McCain's love affair with the telecom lobby

[Bishop Hedd]

Between the corporate mainstream media's harping on Obama's race (even Chris Wallace from Fox News harped on his co-workers about this idiocy) and now this moronic Hillary/Bosnia flap (NEWSFLASH! She is not the Democratic nominee and she has no chance of being the nominee!) comes this from McPaper on Monday.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...lobbyists_N.htm

[ieatcrayonz]

MNG,

 

You are so right as usual. Look, I don't like any of these candidates and am still hoping for a third party ticket of Edwards/Tancredo or Tancredo/Edwards but that is not the point. Hillary making up a bunch of crap? So what? Obama's church advocates terrorism? Big deal. Just look at this headline from the article you linked:

 

Telecom lobbyists tied to McCain

 

 

This is clearly an implication that McCain was using bondage when he was fooling around with that chick lobbyist. Unless they have some video evidence they should just report. Client #9 is bad enough, we don't need this too.

[SD Jarhead]

Crayonz, I don't know who you are, but you be one funny MoFo!!!!

[VABills]

MNG,

 

You are so right as usual. Look, I don't like any of these candidates and am still hoping for a third party ticket of Edwards/Tancredo or Tancredo/Edwards but that is not the point. Hillary making up a bunch of crap? So what? Obama's church advocates terrorism? Big deal. Just look at this headline from the article you linked:

 

 

 

 

This is clearly an implication that McCain was using bondage when he was fooling around with that chick lobbyist. Unless they have some video evidence they should just report. Client #9 is bad enough, we don't need this too.

And Obama own foreign advisor was the one who was looking at passports (his company was anyhow). So we need a headline:

 

Obama advisor tied to passport breach

[KD in CA]

Lobbyists with ties to members of Congress?!?!?!?!?

 

Holy crap!! Next thing you know you'll be telling me politicians lie!!

[John Adams]

Between the corporate mainstream media's harping on Obama's race (even Chris Wallace from Fox News harped on his co-workers about this idiocy) and now this moronic Hillary/Bosnia flap (NEWSFLASH! She is not the Democratic nominee and she has no chance of being the nominee!) comes this from McPaper on Monday.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/elec...lobbyists_N.htm

 

Why do youink Hillary won't be the nominee? No Dem is getting enough votes to secure nomination before the convention. She makes a good argument that she can win the swing states, while Obama won states that the Repubs will win anyway. She'll kill in PA--don't count her out just because she trails in delegates. The convention could be exciting (for a change).

[John Adams]

And Obama own foreign advisor was the one who was looking at passports (his company was anyhow). So we need a headline:

 

 

You know me form the board. I blocked Maurice Cheeks on a jump shot once. That doesn't mean you could block Maurice Cheeks's jump shot.

 

That's like the tie between Obama and the passport. His advisor runs a tech consuting company. One of his consultants peeked at some passports. Hardly a conspiracy.

[KD in CA]

Why do youink Hillary won't be the nominee? No Dem is getting enough votes to secure nomination before the convention. She makes a good argument that she can win the swing states, while Obama won states that the Repubs will win anyway. She'll kill in PA--don't count her out just because she trails in delegates. The convention could be exciting (for a change).

 

Less votes?

Less states?

Less delegates?

 

No problem!

 

Plus, you know the Clintons have an assassination plan in reserve just in case she can't steal the nomination.

[Chilly]

Lobbyists with ties to members of Congress?!?!?!?!?

 

Holy crap!! Next thing you know you'll be telling me politicians lie!!

 

In this case, because of McCain's outcry against the political system, it does have some significance.

[KD in CA]

In this case, because of McCain's outcry against the political system, it does have some significance.

 

I see....so McCain is kinda like a crusading Eliot Spitzer, big time hypocrite. Meanwhile Hillary is like David Paterson, life-long dirtbag politician and proud of it. "Hell yeah I took that guys' wife to the Comfort Inn!!"

 

Good thing politics can keep us entertained while they continue to screw us in every way possible.

[Chilly]

I see....so McCain is kinda like a crusading Eliot Spitzer, big time hypocrite. Meanwhile Hillary is like David Paterson, life-long dirtbag politician and proud of it. "Hell yeah I took that guys' wife to the Comfort Inn!!"

 

Good thing politics can keep us entertained while they continue to screw us in every way possible.

 

3rd party FTW

[KD in CA]

3rd party FTW

 

Maybe someday political parties will be outlawed entirely. No one will be allowed to run with a little letter next to their name that tells ignorant people whether or not to vote for them and tells Congressmen which way they must vote on legislation.

 

And maybe someday the Bills and Sabres will win championships and there will be peace in the ME.

[Chilly]

Maybe someday political parties will be outlawed entirely. No one will be allowed to run with a little letter next to their name that tells ignorant people whether or not to vote for them and tells Congressmen which way they must vote on legislation.

 

Meh, I think that political parties do serve some important purposes, the problem is that we don't have enough of them that legitimately compete with each other and cover all viewpoints (which is a result of the system we use).

[KD in CA]

Meh, I think that political parties do serve some important purposes, the problem is that we don't have enough of them that legitimately compete with each other and cover all viewpoints (which is a result of the system we use).

 

And we never could...there are an infinate # of viewpoints.

 

Political parties do far, far more damage than good. What would we really be losing, other than a system that practically guarentees re-election and the ability to abuse taxpayers will no accountability? Imagine -- voters would actually have to listen to what someone is saying rather than just automatically pulling the 'R' or 'D' lever. Hell...how absurd is it that there actually are 'R' and 'D' levers?

[VABills]

You know me form the board. I blocked Maurice Cheeks on a jump shot once. That doesn't mean you could block Maurice Cheeks's jump shot.

 

That's like the tie between Obama and the passport. His advisor runs a tech consuting company. One of his consultants peeked at some passports. Hardly a conspiracy.

Just like Mccain is tied to lobbyists. Same thing. Obama is just as closely tied to the passport breach. He is two people removed. Mccain is two people removed from the telecom companies.

[Peter]

Lobbyists with ties to members of Congress?!?!?!?!?

 

Holy crap!! Next thing you know you'll be telling me politicians lie!!

 

Only when they speak.

[Chilly]

And we never could...there are an infinate # of viewpoints.

 

Of course there are, but look at PR systems, where each party represents a much smaller segment of the population than one of the big two parties. As a result, many more parties get elected, and many more viewpoints have to be taken into account in order to do anything in government.

 

Political parties do far, far more damage than good. What would we really be losing

 

Fund-raising (wealth and popularity of a candidate would have even MORE effect if political parties were lost), organization and practicality (especially with the primary system), decline in participation in the political system, increased governmental influence (as parties are private entities, the government would completely control all elections, instead of the semi-private primary system), increased regionalism and pork (historically, candidates in non-partisan systems have organized by region, to bring as many resources to that region as possible, instead of organizing in other ways), increased vote splitting, letting less-popular candidates take an election.

 

Imagine -- voters would actually have to listen to what someone is saying rather than just automatically pulling the 'R' or 'D' lever. Hell...how absurd is it that there actually are 'R' and 'D' levers?

 

You think that they would? Most people are not engaged enough in the process to do so, and thus TV advertisements and the media's influence on the political process would increase.

[GG]

Or you could simply say that McCain Feingold Act was a ridiculous exercise.

[Chilly]

Correct me if Im wrong, but I dont beleive there is anything stopping the formation of a third party. I beleive the issue is more that simply enough people wont vote for a candidate from one. Its more an institutional prevention than a legal one. Didnt Perot or Forbes get some real traction in starting a third party but fell just short?

 

Correct, there are some regulations, but most people can form a 3rd party.

 

The problem with a 3rd party in a single-member simple plurality system (like ours) is that it will always go back to being a two-party system. One of the parties will be replaced, and it will go to having 2 dominant parties again. The reasoning is in something called Duverger's law. Here's the wikipedia article explaining it (though the article isn't completely correct - it explains a lot of it).

[Peter]

There was an interesting article a little while ago that goes through JM's voting history. I think that it may have been written by David Brooks of the NYT, but I do not recall specifically.

 

Basically, JM's voting history has shown that he has been rather independent regardless of any support that he may have received from the telecom industry.