Barack Obama in Fannie Mae’s Pocket

Fri 19 Sep 2008

Barack Obama in Fannie Mae’s Pocket

Posted by Jack Gamble - Man Overboard under Babeled, Current Events, Politics, Society

I got a lil change in my pocket goin ching-a-ling-a-ling…

So who in Washington has reaped the most benefit from the government’s ignorance towards Fannie Mae over the past few years? I think the facts might amaze you. Let’s look at the top three politicians who received campaign funds from the now tax payer-financed Fannie Mae:

Dodd, Christopher Dem, CT $165,400
Obama, Barack Dem, Ill $126,349
Kerry, John Dem, Ma $111,000

Provided by OpenSecrets.org

Behold, the party that will bring about “change.” Change paid for by our hard earned tax dollars and vanishing retirement investments.

So the next time you hear Barack Obama claim to “champion the working man” or “take on Wall Street,” ask him where he got the money for those “Yes We Can” posters.

~Man Overboard

About the Author

Jack Gamble - Man Overboard

A former Commercial Fisherman turned Nuclear Engineer. His mouth is matched in size only by his ego. He has earned the surname Man Overboard through his nautical roots and propensity towards overreaction. "Moderation is a fabricated complimentary term derived by those lacking the assertive nature and courage required to acheive greatness." ~Man Overboard

23 Responses to “ Barack Obama in Fannie Mae’s Pocket ”

Comments:

Andrew Blanco says:
September 20th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The above list was compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Is the above list True or False…

VERDICT:

Partially true, but misleading. Donations don’t come from companies. The above list of employee contributions puts Obama 2nd, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.

The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from “directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

Explaining the difference, the Center for Responsive Politics said on its Web site that it does not include members of the board of directors because they could serve on boards of various companies. Their contributions are listed along with other employees of the companies they work for. And the center says lobbyists usually represent multiple clients as well, so their contributions are listed under their lobbying firms — except in-house lobbyists, who are included in the center’s list.
(CNN)
Will Gundabar says:
September 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Who hired Johnson for his campaign?

Who has raised almost three times as much money as his competitor, and yet is in a dead heat with his competitor?

Do you want a guy who has totally mismanaged the financial end of his campaign “managing” our economy?
Jason Morgan says:
September 21st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
No, not really. That’s a good point.
Andrew Blanco says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
Will,

I don’t know as much as you so can you explain how Obama has mismanaged the financial end of his campaign?

And also explain why the amount of money a candidate raises should be the primary indicator of how well they do in the polls. I personally think there are too many other factors involved that influence the polls.
Greg Molyneux says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Fund raising should not be a total indicator of poll success, just look at Ron Paul, he raised a ton of money with the strength of the Internet. His “money bombs” were enormous successes. Too bad it did not propel him in his quest for the White House.
Andrew Blanco says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
But it did propel the creation of Paulville…
Greg Molyneux says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Here it is, right from the home page.

The goal of Paulville.org it to establish gated communities containing 100% Ron Paul supporters and or people that live by the ideals of freedom and liberty.

The process is forming a co-op of people buying shares in the community and these people would be granted land use at a minimum of 1 acre per share, for as long as they homesteaded the land. The community would be privately held by the co-op to establish private property for the general community thus preserving the community is 100% freedom and liberty lovers. The community votes on all community efforts, such as utilities etc. However no one is forced to consume these utilities and or pay for them, AKA people can be off grid on their share of land. This is in line with the ideals that you’re free to live your life the way you want and not be forced to do or pay for other people’s life styles you may not agree with.

These communities are not for the faint at heard they will start as undeveloped land in non city locals, as this is the way to secure large tracts of land needed for these efforts.

However the goal is a minimal financial outlay of around $500 per share to establish this community.

If you’re interested and willing to attempt to literally change the world one community at a time then please Join us if your interested.
Jonathan Carr says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Andrew, how can funds raised not be a direct reflection on how a candidate does in the polls?

Funds raised are used for purchasing advertising mediums (internet, commercials, etc.) to deliver a message to voters. The more advertising medium bought, the more people see the intended message and are influenced…a direct correlation between money and polls.

There is a reason Obama hosted a celebrity fundraiser for his campaign after the Palin effect took effect. He used those millions of dollars to do exactly what I said in the previous paragraph and evened out the poll numbers.
Jack Gamble - Man Overboard says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:32 am
One easy way that funds raised does not equal success in the polls is when you spend your time at a $2500/plate dinner with the hollywood liberal elite while your oponent campaigns in rural Ohio.

If you expect the working man to beleive your looking out for him then you can start by spending a day in the political trenches instead of hiding in your LA stronghold singing the change song to a bunch of rich nuts who live in a fantasy world.
Jason Morgan says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:42 am
I think Will was more speakig on the management of said compaign funds rather than the total amount raised. I think the point was that if Obama can’t manage a several million dollar campaign budget, how can he managed a 3 trillion budget?
Andrew Blanco says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
Will has a great point. But I still don’t know enough facts to convince me that Obama actually mismanaged his campaign funds.

Jon, I understand the marketing formula, I just think there are a lot of other factors that can effect how a given individual reacts to an advertisement. We all know media has a hypnotic influence, and even if we can pretty much predict in what direction people will be influenced, there will always be events that blow up the best plans that money can buy.
Andrew Blanco says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 am
Example: Sarah Palin being chose as VP.

I’m sorry, but no matter how well Obama spent his money, there was nothing that could stop the poll jump from Palin. It was a great political decision exactly because it didn’t cost much money. And, it was sensational enough to get hours and hours of free press coverage for two weeks.
Jonathan Carr says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I like Will’s point of Obama raising 3 times the campaign funds as his competitor and being in a dead heat. Either Obama mismanaged his funds or McCain has proved that he can do more with less. Either way…advantage to McCain for the sake of this argument.

As soon as Palin was announced as the VP, the Obama campaign hired and deployed 30 lawyers to Alaska for the single purpose of finding dirt on her. That require$ a lot of money. Would you say that money was well spent or mismanaged?

And on another note, didn’t Obama say he was not going to be this type of politician? What a liar!
Greg Molyneux says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
This argument that the biggest fundraiser does the best in the polls is completely flawed. Again, I will refer to the point I made about Ron Paul earlier. Check out the info…

By the thousands, Paul’s fervent followers donated $19.95 million to the “Ron Paul Revolution.” He spent $17.75 million, and at year’s end, had $7.8 million cash on hand, making him the only Republican candidate to increase his fundraising totals in every quarter of 2007. According to his website, Paul’s Paulunteers have contributed another $4.1 million this month to…

fuel the strict constitutionalist’s travels and advertising campaign.

Compare that impressive financial success with, say, ex-candidate Rudy Giuliani, who raised only $14.4 million from Oct. 1 to Dec. 31 and spent $18.2 million.

Or the departed Fred Thompson, who collected $8.9 million and spent $13.9 million.

Or even the newly-minted Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain, who raked in only $9.9 million, spent $10.5 million and had only $2.9 million cash in hand. Of course, McCain’s string of primary victories in January will have boosted his financial fortunes. Everybody loves a winner.

It is not money per se that drives the polls, it is media attention. Sure we may think the media is biased, untruthful, and often times corrupt, malicious, and agenda driven in their reporting; nevertheless the media has a bigger impact than anything. This is why the Palin choice was indeed a home run. It is a result of the immense news coverage this story received that drove McCain’s meteoric ascension in the polls.

Plain and simple, the GOP was very smart and went for the sexier story - one that was worth more than money.
Andrew Blanco says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
And need I mention the current financial crisis which is being covered 24/7 on all the major news networks…Free coverage of an issue that can either make or break a candidate, depending on their party and the particulars of their platform.

Obama didn’t have to pay any money for his recent poll bump. Rather, he can thank McCain for being the incumbent to an administration whose 8 year presence is being associated with the financial crisis.
Andrew Blanco says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
And once again, is there a site or accessible document that has detailed information to prove that one candidate is managing their funds better than another? If there isn’t than we should just stop talking about this, cause its all conjecture.
Jonathan Carr says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
You are correct. Money raised is not the only factor in poll success. It is a combination of that plus how you spend it along with general campaign strategy. On paper, Paul obviously did well raising money but failed to spend it correctly and implement a winning strategy.

Just for shitz and giggle, here are some statistics on campaign funds between Obama and McCain.

Some irrelevant math (having no argumentative value whatsoever),

Current Poll: Obama 48% - McCain 48%

Obama ($401,165,231) = 48%
Cost per percentage point = $8,357,608.97

McCain ($171,092,489) = 48%
Cost per percentage point = $3,564,426.85
Andrew Blanco says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
You should use RealClearPolitics for polls. They take all the polls and give you the average. Their results…

Obama - 48.1
McCain - 45.6
Jonathan Carr says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Thanks Andrew. That site is pretty sweet. Just bookmarked it!

The average of all polls has to be pretty accurate. It’s sort of like using limits in basic Calculus.
Andrew Blanco says:
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
How so?
Jonathan Carr says:
September 24th, 2008 at 12:14 am
As we approach election day, the average of the polls will change less and less yeilding a final poll estimate which has been accurate for the last couple of elections I believe.

The same thing happens in Calc as you approach the limit of a function. Example: When x=3, f(x)=2.95. When x=4, f(x)=2.97. When x=5, f(x)=2.99. This shows that the limit is clearly 3.

Going one step further, the same thing is applied when finding the area under a curve using integrals. First, underneith the curve, you make a bunch of vertical bar graphs (lets say you make 8) and calculate the area of the bars. Then you make 16 and calculate the area of the 16 bars. Then you make 32 and you will see what the area under the curve is going to be based on the number that the areas of 8,16, and 32 bars is approaching.

Anyway, as we approach election day, the polls will produce a more and more accurate prediction, especially when taking the average of all of them as the website you mentioned does.
Jonathan Carr says:
September 24th, 2008 at 12:16 am
The smiley face in the above comment is supposed to be the number 8 and a closed parenthesis, however, it looks like emoticons are turned on for this blog..lol
Andrew Blanco says:
September 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
I think you might be on to something with your smiley face…

It won’t be long before all math is reduced to the fundamental emoticon formula…

:-) + :-( = :-|

Babeled