Mmmm, gotta love that straight-talkin' maverick, bucking against the system.

robsul82: Mmmm, gotta love that straight-talkin' maverick, bucking against the system.

At least he admits he hires lobbyists. Hillary tries to pretend that teachers and pro-choice advocates aren't lobbyists.

palladiate: robsul82: Mmmm, gotta love that straight-talkin' maverick, bucking against the system.

At least he admits he hires lobbyists. Hillary tries to pretend that teachers and pro-choice advocates aren't lobbyists.

Fark Hillary too, I'm not a fan of hers.

robsul82: Fark Hillary too, I'm not a fan of hers.

Fark her all you want, I wouldn't touch that saggy bag of boiled chicken skin with a stolen dick.

At least they're puting their mouth where their money is.

BobtheFascist: At least they're puting their mouth where their money is.

Doesn't McCain have staffers keeping lobbyists from trying to do that, or did I get the gist of the NYT article wrong?

I've said it before on Fark and I'll say it again:

McCain is the worst presidential candidate in at least the last 50 years.

Everything about him is a horrible flaw either as a human being, a politician or a candidate for a general election.

The only thing positive he has going for him is POW experience. And that is HARDLY enough.

Bill Frist: McCain is the worst presidential candidate in at least the last 50 years.

Well, you are Bill Frist. You've been saying this for a while.

Seriously, some mods need to change my name for me. Make it Bill First or something.

Still, McCain is a crappy candidate.
He is campainging on the promise of continuing an unpopular war

He has tied his campaign to an unpopular president.

He is hated by half of his base.

He holds tons of positions that are going to scare off moderates and independents in the general.

He has been a senator forever which, for americans, makes him a "washington insider" which they hate

He is a candidate of gloom and doom when americans always vote for hope and vision (Bush Jr, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, JFK, etc.)

He has flip-flopped on every position he has ever held. IE he has no principles and will be exposed as such easily.

He pretends to be an anti-lobbyist but is surrounded by lobbyists.

Everything about him sucks as a candidate.

Bill Frist: Seriously, some mods need to change my name for me. Make it Bill First or something.

Heh, I just had to tease you for that.

Bill Frist: He pretends to be an anti-lobbyist but is surrounded by lobbyists.

Keating Five? Yea... He wouldn't change his actions based on lobbying. No.

I agree with everything you said there.

Bill Frist: Everything about him sucks as a candidate.

You think he would have been elbowed aside by all the young Republican stars, eager to defend the record of the Bush presidency and thereby become heir to its legacy of success and popularity.

Louder And More Dissonant [TotalFark] Quote 2008-02-22 03:56:01 PM
Bill Frist: Everything about him sucks as a candidate.

You think he would have been elbowed aside by all the young Republican stars, eager to defend the record of the Bush presidency and thereby become heir to its legacy of success and popularity.

Well, I'd say McCain has defended bush more than anyone else (and unwisely, voters don't want an older crankier Bush Jr.)

However, I think any objective look at the primary would agree that McCain was insanely lucky. He won entirely because the conservative base was split amongst Huckabee, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani.

That left the moderates and independents to give McCain slim pluralities in NH, SC and FL.

If he had been in an election like the Dems, with only three signfificant candidates (say McCain vs. Romney with Huck in the edwards role, or McCain vs. Giulani with Ron Paul getting his small cult) McCain would have never won a single state.

I hate the republicans so all of this is fine by me. But McCain was lucky as hell.

You know, the more I think about McCain, the more he reminds me of the president in The Illuminatus Trilogy:

"He was harassed, but still he spoke with authority. He was, in fact, characteristic of the best type of dominant male in the world at this time. He was fifty-five years old, tough, shrewd, unburdened by the complicated ethical ambiguities which puzzle intellectuals, and had long ago decided that the world was a mean son-of-a-biatch in which only the most cunning and ruthless can survive. He was also as kind as was possible for one holding that ultra-Darwinian philosophy; and he genuinely loved children and dogs, unless they were on the site of something that had to be bombed in the National Interest. He still retained some sense of humor, despite the burdens of his almost godly office, and, although he had been impotent with his wife for nearly ten years now, he generally achieved orgasm in the mouth of a skilled prostitute within 1.5 minutes. He took amphetamine pep pills to keep going on his grueling twenty-hour day, with the result that his vision of the world was somewhat skewed in a paranoid direction, and he took tranquilizers to keep from worrying too much, with the result that his detachment sometimes bordered on the schizophrenic; but most of the time his innate shrewdness gave him a fingernail grip on reality. In short, he was much like the rulers of Russia and China."

I'm amused at how Obama pretends he doesn't answer to any special interests.

You don't get to the level where he is without catering to special interests. No one does. Especially a guy working out of Chicago.

Bill Frist: But McCain was lucky as hell.

Obama had his Senate opponent implode in a scandal and be replaced by wackjob Alan Keyes a few weeks before the election. Here's a guy that failed in a Congress run in 2000, then had the Senate job dropped in his lap in 2004.

And now, Obama is profiting from a voting base that's just sick of Clintons more than anythng else.

Obama was lucky in his senate races, sure, but he has hardly been lucky here.

Hillary had far more money, influence and name recongition. And he had a hard time standing out in the early part of the race.

He won purely through hard work. His campaign is one of the best run in history. He spent his money wisely and put in the face to face time in every state while making sure to cull a giant donor base (1 million small donners, instead of Hillarys handful of big donors) that could keep giving as the race went on.

This really has nothing to do with Clinton fatigue. Frnakly, Hillary is a shiatty candidate who would have gotten nowhere without her last name, so to claim Obama is winning because of clinton fatigue strikes me as naive. He would have sealed this nomination long ago if she had a different last name.

really, Obama did the work and had a smarter campaign. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Bill Frist: However, I think any objective look at the primary would agree that McCain was insanely lucky. He won entirely because the conservative base was split amongst Huckabee, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani.

The thing is though, look at that group. Yes, McCain may be a terrible candidate, but he's still the most polished turd in that bunch.

I mean if you're a Republican looking for an electable candidate, who else WOULD you go for? The new-earth fundie? The washed-up actor who's mainly concerned with when naptime is? Douchey McMormon? The authoritarian statist trying to ride the coattails a national tragedy? Even Hillary would have cleaned any of their clocks.

John McCain: Lobbyists are fine and dandy if they work for him.

Bill Frist: Obama was lucky in his senate races, sure, but he has hardly been lucky here.

Hillary had far more money, influence and name recongition. And he had a hard time standing out in the early part of the race.

He won purely through hard work. His campaign is one of the best run in history. He spent his money wisely and put in the face to face time in every state while making sure to cull a giant donor base (1 million small donners, instead of Hillarys handful of big donors) that could keep giving as the race went on.

This really has nothing to do with Clinton fatigue. Frnakly, Hillary is a shiatty candidate who would have gotten nowhere without her last name, so to claim Obama is winning because of clinton fatigue strikes me as naive. He would have sealed this nomination long ago if she had a different last name.

really, Obama did the work and had a smarter campaign. Luck had nothing to do with it.

Beating the Inevitable and besting the Clinton Machine has nothing to do with luck, yes. And wasn't Obama LEADING Jack Ryan when it came out that he wanted to fark Jeri Ryan in public?

/honestly couldn't believe people thought that impulse was strange

Having insiders run the campaign is what is going to guarantee a McCain win, but liberals are too busy rehearsing their talking points for when they blame Diebold for the Democrats' losing of the election.

schief2 [TotalFark] Quote 2008-02-22 05:36:14 PM
Bill Frist: However, I think any objective look at the primary would agree that McCain was insanely lucky. He won entirely because the conservative base was split amongst Huckabee, Thompson, Romney and Giuliani.

The thing is though, look at that group. Yes, McCain may be a terrible candidate, but he's still the most polished turd in that bunch.

I mean if you're a Republican looking for an electable candidate, who else WOULD you go for?

I think that Thompson and Giuliani would both have been stronger candidates (note: again, I just mean as electable candidates. I DESPISE Rudy 911).

Romney would have been about the same.

Bill Frist

1 million small donners,

Well at least his supports aren't going to go hungry.

skookum Quote 2008-02-22 05:42:31 PM
Having insiders run the campaign is what is going to guarantee a McCain win, but liberals are too busy rehearsing their talking points for when they blame Diebold for the Democrats' losing of the election.


McCain has no chance against Obama. You win an election on turnout these days and Obama turnout will be MASSIVE. Mccain, who is hated by half of his base and will soon be hated by independents, will have a very depressed turnout.

xria: Well at least his supports aren't going to go hungry.

Donner kebabs aren't made of people. I've learned something today.

so mccain lies about his staff lobbying for firefighters. i wonder when the media will denounce the smears being wrought by the vindictive tape recorder that captured these words?

flavor of the month: so mccain lies about his staff lobbying for firefighters. i wonder when the media will denounce the smears being wrought by the vindictive tape recorder that captured these words?

He didn't claim his people represented those interests. He merely stated that some lobbyists represented honorable causes. It is a fine line and in a political campaign that line is obliterated, but here is the quote from the article. He never said his people represented those interests, but lets be clear, firefighters, civil service employees, and retirees aren't exactly innocent parties and have agendas that harm greater society.

McCain later went on to say, "The right to represent interests or groups of Americans is a constitutional right. There are people that represent firemen, civil servants, retirees, and those people are legitimate representatives of a variety of interests in America."

The system frankly sucks, but I am sure you would find that each campaign, Obama, Clinton as well as McCain is full of individuals involved in lobbying so it is rather hypocritcal to fein outrage when every other campaign employs the same people. I mean lets face it, government is a revolving door so when you are not working for the government, you are lobbying for someone until you are back in the government. That is how these people earn a living.

flavor of the month: so mccain lies about his staff lobbying for firefighters. i wonder when the media will denounce the smears being wrought by the vindictive tape recorder that captured these words?

In fairness, McCain didn't say his lobbyist supporters did, it's just amusing that none of them actually work for those groups.

Knew the sex scandal business was just a trojan horse for the REAL John McCain problem --which is his hypocricy regarding corruption and lobbyists in Washington.

//Why do Republicans always seem to get nailed on exactly the thing the build their public persona on?

The system frankly sucks, but I am sure you would find that each campaign, Obama, Clinton as well as McCain is full of individuals involved in lobbying so it is rather hypocritcal to fein outrage when every other campaign employs the same people

Actually, the hypocrisy is in McCain pretending to be an anti-lobbyist when his campaign is run by lobbyist and he does special favors for them when in the senate.

But I honstly doubt you'd find any lobbyists on Obama's paid staff.

McCain spent too much time with the enemy during Vietnam for me to feel comfortable with his finger on the button. How can we be sure he can handle the stress of dire emergency.

I am sticking with Obama. I don't think there is a risk that he will snap.

No, McCain is Bush's successor. I'm sure he's already been assured to not worry about "the numbers."

Neither Obama nor Hillary can be counted on to continue current policy. This disqualifies them in the eyes of those who have given their lives to see this policy come to fruition.

Look, it doesn't matter. McCain was a prisoner of war, thus magically making him the only candidate with the experience to be commander in chief. Kind of like that time I experienced my balls getting stuck between those strips on patio furniture, that experience made me qualified to run a large patio furniture manufacturing firm. That's how these things work people!

I'm trying to decide if I care.

Any suggestions?

palladiate: robsul82: Mmmm, gotta love that straight-talkin' maverick, bucking against the system.

At least he admits he hires lobbyists. Hillary tries to pretend that teachers and pro-choice advocates aren't lobbyists.

and she's losing.

Daedelus, robsul

when i read it the first time i saw "these" instead of "there", as if he were talking about his staff.

Bill Frist: I've said it before on Fark and I'll say it again:

McCain is the worst presidential candidate in at least the last 50 years.

Everything about him is a horrible flaw either as a human being, a politician or a candidate for a general election.

The only thing positive he has going for him is POW experience. And that is HARDLY enough.

Disagree. He's miles better than bush.

Those poor Media Conglomerates voice would not be heard if it wasn't for those lobbyists.

See it's John McCain sticking up for the little guys like multi-billion dollar corporations like Clear Channel. Because who would look at for them?

s if he were talking about his staff.


jcooli09 Quote 2008-02-22 06:10:14 PM
Bill Frist: I've said it before on Fark and I'll say it again:

McCain is the worst presidential candidate in at least the last 50 years.

Everything about him is a horrible flaw either as a human being, a politician or a candidate for a general election.

The only thing positive he has going for him is POW experience. And that is HARDLY enough.

Disagree. He's miles better than bush.


I'm sure he is a better PERSON than Bush and would probably be a better PRESIDENT, but he is a much worse candidate.

Bush had fond name reconition. Bush excited all sides of the republican base. Bush had a down to earth buddy feeling to him.

I despie Bush, but he was still a much better candidate. The McCain of 08 would get trounced by Gore or Kerry.

flavor of the month: Daedelus, robsul

when i read it the first time i saw "these" instead of "there", as if he were talking about his staff.

And now you're starting to understand how this works.
They say something true that SOUNDS like something positive, yet false.
There's a looooooooot of that going around.

McCain is not anti lobby. He's anti corruption. Lobbyists have and always will be part of the legislative process. McCain is against groups that donate money and perks to representatives in order to garner favors. Look at the bills he has sponsored, he does not wish to outlaw all lobbying.

Has McCain been influenced by lobbyists, yes. Every politician has. Has McCain been bribed by lobbyists, has yet to be seen. That's what the NYT hit job was trying to show, but did the worst job imaginable.

jcooli09: I'm trying to decide if I care.

Any suggestions?

I think the bigger problem is always in the past he has called them a corrupting force.

But when they work for his campaign he believes they are a good thing. People who feel they are beyond corruption are usually the ones who become most corrupt.

MyRandomName: McCain is against groups that donate money and perks to representatives in order to garner favors. Look at the bills he has sponsored, he does not wish to outlaw all lobbying.


Which is EXACTLY what these lobbyist have done with him. He just says it doesn't affect him like everyone else.


I bet they all think that.

jcooli09: I'm trying to decide if I care.

Any suggestions?

I would have been cooler if he had said it a little younger -- essentially what he's saying is don't hate the playas, hate the game. The whole lobbying system sucks, to him, and one of the things he hates most about it is that both economic and non-economic forces combine to attract the very brightest people in Washington to lobbying firms rather than wherever he thinks they should be (one of those places being his campaign, of course).

Personally, I say it's a big meh. All these guys (McCain, Clinton, Obama) are sitting Senators and all their votes and other things are on the record. If a candidate has a life-long record of hostility to the widget industry and the widget industry is important to you, is it really important whether the guy hates widgets for his own reasons or because the American Association of Anti-Widget Activists gave him a campaign contribution?

depmode98
Look, it doesn't matter. McCain was a prisoner of war, thus magically making him the only candidate with the experience to be commander in chief. Kind of like that time I experienced my balls getting stuck between those strips on patio furniture, that experience made me qualified to run a large patio furniture manufacturing firm. That's how these things work people

John McCain = 26 years in congress

Barrak Obama = 4 years in congress

Personally, I say it's a big meh. All these guys (McCain, Clinton, Obama) are sitting Senators and all their votes and other things are on the record. If a candidate has a life-long record of hostility to the widget industry and the widget industry is important to you, is it really important whether the guy hates widgets for his own reasons or because the American Association of Anti-Widget Activists gave him a campaign contribution?

Only when said candidate is campaiging on the claim that he hates groups like Anti-Widget Activists and pretends not to work with them.

RandomExcess: McCain spent too much time with the enemy during Vietnam for me to feel comfortable with his finger on the button. How can we be sure he can handle the stress of dire emergency.

I am sticking with Obama. I don't think there is a risk that he will snap.

I really want to disagree with this polemic. I really do. But, there is a small doubt that worries that Ahmadinejad, Kim, bin Laden, or any of a number of other screwballs will try and push McCain's buttons. Like Hainan Island three months into Bush's first term. Probably true of any of the candidates, though.

I wonder how many contributions he got for this one?

skookum: This disqualifies them in the eyes of those who have given their lives to see this policy come to fruition.

So dead people won't be voting for a Democrat this time around?

That is unusual.

Vote for John AT&T Land O'Lakes Novartis McCain. He's got a three point plan!

Bill Frist: Only when said candidate is campaiging on the claim that he hates groups like Anti-Widget Activists and pretends not to work with them.

But what he's saying here at least is, "I hate those guys, but damn they've got a good lawyer. And yeah, I'm hiring the lawyer."

Reasonable people can debate whether he's telling the truth, or whether, assuming he is telling the truth, the argument is a legitimate one. I'm just pointing out that he's making a fairly nuanced argument and it deserves to be faced on its own merits, not a simple polemic of "OMG HE HATES LOBBYISTS BUT HIRES THEM WTF?"

El_Dan: Vote for John AT&T Land O'Lakes Novartis McCain. He's got a three point plan!

"What is it, don't die?"