What does that have to do with my post? It shows directly that Obama is a liar, and your normal politician. He takes money from the same people he has campaigned against in ads. It makes no sense. Oh wait, yes it does. They know in the end he will never turn his back on the oil companies, but needs to do so to get support from his base.

Have you been sprinkled in the fairy dust as well?

Starsailor,

Instead of addressing the issue of McCain having more lobbyists working for him than any other candidate running, you go back to Obama.

You fault Obama for taking oil money, but don't look at the influence peddling McCain uses with his lobbyists.

If Obama is a liar, then so is McCain.

He makes a great big deal out of what a "reformer" he is while staying firmly with the status quo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/15/nyt-why-wont-reformer_n_86837.html

http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/02/22/mccain/

Does Mccain deny taking money from lobbyists and oil folks?

I never heard him say that, if you have something to prove that please do show it.

However, Obama says he doesn't take money from oil executives, he outright attacks the oil companies, but in fact he takes money from oil executives and oil families!

There is a difference, if you can't see it, wash the fairy dust from your eyes.

Also, mnhiker, is there any group or organizations that you support?

Obama and Clinton have lobbyists around them, very close to them, and even working in their campaigns.

MoveOn.org, ThinkProgress, and many liberal organizations (most owned by Soros or funded by him) are lobbyists as well. They fill the ranks of their campaigns, they are lobbyists.

They are working "for the general public" or "for an organization" so those people are indeed lobbyists. Obama is taking funds from MoveOn.org, which IS a lobbyist organization, run and financed by Soros, who I'm not even sure is a US citizen!! He has many leftist organizations raising funds for Obama.

Lobbyists for Obama

What is with all the sensationalist BS in this thread--"oil money?" Corporations can't give money to candidates for public office, you dolts. They can only give to corporate PACs, of which the donors are not disclosed until after the fact, and the limit is $4,500. So unless the candidate has decided to deny all corporate PAC money (i.e. Ron Paul) then it's practically impossible for a candidate to say they don't accept "oil money"--whatever the hell THAT'S supposed to mean.

Stop listening to Fox News and CNN and pick up a damn book. Christ.

If you mean do I belong to MoveOn.Org or any other Democratic organization, no.

I am a veteran and belong to the American Legion.

They do a lot to help veterans.

The point I was trying to make is that McCain has this image of a maverick / reformer that he tries to project, but his actions tell a different story.

He doesn't take money from pork barrel projects.

Both Clinton and Obama do.

In 2007 according to Citizens Against Government Waste - http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/Senate_-_dollar.pdf?docID=3024:

Clinton had 281 pork barrel projects totaling $296.2 million dollars.

Obama had 53 pork barrel projects totaling $97.4 million dollars

Mccain had 0 pork barrel projects totaling $0

I thought the culture of corrupting was over with the new Democratic Congress?

The pork barrel spending achieving the $17.2 billion dollar spending marks "a 337 percent increase over the 2,658 projects in fiscal year 2007, and a 30 percent increase over the $13.2 billion total in fiscal year 2007" - http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11350&news_iv_ctrl=1022

Starsailor,

Oh, he doesn't?

Have a drink on me while you view this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeJb90ZmyRQ

And that's not all.

Um, I think you could use another drink:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/

Hey, I never even said I fully support Mccain. Over Obama and Hillary though I sure as heck do.

As to the points, Budweiser is a big company, if the Hensley Beer Company or the tiny Joe Schmo beer company got the contract over Bud, Miller Lite, or whatever then you would have to really wonder. But, Budweiser getting a beer contract? That's a shock to you? Many stadiums are Budweiser exclusive or Miller Lite exclusive. It's either usually one or the other.

Also, the money was approved by the Arizona government, not the federal government for the Arizona Cardinals. I don't see the issue there. It's state money used for state project from what I saw.

Now, I just read that thinkprogress article earlier today for another post i was doing elsewhere.

First of all, the article HAD TO RETRACT the earmark concerning the base expansion. Roll Call had to retract it because of facts that came out later.

As to the $10 million dollars, even that is in question from the points made, in their own article. They shot holes in their own argument, and over approximately 25 years of service all you have that really sticks as to earmarks is a 10 million dollar project?

If you click on the $10 million dollar link to the New York Times article there is points in it to make you question the thinkprogress claims.

"He and Mr. Kyl are seeking the money through a free-standing bill introduced in December, an approach that Mr. McCain's aides call a far cry from what he finds most objectionable: furtive efforts to slip through last-minute spending projects without prior Congressional scrutiny." - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It was a FREE-STANDING BILL, not an earmark snuck onto another bill right before a vote that most members would miss.

"Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he considered the Rehnquist Center initiative an "earmark in training." Should the proposal advance as a separate bill, Mr. Ashdown said, his group will have no objection. But if it is folded into broader legislation, then it could meet the earmark test." - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And it DID advance as a separate bill.

Actually, I had to do some real searching to find the information I needed. The proposal of John Mccain for the center DID become a separate bill. It was not tacked on, hidden among other dealings of Congress. It was presented before Congress.

"Bill S.2136

Title: A bill to provide funds to help establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (1)

Latest Major Action: 12/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:65:./temp/~bd6gEn::

I can't seem to find what happened to the bill after it got sent to the Committee on the Judiciary. But, I do know the center was created. If someone can track it down past the point I have please do.

I just wanted to see if I could break a record for the longest post!!!


































































What did I win???

Major Disapproval! lol

This is for everyone.

Can someone please track down this bill and tell me what happened to it?

"Bill S.2136

Title: A bill to provide funds to help establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (1)

Latest Major Action: 12/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:65:./temp/~bd6gEn::

You get the Cupie Doll!!!

Starsailor,

It must have disappeared into the ether like everything Richard Cheney does!!

Is it a self-inflatable cupie????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOCKLVBRpNE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyCad8-t1rg&feature=related

How about you actually respond to my post, in your own words, and refrain from childish remarks about Cheney and putting childish face icons?

QUOTE:
Hey, I never even said I fully support Mccain. Over Obama and Hillary though I sure as heck do.

As to the points, Budweiser is a big company, if the Hensley Beer Company or the tiny Joe Schmo beer company got the contract over Bud, Miller Lite, or whatever then you would have to really wonder. But, Budweiser getting a beer contract? That's a shock to you? Many stadiums are Budweiser exclusive or Miller Lite exclusive. It's either usually one or the other.

Also, the money was approved by the Arizona government, not the federal government for the Arizona Cardinals. I don't see the issue there. It's state money used for state project from what I saw.

Now, I just read that thinkprogress article earlier today for another post i was doing elsewhere.

First of all, the article HAD TO RETRACT the earmark concerning the base expansion. Roll Call had to retract it because of facts that came out later.

As to the $10 million dollars, even that is in question from the points made, in their own article. They shot holes in their own argument, and over approximately 25 years of service all you have that really sticks as to earmarks is a 10 million dollar project?

If you click on the $10 million dollar link to the New York Times article there is points in it to make you question the thinkprogress claims.

"He and Mr. Kyl are seeking the money through a free-standing bill introduced in December, an approach that Mr. McCain's aides call a far cry from what he finds most objectionable: furtive efforts to slip through last-minute spending projects without prior Congressional scrutiny." - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It was a FREE-STANDING BILL, not an earmark snuck onto another bill right before a vote that most members would miss.

"Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he considered the Rehnquist Center initiative an "earmark in training." Should the proposal advance as a separate bill, Mr. Ashdown said, his group will have no objection. But if it is folded into broader legislation, then it could meet the earmark test." - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18earmark.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And it DID advance as a separate bill.

Actually, I had to do some real searching to find the information I needed. The proposal of John Mccain for the center DID become a separate bill. It was not tacked on, hidden among other dealings of Congress. It was presented before Congress.

"Bill S.2136

Title: A bill to provide funds to help establish the William H. Rehnquist Center on Constitutional Structures and Judicial Independence at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

Sponsor: Sen McCain, John [AZ] (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (1)

Latest Major Action: 12/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary." - http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:65:./temp/~bd6gEn::

I can't seem to find what happened to the bill after it got sent to the Committee on the Judiciary. But, I do know the center was created. If someone can track it down past the point I have please do.


How about you actually respond to my post, in your own words, and refrain from childish remarks about Cheney and putting childish face icons?



Damn Republicans