McCain one of the 10 most corrupt politicians

[chuck kottke]

Equal Time for Both Major Party Candidates.

 

[A RUSH OF VIDA]

Everybody is corrupt......

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Proof?

 

So if this was true, it would score points with you for McCain because it does not hurt your view on Obama, but it would somehow hurt your view on McCain? Talk about a double standard.

[chuck kottke]

To start with, John McCain is no maverick! He voted strait in line with the Bush administration on all but 3 major votes; he has a 95% approval of Bush's proposals, and his support is tipped in favor of big donors as a percentage of his campaign cash. Only 32% from contributions of $200 or less; 71% from donations of $2,300 or more.

And he wants us to go further with the nefarious wars, believing that the answer is more, not less occupations.

[A RUSH OF VIDA]

wow

[Matter-Eater Lad]

To start with, John McCain is no maverick! He voted strait in line with the Bush administration on all but 3 major votes; he has a 95% approval of Bush's proposals, and his support is tipped in favor of big donors as a percentage of his campaign cash. Only 32% from contributions of $200 or less; 71% from donations of $2,300 or more.

And he wants us to go further with the nefarious wars, believing that the answer is more, not less occupations.

 

 

ANd where is the evidence of his corruption?

 

Barack's money came half from the rich and corporations. But not only that all his friends are rich corrupt men.....his money and influence come from the rich corrupt in corporate America...THATS NOT CHANGE.

[chuck kottke]

McCain's Corruption: His implication and admission of being involved in the notorious "Keating 5" involving an S&L scam. He admitted that what he did was wrong, but where was the punishment for breaking the rules?? All the rest did jail time, as I recall. Now if that were you or I, would we be allowed to just opt out of the court case just because we admitted to being guilty??

[Matter-Eater Lad]

So what makes his corruption bad, while Obama's ok? Double standard the reason were all fucked. Your answer to corruption is more corruption. Thats just asking for trouble. Unless you're buddy buddy with the person you want in power.(you're not)

 

Lets solve corruption with even more worse corruption! Brilliant if i may say so.

[chuck kottke]

Neither corruption is good - I'm just making plain for all to see that both are culpable. What you want is a one-sided look into just Barack Obama's corruption, but you claim to see both major party candidates as corrupt.

Anyhow, if you want to read more, please see the article in Slate magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/1004633

[Matter-Eater Lad]

We all know McCains faults, no one here knows of Obama's. I just want people to see both sides. You want change by electing the same. We will be the end of ourselves.

[chuck kottke]

So one might assume we all know McCain's faults.. Not even I know all his faults! Of course, probably a good idea to know the Vice Presidential candidates as well, since the odds of having a VP become president still stacks near 1:6...

I don't want change by electing the same - I am left choosing the lesser compromised of two compromised candidates, and wanting to amend the US Constitution.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Both candidates hate the constitution and will not follow it. SO why does that matter anymore? Its become irrelevant in the debate for our leaders. Although it shouldn't be.

 

BTW Obama is rob the rich and give the money to his rich friends. He's robin hood on crack. McCain is tax cut the rich so all the rich become more wealthy.

[Death Hill]

I don't think you're cynical enough, mrcool. ;)

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Obama(Bush's 3rd term) will use military action on Pakistan if were threatened.

 

Sounds like BUSH'S FOREIGN POLICY. Are you guys sure he's a democrat? Big businesses best friend, stands up for the rich and corrupt and now says he won't take military action of the table with our ally who has nukes and a large already anti american crowd.

 

Obama can threaten a war, its ok. Obama can help his rich friends and its ok. It's only wrong is Bush does it.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Friday, February 22, 2008

McCain's Corruption: Let's Hear it for McCheat!

 

As many of us now know, John "My Friends" McCain, has violated federal elections law by using possible public financing as collateral for loans (directly and indirectly).

 

The NYT have at least demonstrated that the focus on ethics is a lie. Of course, in the Bush era - ethics are whatever someone says, not what they do. NPR has reported on the story of McCain breaking federal campaign finance laws yesterday - and it is worth reading - since he is constantly mentioning his supposed efforts to reform campaign finance laws:

 

What is not so straight forward is McCain's own stance. He rejected public funds for the primaries. Just like Obama and Clinton, he did not want to get trapped in a system that provided taxpayer funds, but restricted total spending to $50 million — all the way to the conventions.

 

Then, McCain's campaign fell on hard times. He applied for the primary-season matching funds. The Federal Election Commission approved the application, but McCain never cashed in his certificates.

 

Instead, McCain went to a bank and received a line of credit. As Potter notes, McCain did not put up the public-financing certificates as collateral.

 

But then the McCain campaign renegotiated for a bigger line of credit. The loan documents said that if McCain lost the New Hampshire primary and finished more than 10 points behind the winner, then he would have to stay in the race and reapply for public funds, which would become the new collateral.

 

Lawyer Cleta Mitchell has long criticized McCain's role in overhauling campaign-finance laws. Pointing to the terms of the loan, she accuses McCain of gaming the system.

 

"They got another million dollars with, really, no additional collateral, other than a promise that if he didn't do well, they'd go get it from the federal government," Mitchell says.

 

And what will the mainstream do with this story? Will they ask the hard questions? Will they point out that so-called straight talk maverick is as dirty as they come? Will they acknowledge that McCain is playing the system? Probably not.

 

And while nothing will come of the obvious corruption and lies because the Federal Elections Commission is not fully staffed due to Rethuglican efforts to staff it with their cronies. We need to remember that McCain is not the person he pretends to be. And perhaps, never has been. After all he was a member of the infamous Keating Five.

 

We must now christen him, McCheat.

 

Again and again, we see that the straight-talk express is rolling through the same muck as all of the other Republican crooks and liars. McCheat is part of the same lying, cheating, anything to win and do what I want crowd that we have had for the past eight years (and possibly longer if you look past the Clinton years).

 

McCheat's new slogan: Lying talk since 1989!

 

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccain-corruption-let-hear-it-for.html

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I find it sad, Obama's corrupt in acceptable but McCain's corruption along the same lines is not. That is why were are in so much trouble, partisan politics.

 

Guess most people are hypocrites, immoral illegal actions by their favored candidate is an acceptable action while the same thing by the other candidate is nothing short of evil. That view is how we end up in trouble. Both sides are equally guilty of it, thus the cycle never will end.

 

McCains supporters do the same thing as Obama supporters; support their candidates or look over their corruption. Until we hold everyone accountable we will not make any progress.

 

A Developer, His Deals and His Ties to McCain

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/us/politics/22diamond.html?pagewanted=print

 

Until we select leaders that are the least corrupt instead of the most corrupt like McCain and Obama, we are doomed. Democrats had much better choices to choose from, like Republicans did, yet we chose the most corrupt.

[chuck kottke]

Neither is acceptable. But we are all persuadable at times, and blinded when we hear what is good coming from the candidate, but on the delivery end comes another package. They are both guilty of it, but the levels vary, as well as the % from the various donor groups.

All I'm saying is they are not identical. And I'm not a major supporter of Ron Paul's version of Libertarianism, because I do feel there is more of a role for our government in more things than just the courts and the military for defense of the contiguous states alone. But I do feel the Constitution is being destroyed by the corruption as well - I just feel the solution may be with a Constitutional Amendment, and reforms to get the big money out of politics. I just went to the Common Cause site - http://www.commoncause.org

Maybe not the whole answer, but some of it.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

What I want you to understand is the change you want and reforms you want will not happen until we throw out all our politicians.

 

We want change, but we must vote for it and get others to. Thats why I'm saying a vote for obama or mccain is a vote against what we want.

[delsino]

i don't care about that ,in fact.

you can say i am brainwashed,but i think they just do good to rich companies and rich men.

...may be Obama is better...but i don't know!

[Matter-Eater Lad]

i don't care about that ,in fact.

you can say i am brainwashed,but i think they just do good to rich companies and rich men.

...may be Obama is better...but i don't know!

 

You're correct but the problem is the same with Obama. He's just as much a slave to wall street and the rich as McCain is.....

[chuck kottke]

If you think McCain, think AIG. See the NY Times article on it. But really, the numbers for McCain are stacked more heavily towards the rich, and the number for Obama are stacked more heavily towards the working classes. I'm not saying either is a saint, but neither are they identical in the policies they will be proposing, or who has more the interests of the average citizen at heart. The numbers are there for all to see at http://www.votesmart.com

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Every fault you find with the McCain/Palin ticked Obama Biden is guilty of too.

 

Obama is not for the working class, ask Tom Rezko and the people who live in sewage because of Obama.

 

Their policies are the same, work for the rich and corporation and pretend to care about normal people. Obama's record is that of screwing over the tax payer for his rich friends.

 

But Obama's rich friend are more deserving then McCains?

 

He has you fooled by sweet talk while you ignore his history. Talk about being a blind sheep. you pretend to know what it going on, but only to the point of what you like everything else you ignore. That type of thinking is the same type keeping our system broken.

 

You talk of change, but you are against it.

[chuck kottke]

I am not the fool you think I am "Mr. Cool"! Look, I'm aware of the corruption, but given the options, I would rather pick the lesser of two flawed individuals than throw my vote far afield right now, and wind up in even worse straits. I'm for reform, but given the closeness of the race, I feel more inclined to choose between the two front-runners. If the race proves to be less close, I may opt to choose a third party candidate. The way I see for real change is through non-partisan grass-roots organizing, and putting forth demands for real change of the process by the citizens, and for protections of our rights - to the commons, to fair elections, and to fair contests. You can go your way, and choose the party route - I have never, and nor will I ever insult you for your path, but don't go insulting me for my choices!

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Reform does not happen by voting for people against it. I'm calling out your double talk on the issue's. You talk one way but act another. Ever think about politics?

 

Change and reform do not come from partisan politics.

[chuck kottke]

Change and reform do not come from partisan politics, but preventing disaster in the short term is sometimes essential and pragmatic. Change can come from third political parties, as history has shown, and it also can come from grass-roots movements that move public opinion and understanding by other means.