Politics – John McCain faces a problem as he tries to close a deep fund-raising deficit against the two Democratic candidates for president: Both have been cleaning his clock among business interests that give mainly to Republicans.
I wonder what these business dollars are going to buy? This is why I support a public funded campaign process that the candidate is only beholden to the public. Give each qualified candidate the same amout of money to campaign. And to qualify you have to past a written test on the Constitution of the United States of America.
How do you stop the 503 groups. One was "formed" in Wisconsin with about $1 million dollars attacking Scott Walker, the GOP incumbent. His opponent at best was incompetent at worst a reason for birth control at any age. She's simply a moron. Her own pastor said Scott did more for their church and he wasn't a member. Anyway, the 503 was financed by Gov. Doyle but because of the 503, no one can really prove it. If you want to truly level the playing field, then make sure you go after the loop holes with the McCain Fiengold Finance reforms.
>>I wonder what these business dollars are going to buy
1 thing that's not really mentioned is that if an employee gives, it's counted as that business donating.
FTA: "But executives and employees of companies and their spouses can each give up to $2,300 to a candidate for the primary campaign and another $2,300 for the general election. Candidates must make public the names and employers of people who donate $200 or more, a group that the Center for Responsive Politics says mostly come from executive ranks."
So if someone happens to work for Exxon/Mobil & decides donate a couple of bills to Obama or Hillary, that's counted as Exxon/Mobil donating to their campaign.
>>to qualify you have to past a written test on the Constitution of the United States of America
I like that idea. I just started reading Sen. Byrd's "Losing America." In the introduction, he describes W as "a lackluster, inarticulate, visionless president...."
Wonder how W would've done on that test.
"This is why I support a public funded campaign process that the candidate is only beholden to the public."
Interestingly, McCain had pledged to accepts public funding, as had Obama. So far, Obama has backed off of that pledge -- if he secures the Democrat nomination.
Lost in all of this is something of interest -- Liberals for years have painted Republicans as the party of corporate welfare. Yet, here we have two Democrats out-pacing the Republican presumptive nominee in corporate donations. So, who's the corporate w h o r e now?
It may by that those business people don't really think John is a Republican. A lot of times he doesn't really act like one.
Every Senator has earmarks for special interest groups but one, John McCain. He didn't take in a lot of money to secure the nomination. I don't see Obama being allowed to buy the Oval Office. John McCain's appeal is to Republicans, except for the wild-eyed fringe, Independents, and disgruntled Democrats that cannot for any reason vote for a Black Nationalist. He won't have a problem being elected. He loves this country, and Obama cannot say that after we discovered his connection to the anti-American, racist Reverand Wright.
>>we discovered his connection to the anti-American, racist Reverand Wright.
Wright's at least as patriotic as you. He said that God should damn America for it's turning a blind eye to all of the injustices - not only to blacks - that it has allowed to occur, & by extension that America should attempt redress those wrongs.
If you think Wright's anti-American, why don't you mention the unAmerican comments by the Fallwells, Robertsons, Hagees, David Dukes, those wackos that protest soldiers' funerals, and all those who actually condone torture & indefinite detention? You can't get more un-American than that.
Or, it could be that even business people can balance a checkbook and know we cannot afford another neocon in office.
Largest tax increase in history of America thanks to George W Bush. $3T from Bush`s unnecessary and unproductive war in Iraq alone. Never the lost opportunities and huge increases in domestic handouts.
The greater the unfunded spending today, the greater the tax burden to pay it off tomorrow. The Bush taxes will suck growth out of the economy for decades to come.
LOL
I thought McCain was a NeoCon that had all the corporations in his back pocket...
Looks like it's the Dems, especially Hillary who thinks she can represent the "working class" that have corporate interests in her back pocket.
or Obama, whose dad was a Harvard grad and who made over $200k since 2000 (who knows how much before that?) Yeah he knows all about being the common man...
None of these people know what it's like to have to worry about either having heat or having something to eat and if you (Obama supporters more than any) have let them fool you into thinking otherwise-They win, You loose...
"if you (Obama supporters more than any) have let them fool you into thinking otherwise-They win, You loose..."
It's this fantasy that liberals, Democrats and welfare-recipients (well, let's face it, they're all one and the same) have about who they want for president. They want someone to go into office to be their daddy - to provide for them, continue to give them welfare, "feel their pain" (that was a good one!), and in short, take care of their every need. Because as we all know, liberals, Democrats and welfare-recipients (let's just shorten this to LDW) don't like to bother themselves with work. Or personal responsibility. Or taking a shower.
Yet the LDW continues to believe that SOMEone in government, SOMEwhere, is going to look out for their welfare, and they swallow every word of crap that MILLIONAIRES like Hildebeast and Obomb-out tell them. Why? I don't know. I guess their reliance on a nanny-state is so strong it clouds their common sense.
Career welfare recipients yes.
There are also others, like my very conservative friend, who do loose jobs and need the suport.
He also was out looking for jobs the next work day after loosing his.
I wouldn't lump every dem into that category tho, is there a fair amount? I'm sure there is, but I'm also sure there are plenty of fiscally sound and respnsible dems as well.
>>It's this fantasy that liberals, Democrats and welfare-recipients (well, let's face it, they're all one and the same)
That statement shows just how ignorant, delusional & ridiculous you really are. Post after post, you do nothing but try to demonize & denigrate Democrats & Liberals.
NONE of my Democratic friends are on welfare, & very few have ever been.
MOST of my Democratic friends are Christian, Jewish, or are of other faiths. Se we're not the godless heathens you make us out to be.
If we were like you, then we'd be saying all Republicans are blood-thirsty, war-mongering, greedy, ignorant fanatics with no sense of loyalty to country or fellow citizens. But why would we lump all Republicans, including friends & relatives, in with the extreme fringe group of fanatics who have been in the WH this past 7 years & their blind supporters like you?
I apologize to everyone for this post, but I'm getting extremely tired of this person's constant attacks.
PapaWolf! Down boy! I didn't know I could strike such a noive with you!
First off, Wolfsie, I've seen plenty of YOUR posts. In them, you're as nasty, opinionated, generalizing and mean-spirited as most of the rest of the Nutscape denizens, so spare me your sanctimonious, apoplectic, lily-white assumption of yourself and your views.
Secondly, you feel that the current occupants of the White House are an "extreme fringe group of fanatics". That's fine, that's your right. But it's also my right to not feel that way, and to express MY views of the "extreme fringe group of fanatics" that I've come across in my life. Sure, I'm making generalizations, but by and large, the liberals I come across are even loonier, angrier and more biased than you.
In short, everything you say I am ("blind supporter", "ignorant", "delusional", "ridiculous") is easily applied right back to you. It's all a matter of perspective.
Actually, PapaWolf has you spot-on. You are quite biased, and even bigoted in your opinions, which are not based on reason.
That you can still support Bush, confirms this.
You are a classic example of a natural conservative. You see things only in terms of black or white, us vs. them, "with us, or against us" mentality. The universe doesn't work this way, and neither cares for our politics, or our labels.
Nasty? The only time I get nasty is when extremely biased bigots like yourself do nothing but post hate-filled comments aimed not only at us "Liberals" (like that's a dirty word) but even CONSERVATIVES who have realized how fanatic you are.
And the only ("blind supporter", "ignorant", "delusional", "ridiculous") ones are part of the 30%, like you, who still blindly support this lawless bunch of fools.
Most of those with opposing ideas on this site can hold civil discussions. You, however, can not. And over the past year or 2, I've gotten extremely tired of your vile tone.
So, L8r. Be content in your bitterness. I, my fellow Liberals & our Conservative friends will enjoy our civil discourses.
Hildebeast... name-calling, huh, saint...grow up, please...your immaturity is showing!
Hmmm...and generalizing about people you've never met. I have to agree with Papawolf...I have many liberal friends, none of which are on welfare, and never will be. They all work (and make very good money), take great pride and responsibilty for themselves and others, and I'm pretty certain do take showers, altho maybe not everyday as many do.
Neither I, not do they, expect government to take care of us...but we do expect government to help those who are indeed in need of care (the handicapped, children, abused women, etc) and not neglect them as many want to do.
Wanting a government with a little heart isn't too much to ask for, is it, saint?
Democrats have larded up the budget with $3,000,000,000. in earmarks. Thats a lot of happy donors. They have hundreds of these special interest earmarks. John McCain does not hane one. Not one. None. That is all I need to know about John. The fewer donors he has the less we need to pay them back after he's elected
Not a member? Sign-up today!
seohunk
mygoodwin
alamala
DianCor
CatarinaTobin
maneetion
WelchKailyn
humbertowhite
Torres54
Dean129
tolyrose
david_nwpa
ClimRashell
chennupati
CHELSEYSHUCK
daducha
bizexpert
Ciera Marie
felixnotthecat
sinstun
Markdistinction
jonathan_PTRP
NickBe
jordan11
aholmes360
BlinkyGirl
jovial
prevajanje
libsRfunny
lbakerrabe
sh2010
jonxblaze
webtime
zaph22
hyperbola
Lurch
wbeck0823
nightcrawlerX
tcnt
capn_caveman
KonxOmPax
deathray
optimumself
Mdiar
vvv63vvv
sunti
MyWayOnNow
jrmunro
Gnosticus
studio
65)
It kind of tells me that certain key lobbying groups that are usually staunch repubs. are already guessing a dem. will be the next pres. which can't spell good news for McCain.
It takes money to run for president.
Wrong again. I think the damage being done by the Dems to themselves goes a long way in helping John. But my problem, I don't like John McCain. He pretends to be a conservative when it suits him. However he's the guy that stole your first Amendment rights when he co-authored the McCain Fiengold incumbent guaranty bill. I mean the Finance reform bill where anyone but the candidate can form a 503 and say anything without having to prove it.
As a rather generous donor to the GOP, I'm reluctant to support him because I don't trust him. At times he seems to be too willing to cross the isle. However, like the cell phone companies claiming all cell phone coverage sucks but our sucks less, John meets more of what we look for in a candidate than either Hillary or Barack. So McCain it is. And please, for those of you who thought Ron Paul was ever a candidate, he wasn't so don't start sending me more garbage on him.
>>He pretends to be a conservative when it suits him.
You mean like the last 7 years when he basically voted in lock-step w/the rest of the Republicans in Congress & the president?
Check his voting record again.
He really didn't vote lock step, but I wouldn't expect you to actually try to find that out.
Anyway, he wanted money out of politics and now he's broke.
boo hoo.
McCain wanted $ out of politics went it didn`t suit him.
As a graduate of ASU, I would just like to thank McCain for the earmarks.
I hope those were not as ethically `challenging` to McCain as the pressuring of the FCC for the blond, blue-eyed lobbyist he supposedly wasn`t sleeping with despite meeting with her constantly during his 2000 campaign.
He`s broke because he pulled a Hillary; pulled out all the stops to take the nomination no matter what it cost him or his party. This is exactly what I hate about career politicians - they will sacrifice anything and anyone in order to get more power.
McCain is broke because he overspent and took out a loan based on obtaining federally matching funds, but that means he is limited on how much he can spend between now and September.
Will be interesting to see how he tries to do an end-run on his own campaign funding law.
7 years, perhaps on the little things but I was one a a group of donors who requested the party dump him a few years ago. He may have the title Republican but for the conservatives, he's one of the better democrats we've see in years.
I think my comment is right but that doesn't mean yours are wrong BB. I do think it could spell trouble for McCain because I've been wondering how he's going to shore up his support especially the traditional support with his voting record and all.
And lobbying money IS important to get elected.
Most Republicans I know are not people who vote without thinking of the consequences. Who would you want to nominate the next 2, possibly 3 Supreme Court Justices? Barak Obama? or John McCain? What do you think will happen to the Bush tax cuts that expire in 2010 if Barak Obama is elected? They will be allowed to expire, giving us the largest tax increase in the History of this country. Do you want to see the Rev Wright swear in the next President after he cursed, and damned this country? I say send Uncle Jeremiah packing.
Well we all know Rev Wright has experience when it comes to swearing!
So you like Rev Hagee instead?
Hagee is a catholic/italian hater, so that would surely change things on the supreme court bench.
>taxpayers billions wasted dollars?
The largest tax increase in the history of this country was the six years the Bush admin ruled the WH with the do-nothing, rubber stamp Republican congress.
Only the cons are cowards who shirk the actual payment of taxes not onto this generation, but onto the children and unborn who have no political clout to stop the raping of their future prosperity.
BTW, the ending of the largest entitlement program in history for the rich should be ended in 2010. No reason to continue to let one class of people get away with not paying their share while the rest of us pay ours - or are you against fiscal responsibility?
Think about the consequences? You gave us 4 years of the Bush. He lied his way into a war that is going to cost us trillions, and we will have nothing to show for it. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of lives lost, for what? Then you went and reelected him! That made you party to murder.
Tax cuts? You mean the tax restoration? This is YOUR war, you SHOULD da*m well pay for it!
You mention Wright, but you don't mention a Mr. John Hagee making comments such as the Catholic Church being "the great ******s of Babylon", or blaming Katrina on gays. Why didn't you mention him? Would you want him swearing-in the next president?
"Uncle Jeremiah"? you consider bigotry to be a legitimate factor in choosing a president?
Iso, lets repeat the lie, Bush lied, Bush lied, there is no proof. This is your war too, because of the military defending your rights to spout off as you do.
I don't no how my comment got off track but have factored in the above issues. But losing key endorsements IS a big deal in a campaign. I agree with BB. I don't like McCain and don't like Obama or Hillary and will vote for none of them.And McCains voting record stands of itself.
When report after report shows that Bush, Cheney & Co KNEW they were doling out false & misleading information to the public & Congress, how can you say there's no proof they lied?
And don't say that Congress had the exact same intelligence reports W did; report after report shows that it did NOT.
And, finally, please tell me exactly how our military is "defending ... rights to spout off" in Iraq, a country that posed NO threat, had NO WMD capabilities, had NO ties to the terrorists who attacked us, and had absolutely NO way of affecting our "rights"?
>>the largest tax increase in the History of this country
1st, the MAJORITY of that tax increase will be back on the wealthiest Americans who have suffered the least from this administration's economic fiasco.
2nd, not once, but TWICE, has "Trickle Down Economics" sent us into recession.
3rd, the tax cuts gave away all our money then the Republicans in Congress & the WH screamed that we didn't have money for other things - education, infrastructure, police & fire, etc. And if you don't believe that those are important, ask the people in New Orleans who ended up swimming because there wasn't enough money to fix the levees.
I think the damage being done by the Dems to themselves goes a long way in helping John. >>>>
There isn't any damage being done by the 'Dems.' That's just your wishful thinking.
Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas!
I guess this means the Democrats are beholden to special interests.