mr. Tea.

There’s only one candidate who routinely puts the interests of ExxonMobil ahead of the interests of the rest of the country. Exxon John fits pretty well.

Shorter: “Why yes, I would like to have it both ways, thanks for asking!”

Very well. When you actually look at the numbers, donation by troops deployed overseas run far in favor of Obama. Your standard of evidence. Deal with it.

If the McCain/Exxon 2008 campaign wants to try that line of attack, it might be relevant and we’ll discuss it then. But I’m not exactly sure McCain wants to tie himself to the extreme anti-Worker Bush Administration labor record.

And you should try to make the Obamafia label stick. After all, Obama is targeting specific market advertising against McCain that ties him to closed local factories and local jobs lost to overseas. Good luck with that.

But that’s just a nice little diversion, midder. Care to “debunk” my take on the military numbers of which Oliver is so damned proud of?

J.

7. Exxon PAC PLUS individual donor contributions give Exxon John $11 for every $7 Obama gets from Exxon.

1. Rank and file employees do not necessarily donate according to which candidate will help their employer the most. Employees and ownership whose multi-million dollar compensation packages are tied into short-term profitability might be such a bellweather, but you don’t try to make that argument.

2. Donations from Exxon would better be represented by individual donations PLUS donations from Exxon PAC.

3. Donations from Exxon PAC would be BEST representative of the Exxon corporation

4. Donations to the RNC and the DNC might also be relevant. McCain will be counting on the RNC to fill some of the money gap from his public financing caps if he choses to honor the caps in the first place.

5. McCain has received 100% of Exxon PAC’s donations to major party presidential campaign donations. Obama has taken nothing.

6. THe RNC has received 300 times more donations from Exxon PAC and Exxon employees than the DNC.
So yes, it ruly is Exxon John.

Zython: I really, really, really hate it when I misplace a decimal point. I’m exceptionally good at doing arithmetic, algebra, and some geometry in my head (often faster than most people can use calculators), but for some damned reason I tend to slip a place or two whenever I deal with decimals. I’m gonna double-check myself using a calculator… 292 of 370,000…

0.0791891…, with the 891 repeating. So yeah, 0.08$, which yeah, is exactly one decimal point off from being what I said and precisely what you said. Dammit, I did it again. The rest holds up, though, the roughly 1 in 12,500.

Thanks for the correction, Zython. I shoulda said “less than a tenth of a percent.” Doesn’t have quite the rhetorical flourish of my original statement, but it has the advantage of being accurate.

I HATE it when I do that…

That out of the way, I’m sticking with my original point: yes, Obama collected significantly more money and donations from overseas military personnel than McCain. But Republicans overall got more donations and more money from that group, which even when all is counted is a very, very, very insignificant percentage of the overall whole and any kind of conclusions drawn about that whole from this tiny sampling is utterly meaningless.

Unless, of course, you’re desperate for some kind of talking point…

J.

Actually, that would be 8% of 1%.

And then you used those slender numbers that you “just looked up” to try to make a case that John McCain is NOT in the pocket of ExxonMobil.

So which is it, Mr. Tea? Sample too small? Or sample is significant? Whichever you choose applies to both Exxon and the overseas military. If you try to treat them differently, that’s just proo…sorry…more proof that you’ll say anything to support your phony partisan position.

In fact, I dedicated a whole posting to the topic at Wizbang. The total number of military overseas who donated over $200 totaled over 292 total — 140 to Democrats, 152 to Republicans. The totals donated to Democrats was $63,882; to Republicans, $76,027.

Oh, and that 292 total donors? That’s out of about 370,000 total US troops stationed overseas.

That means this story is based on a pool of just under 0.08%, or less than one percent OF ONE PERCENT. Roughly one out of every 12,500.

Go to Open Secrets and look at the numbers yourself. It’s there if you’re willing (and able) to do some basic math. Things like adding, dividing, calculating percentages…

Even then, the Republicans got just over half of the total number and amount of donations.

Granted, that includes Ron Paul…

J.