David Corn

I have to say: "I told you so"

Top psychiatrist concludes liberals clinically nuts
Eminent psychiatrist makes case ideology is mental disorder

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by the two major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

Hey Capt,

You were one of Clintons biggest defenders when he was getting a blow job in the oval office and said sex is a personal matter between him and his wife. Now why the hypocrisy with McCain?Just curious why you have selective values.

"She's not going to become a young guy who's an inspirational speaker because it's a better strategy."

I think she would if she could.

It is well known that psychiatry is not a science and all practicioners have a psychological disorder occasioned by all the (required) time being psychoanalyzed by another Freudian.

"Bill Clinton came back from a loss in Arkansas to retake the governor's office and, years later, refused to be driven out of the White House by one damn embarrassing scandal."

Uh, David, which "one" scandal would that be?

Travelgate?
Whitewater?
Billing Records?
FBI Files?
Monica?
Jennifer?
Paula?
Kathleen?
Juanita?
Pardongate?
Lincoln Bedroom?
Johnny Chung?
Etc., etc.

Tom

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Someone's farting in the comment section again.

If your question is sincere, it would be Monica.

I know, it really sucks for lefties when Worldnet Daily gets it right on the money!

It is well known that psychiatry is not a science~~

Then why is it mostly liberals that use them?

Corn’s column today is little more than analyzing the horserace and momentum analysis. It didn’t work in Iowa or New Hamphire so why stick with the method? If that’s the most we got out of last night’s debate it wasn’t enough.

I think we can attribute the debate’s disappointing results as well as LBH’s comments to the same factor: The big news that sucked all the air out of the room; Saint John McCain’s is in bed with lobbyists in more ways than one.

The straight-talk express has been taking a detour; it expressly accepts more contributions from lobbyists than any other candidate in the race, past or present. If McCain did have sex with lobbyist Vicki Iseman – which he has not denied, he has denied only that theirs was not a romantic relationship - it would not be the first time he was unfaithful to his wife. The second time around, John McCain like John Kerry married an heiress. Funny how this second wife looks an awful lot like lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Well, one thing can be said for Saint John McCain and that is, he is consistent in his taste for women.

If you want more presidential policies like George Bush’s, vote for John McCain. They both support the Iraq war and believe lobbyists should be given top jobs in government, corruption notwithstanding.

To top it off, McCain’s Arizona campaign co-chair Republican Rep. Rick Renzi was indicted today for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering and other charges related to a land deal in Arizona.
“The charges boil down to this, basically. Renzi is charged with doing everything he can as a congressman to strong-arm others into buying land from his buddy James Sandlin — Sandlin then allegedly kicked back sizable chunks of cash back to Renzi in a series of complicated financial transactions (thus the money laundering charge). The main details of these charges were reported by the Arizona papers and The Wall Street Journal last year.” - Paul Keil

John McCain's Long Career Of Sleazy Lies, Semi-Affairs & Total Corruption

Wonkette boils it down to the basics.

McCain defends lobbyist ties

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- Sen. John McCain said Friday that while lobbyists serve as close advisers to his presidential campaign, they are honorable and he is not influenced by corruption in the system.

McCain, who has styled himself as an enemy of special interests, defended having lobbyists working for his campaign. He is the expected Republican presidential nominee.

"These people have honorable records, and they're honorable people, and I'm proud to have them as part of my team," McCain told reporters following a town hall meeting in Indianapolis.

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggression

Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

Uncertainty avoidance

Need for cognitive closure

Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Personal attacks on McCain is weak and won't work. Voters have already rejected liberal dirty tricks of personal destruction by voting against Hillary and her dirty polictics. New poll shows that 17% of democrats will cross party lines to vote for MCain so you lefties will have to come up with a better strategy than sex with a lobbist. Keep pushing the surge, that's seems to be a real winner for ya all- ha ha!

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

Berkley? please! That's not biased~~~

It is well known that psychiatry is not a science~~

Then why is it mostly liberals that use them?

Maybe because they have been driven wacko by the antics of the rabid Repugs?

Seriously, neither you nor I know whether lefties or righties are the more stupid in actually visiting psychiatrists.

BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations?

There still pissed about Vietnam~~Haha

published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.

Which is peer-reviewed. Not by just those in Berkekey (which you misspelled). But even maybe by some at Yale.

Do you know why I picked on Yale?

This is the same psychiatrist, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, who testified for the defense in the 2001 murder trial of Marilyn Lemak (Naperville, IL) claiming she was insane, although at the time he made no claims about her political views.

Rossiter, a forensic psychiatrist in private practice in DuPage County, offered a detailed description of Lemak's mental state in the days after her children's murders. He met with her in the jail 12 times between March and August 1999, with the first interview coming only four days after the children's March 4, 1999, murders. He concluded she was suffering from a severe depression that prompted a psychotic episode in which she killed her children in the erroneous belief she was protecting them from unhappiness.

The court did not find Dr. Lyle Rossiter’s argument compelling either.

Lemak was convicted of killing her three children, Nicholas, 7, Emily, 6 and Thomas, 3, by drugging the children with a mixture of aspirin, Zoloft and the tranquilizer Ativan before smothering them with her bare hands. Authorities said Lemak, a nurse, tried to kill herself with the same medication she gave her children and then slashed her arm when her attempt to overdose failed. She was on Zoloft and Ativan.

Do you know why I picked on Yale?

Because you belong to the Church of Scientology~~

He concluded she was suffering from a severe depression that prompted a psychotic episode in which she killed her children in the erroneous belief she was protecting them from unhappiness. ~~

Sounds like a pretty compelling reason not to be a liberal~~ If only Obama could of given her his speach of HOPE!

Because Yale locks are ripe for the pickin'?

“… attacks on McCain is weak … Voters have already rejected liberal dirty tricks”

Attacks are dirty tricks if the attack is unfounded. When there is a basis in fact, the attack is perfectly reasonable. What does George Bush have to say about John McCain’s relationship with lobbyists, about how McCain raised campaign money and most importantly, about McCain’s “Washington doubletalk” claiming he’s the reform candidate when McCain is the one who’s in bed with the lobbyists?

Texas Gov. George W. Bush… lashed out at John McCain’s reform credentials today, charging that the Arizonan has hypocritically used his position as chairman of a Senate committee to raise money from lobbyists and to travel on corporate jets.
“I’m not letting Senator McCain get away with this Washington doubletalk,” Bush told reporters here. “He has been in Washington long enough to earn a very important committee chairmanship. He has used that position skillfully to forward his campaign.”
[Washington Post, 01/05/00]

McCain’s response was a blanket denial of just about everything. Big mistake. You know it’s bad when reporters are calling bullshit on you and you have to reverse yourself during your own press conference. His statements on this whole matter to date have been–at best–evasive. That’s the kiss of death to someone whose entire persona is that of a “straight talker”. The press is going to keep digging, and they’re going to find more and more “inconsistencies” in his statements. I think he could have survived the “NYT smear job” unscathed. It’s his own lies that are going to come back to haunt him.

Which is peer-reviewed. Not by just those in Berkekey (which you misspelled).

So did you, but who cares?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So a peer reviewed makes it science when:

It is well known that psychiatry is not a science and all practicioners have a psychological disorder occasioned by all the (required) time being psychoanalyzed by another Freudian.

John McCain is like an old glue horse. He's good for something.

How about that flip-flop on torture? He carried the flag on no torture only to change his mind. First it was interogation as stated in the military handbook. Now, there's lots of toture grey area for John McCain. What does he believe in?

Neil,

Attacks are dirty tricks if the attack is unfounded. When there is a basis in fact, the attack is perfectly reasonable~ so you say!

So you agree with Hillary that Obamas drug use is reasonable. His ties to the slum lord that he bought a house under market value while kicking low income people out on the streets is reasonable or the fact that hes another Jesse Jackson or his fairy tale campaign are all reasonable.

How about Obama ties to Jack Abramoff that I posted yesterday. I mean if you want to go after McCain then lets be fair at least. The NYT prints an article from gossip rumors with no facts and you guys are like cock roaches sucking up all the scraps you can get your dirty little hands on.

Pathetic~~

What does George Bush have to say about John McCain’s relationship with lobbyists~~

Who cares, I would rather discuss McCains policy positions vs Obamas which so far is very vague. Which is why you all want to bring it down to personal dirty tricks instead.

How about that flip-flop on torture? He carried the flag on no torture only to change his mind. First it was interogation as stated in the military handbook. Now, there's lots of toture grey area for John McCain. What does he believe in?

I believe he was wrong before and right now so I can live with a flip flop when it's correct. When the factual evidence proved that it worked the ONLY three times it was used then its the right decision for the security of the US minus any emotional feelings one must have about it when having gone through it. It just goes to show McCain is one tough bastard when being tortured compared to the caddy ass terrorists who sqealed like a pig.

Neil

How do you feel about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan?

It’s an Obamiracle!

ExurbanLeague.com ^ | Feb. 22, 2007 | Exurban Jon

"Be healed!"

The Vatican continues to investigate reports of signs and wonders involving Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. From their latest case file:

In Dubuque, Iowa, some people brought to Obama an unemployed union member who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man.

After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Obama put his fingers into the man's ears. Then he poured out some Evian and touched the man's tongue. He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, "SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE!" At this, the man's ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly (mostly about hope, change and the need to stop outsourcing American jobs to Asia).

Obama commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. Donations flooded into the campaign Web site.

The Iowans were overwhelmed with amazement. "He’s so handsome and articulate," they said. "He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak. It’s an Obamiracle!"

McCain hasn’t seen so much flak since he got shot down over VietNam - although that time he really was being targeted by “commie leftists who hated America” instead of the ones they pretend exist at the New York Times.

He seems to have really walked into a perfect storm this week on all his signature issues - possible sex scandal, consorting with lobbyists and doing their bidding, he has sullied his campaign finance reform credibility by getting into a fight with the FEC (and perhaps more damaging to his ability to pull out of this tailspin, he may have locked the Republican party into spending limits for the next six months - even though we know they’ll ignore them, it still keeps the subject alive), Isikoff has come up with a reverse-perjury trap deposition a la Paula Jones (except he likely told the truth under oath), and the only thing that seems to be saving him from complete immolation at this point is his vaunted base in the press.

All in one week - hard to believe that this was not all choreographed in some way, even Bill Clinton didn’t have weeks like this, it usually got spread over months.

Neil,

A better comparison would be between McCains pork barrel project spending to ObMa (92 million) and Hillary (340 million) and why won't Obama disclose where that money is going?

Fox.com

McCain’s challenge to Obama was based on a Washington Post article that morning highlighting pork barrel project recipients. The article said Clinton helped lock down more than $340 million in earmarks for her home state of New York in last year’s spending bills, placing her in the top tier of Senate recipients for the type of localized federal spending against which McCain claims to be a crusader. By comparison, the article said Obama recorded $91 million in earmarks.

But McCain merely noted Clinton’s “pork” at a campaign stop in Burlington, Vt., and then blasted Obama for not revealing the target of his earmarks. The Post article said Obama has not released his letters to the Appropriations Committee seeking the earmarks for 2005 and 2006.

“The senator from Illinois, because he is a junior, had only gotten about $92 million, according to that article,” McCain said. “And the senator from Illinois, who says that he wants transparency in government, will not reveal the number of earmarks that he received in 2006 and 2005. Is that transparency in government? I don’t think so. I don’t think so!

“So I call on the senator … to go ahead and tell people how much money in earmarked projects and pork barrel projects that he got for his state and what they were for. And my friends, examine my record on pork barrel projects and you will see a big fat zero.”

The Post article cited a report from Taxpayers for Common Sense, which said McCain was, in fact, one of just five senators who rejected all earmarks.

If only he had the audacity to tell the truth!

Military Questions Obama’s Claim That Under-Equipped Troops Used Taliban Weapons

FOXNews.com
Friday, February 22, 2008

The military is casting doubt on Barack Obama’s claim during a debate Thursday night that for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, it was “easier to get Taliban weapons” than it was to be properly equipped by their own country.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Friday he found the claim “hard to believe.”

“Despite the degree of skill and finesse that it takes to manage a large force with the number of deployments we have going on — and despite the stress that we have readily acknowledged on the force, one of the things we do is make sure that all of our servicemen that are going into harm’s way are properly trained and equipped with the leadership they need to be successful,” he said.

Obama’s campaign stands by his remarks, which he made during a debate with Hillary Clinton in Austin, Texas, while explaining why he feels he is prepared to be commander-in-chief and why the decision to enter Iraq demonstrated poor judgment.

During the debate, he said he was told by an Army captain heading a rifle platoon that he was sent to Afghanistan with 15 fewer soldiers than he was supposed to have because the other troops were sent to Iraq.

“And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition; they didn’t have enough Humvees,” Obama said. “They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander-in-chief.”

Army spokesman John P. Boyce Jr. issued a statement saying: “Without a unit designation or time frame of deployment, it’s difficult for us to verify the validity of what was told to the senator. Our soldiers deploy as complete units — either as companies, battalions or brigades, and they do so with every soldier armed with his or her individual weapon. … Army units and individual replacements arrive in country fully capable to conduct combat operations.

McCain's FEC Problem

We noted this yesterday. But The Washington Post does a good job today in sizing up the situation and its possible mammoth consequences for McCain's campaign.

There are really two completely separate issues here.

First, McCain opted in to the public finance system for the primaries last year. It meant that his struggling campaign would get $5.8 million in public matching funds in March. Now that he's effectively the Republican nominee, he wants out, because the system entails a spending limit of $54 million through the end of August. He's almost spent that much already, according to the Post.

So the McCain campaign sent the Federal Election Commission a letter (pdf) earlier this month saying that he was opting out. But there's a problem. And FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, made it plain in his letter (pdf) yesterday: McCain can't tell the FEC that he's out of the system. He can only ask.

And the FEC, which normally has six commissioners, can't give him an answer until it has a quorum of four commissioners. It currently only has two. That's because the Senate has been deadlocked over four nominees; Democrats insist on a separate confirmation vote for vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky, and Republicans insist on a single vote for all nominees.

The second issue has to do with McCain's tricky loan and whether the FEC will conclude that it locked him into the system. But for now, that's really ancillary to the first issue.

It is a serious issue. As the Post reports, "Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison."

*****

Interesting stuff.

All in one week - hard to believe that this was not all choreographed in some way, even Bill Clinton didn’t have weeks like this, it usually got spread over months.

McCain will weather the storm my friend, which is why 17% of Democrats will cross party lines to vote for him like Reagan. The question is will lite weight Obama be able to handle the heat since Clinton has been kiddy gloves with him and the press worships him as a Messiah. Will be fun to watch!

Feingold: I Voted For Obama

Russ Feingold has now given his support to Barack Obama in a way that practically qualifies as an endorsement in all but name: Feingold divulged that he personally voted for Obama in the Wisconsin primary, and said that he will likely continue to support Obama in his capacity as a super-delegate.

"I really do think that at the gut level, this is a chance to do something special," Feingold said. Feingold had previously declined to publicly endorse before the primary.

First, McCain opted in to the public finance system for the primaries last year.

I believe Obama pledged to do this also, but now is going back on his word. Who needs integrity when you've been duped by the Clintons for the last 16 years.

More Lies From The Bush Fascists

President George W. Bush and his director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, are telling the American people that an unaccountable executive branch is necessary for their protection. Without the Protect America Act, Bush and McConnell claim, the executive branch will not be able to spy on terrorists, and we will all be blown up. Terrorists can only be stopped, Bush says, if Bush has the right to spy on everyone without any oversight by courts.

The fight over the Protect America Act has everything to do with our safety, only not in the way that Bush and McConnell assert.

LBH does not know the difference between psychraitry and psycology.

Ignorant. So ignore him/her/it.

Is LBH a robot?

Media double standard on candidates (Farah on NYT-McCain vs Larry Sinclair/Obama)

WND ^ | 2/22/08 | Joseph Farah

Let me get this straight.

Presidential candidate A is accused of having a risky homosexual dalliance with someone he picks up in a bar, scoring powdered cocaine for his partner and crack cocaine for himself in an incident that allegedly occurred about nine years ago. The named alleged partner makes his charges public, agrees to a polygraph and files a lawsuit reiterating the charges and accusing the candidate of harassment and intimidation. The candidate refuses to deny the allegations.

Presidential candidate B is accused by unnamed sources of having a romantic interest in a female lobbyist in the same year. There are no specific allegations of sexual or drug-related incidents. Both the candidate and the lobbyist adamantly deny any untoward activity took place between them.

Yet, for the Big Media, there is no story involving presidential candidate A, but there is a raging mega-story involving candidate B.

I've been a newsman for 30 years. This is what we call a double standard as big, wide and deep as the Grand Canyon, which happens to be in candidate B's home state.

We'll all know the truth about Obama on Feb 26th when larry takes the lie detector test. I wonder how you all will spin that one~~ he he

Ignorant. So ignore him/her/it.

Are you a Scientologist?

Ignorant. So ignore him/her/it.

Are you a Scientologist? Yes or no?

David Benson,

I'm taking bets on whether he knows the difference between an optometrist and an ophthalmologist. You want in?

"If your question is sincere, it would be Monica."

Captain, I think the scandal, at the least the one for which he was only the second President ever to be impeached, was for lying under oath, i.e., committing perjury, in the Paula Jones trial.

By the way, that's the trial that everyone in the Clinton gang wanted to settle and go away - everyone except Senator Clinton. In retrospect, that was really good advice on her part, wasn't it?

At least that's the scandal for which he was disbarred not only in federal court but forever by the state of Arkansas.

It's never about the act; it's always about the coverup.

If McCain is lying about sex with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, can we impeach him?

At least that's the scandal for which he was disbarred not only in federal court but forever by the state of Arkansas.

Uh...no. Five years, quite a difference from FO-
EVAH.

I didn't pay much attention to the fact that you can't recognize the difference between a scandal and a "scandal." I'll pay even less attention now knowing that you can't even get your facts straight.

Thanks for playing, though!

Neil --- Yes, I'll come in on your side. I doubt a robot knows the difference.

I also doubt that LBH knows the difference between a scientologist and a scientist.

:-)

Clinton tries to energize trailing presidential bid

DALLAS, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton fended off questions about the future of her presidential bid on Friday, insisting her remarks at a debate were not a farewell but declining to promise she would stay in the race after must-win votes in Ohio and Texas on March 4.

In appearances on three morning TV news shows, Clinton was questioned about her emotional remarks on Thursday at the close of a debate with rival Barack Obama and what they signaled about her trailing bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

*****
"Is Pessimism Spreading in Clintonland?"

Maybe a dose of realism?

"My friends" with John McCain... starring Vicki Iseman!

Demand John McCain stop his lobbyist fundraising

You said "I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."

Yet you have 59 lobbyists raising money for your campaign!

Stop your lobbyist fundraising now, and return the millions of dollars raised by lobbyists.

*****

Sign a petition if you like?

The John McCain-Vicki Iseman story is not the first article the New York Times has held back for political reasons. They have now done this on at least three occasions:

1. The original FISA story on how the Bush administration was not getting warrants for wiretaps inside the United States.

2. The original story in 2004 that showed Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

3. The McCain-Iseman story.

We had James Risen, the writer of the first two stories on our show back in 2005 and he admitted that they held the Bin Laden story until after the 2004 election because the New York Times didn't want to "get caught up in the politics of it."

*****

Lest we forget the WaPo holds stories too. Why do people still support these M$M propaganda outlets? If they are unable to “report” the “news” what are they? (hint - worthless)

NY Times Holds Stories Because They're Afraid of Conservatives

Title and link goes with the above.

Dinosaurs from the 20th century:

The Shrub and all his motley crew;

McCain;

The Clintons, both of them.

Probably I missed a lot, but I ought to earn at least a D+?

Wait, wait a minute! I meant to add:

TNYT;

WP.

McCain: Reformer or phony?

McCain's alleged affair with a lobbyist isn't a big deal. What matter more are his ties to special interests, like her clients in the cruise ship industry.

[…]

Eight years ago, when McCain's connection with Iseman alarmed his staffers, the most lucrative lobbying contracts won by Alcalde & Fay were with the cruise ship industry. In 2001 alone, Iseman's firm received well over a million dollars from passenger ship companies and interest groups, which include local port authorities in Florida as well as companies such as Carnival Cruises. That year, the International Council of Cruise Lines paid Alcalde & Fay a fee of $990,600, by far the largest amount from a single interest that the firm has earned during the past decade. Iseman herself is a longtime registered lobbyist for Carnival.

It may be just a coincidence that around the same time, McCain became a dedicated sponsor of bills to deregulate the cruise and passenger ship industries, which have been hobbled for decades by protectionism and national security laws. Year after year, he promoted legislation that would have permitted greater freedom for foreign-flag cruise ships to operate in U.S. coastal waters, even while he occasionally scolded the cruise operators for persistent safety problems on their boats. During those years, he became known as the best friend of the port authorities, cruise lines and others seeking to rewrite laws dating back to 1886 that protect American ships from foreign competition.

*****

Politicians are such slugs.

So, this guy needs glasses and he walks into the orthopedist office . . . .

Good one Capt!

Neil & DB

I do know the difference between a scientist and a butt monkey and neither of you are scientists my friends!!

But hey what you two do in private chat rooms is your business not mine~~

A Hole in McCain’s Defense?

An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.

A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist.

On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station.

Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters.

But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."

*****

The man can’t hide from his record.

"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."
~ Simon Cameron (1799 - 1889)

Sure wish my employer would allow me to spend the entire afternoon to post on sites like LBH.
Get a job!

Paxson contradicts McCain, says they discussed FCC letters.

Marking the second time that statements made by Sen. John McCain’s campaign have been contradicted today, Lowell “Bud” Paxson told the Washington Post that he did in fact meet with the senator about writing letters to the FCC in 1999. McCain’s campaign said yesterday that “no representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter.” Paxson said they met “several weeks” before McCain sent the letters:

*****

It is always the lies and cover-ups that will get cha.

"I did not have lobbying relations with that woman"

Maybe grandpa just can't remember?

Clinton faces claims of borrowed language

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton – whose campaign has spent the past several days pointing to instances of borrowed language in the speeches of rival Barack Obama – is being accused of lifting words from one very familiar politician: her own husband, former President Bill Clinton.

During Thursday night’s CNN Democratic debate, Clinton looked to highlight occasions when lines used by Obama have resembled those delivered by his friend and adviser, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

Clinton’s closing answer, which brought the audience to its feet, highlighted her personal struggles and the difficulties facing ordinary Americans: "You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

Shortly after she delivered her closing remark, a reader of Joshua Micah Marshall’s Talking Points Memo Web site noted that the line seemed to bear a resemblance to one her husband was quoted as delivering during his 1992 campaign.

"The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time," her husband was quoted as saying in an article by Anna Quindlen in the New York Times in that November of that year.

Last night, Hillary Clinton also said: “You know, whatever happens, we're going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that's what this election should be about.”

The Obama campaign immediately began circulating a similar comment delivered by former presidential candidate John Edwards. “What's not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what's at stake is whether America is going to be fine,” Edwards said during a December debate in Iowa.

Spending habits scrutinised

When it comes to campaign expenditure, the team behind Hillary Clinton's presidential bid appears to have forgotten her husband's theme song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow".

Latest financial statements published by the campaign show that, in January, Mrs Clinton spent $5m (£2.5m) just paying her top consultants. Her team lavished $25,000 on hotel rooms at the Bellagio resort in Las Vegas ahead of the Nevada caucus. And it spent almost $100,000 on sandwiches and snow shovels for Iowa caucus-goers. Not only did she come in third in Iowa, it also did not snow on caucus day.

With the postmortems on her campaign already beginning – even though she is still very much in contention – much scrutiny is likely to fall on her fundraising and spending habits, which at times looked indeed like there was no tomorrow.

She went into January with a $6m cash advantage over Barack Obama, but ended the month so far behind that she made a personal $5m loan to herself. Her communications director, Howard Wolfson, was paid $270,000 in that period. Her chief strategist Mark Penn pocketed $3.8m for himself and the company behind him.

*****

I could have lost the election for half that cost . . .

Coburn declines to elaborate on Iraq War statement

U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn's comment that going to war in Iraq was "probably a mistake" represents a significant departure from where the Oklahoma Republican started out on the 5-year-old conflict.

*****

Not all of the GOPhers are delusional. Maybe there is hope?

LBH is wrong again.

McCain's Lobbying Scandal Defense Falls Apart a Little More

[…]

I think it's safe to say this is going to get worse for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Let's step back briefly and set the stage -- during his first presidential campaign, McCain took four trips aboard Paxson's corporate jet to campaign events. Paxson company executives -- the ones urging McCain to intervene on their behalf with federal regulators -- had just ponied up $20,000 in campaign contributions. Shortly thereafter, wouldn't you know it, McCain pressed the FCC to give those nice Paxson folks the break they've been looking for.

And then, years later, with the pressure on, McCain lied about his efforts. And got caught.

Does LBH only come and post while he is waiting for his stocks to go down?

Sure wish my employer would allow me to spend the entire afternoon to post on sites like LBH.
Get a job!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unlike most of you trolls I contribute to society:
I own my own business, make over six figures and had the best year ever in this so called horrible economy.Because I'm my own boss I can spend meaningless time showing that liberalism is a disease of the mind here in Cornnut land which I find quite entertaining. Now if only you trolls had a job then I could pay less in government taxes to take care of your sorry butts and have even more fun time here in Cornnut land. HA!

LBH said "... I contribute to society."

But the post indicates he only 'contributes' to his own pocketbook. except, of course, what the IRS extorts out of him.

But he doesn't even know the definition of 'liberal'.

So once again, wrong.

Looks like Harry and Nancy are taking over where Tom Delay left off and this is even from Huffington

Democratic majority good for K Street’s bottom line

By Jim Snyder

New limits on the access lobbyists have to lawmakers have not hurt K Street’s bottom line as several top lobbying shops reported strong revenue growth in 2007.

Patton Boggs continued to set the pace in terms of money generated by lobbying. The law firm earned $42.7 million in 2007, making it the first firm to earn more than $40 million in one year from advocacy. In 2006, Patton Boggs generated $35.1 million in revenue, which was also good enough to put it on top of The Hill’s annual survey of lobbying revenue.

But he doesn't even know the definition of 'liberal'.

Liberal is garnishing my wages to pay for your health care when I already pay $800 a month now.

Liberal is making us who earn money give it to you who haven't a clue on how to make money.

Liberal is buying a house below market value from a slum lord and then kicking low income renters out on the street to line there own liberal pockets.

Hows that for starters?

Uber-Lobbyist Who Serves As McCain’s Chief Political Adviser Considers McCain His ‘Client’

[...]

On Friday, Black told the National Journal that he doesn’t think his continued lobbying is a problem for the anti-lobbying image of his “client,” John McCain:

Well, it’s perfectly fine as long as I am able to make the distinction between giving advice to McCain and representing clients. It’s the same principle as when you have multiple clients and you handle them all differently. You don’t talk to one client about what you do for the other. In my volunteer role with McCain, I consider him a client.

******

“I didn’t have lobbying relations with any of my lobbyists”

Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

JFK - September 14, 1960

Are those lobbying firms 'contributing' over one hundred times as much to society as LBH because they are earning that much more?

Liberal is telling the Iraqis that they must make it on there own without our government help but then telling us that we can't make it on our own and must have our government help.

Liberalism doesn't apply if your Iraqi~~

LBH once again demonstrates he does not have a clue.

Does not know the meaning of all sorts of words.

Is LBH a robot? I thought they built robots better than that.

Are those lobbying firms 'contributing' over one hundred times as much to society as LBH because they are earning that much more?

You have no idea what I do for society my friend, unless now your phsyic as well as a scientologist!

Actually that would make sense~

"When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative."
~ Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)

JFK would not be liberal enough for you neo-nuts to get the party nomination if he were running today. JFK would reject the far left as it is today and you guys are no better than the extremists on the right like Pat Robertson. You all are made of the same cloth if you ask me. No compromise just extremism full throttle.

I hate to be the one to break it to ya but it's kinda what people are sick of!

Wow...such a broad brush...yet still it makes a fine line when stroked latterally...

Obama Raps McCain on Lobbyists

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama said Saturday that the Republican presidential nominee in waiting, Sen. John McCain, has lobbyists as top aides and "many of them have been running their business on the campaign bus while they've been helping him."

The Democratic presidential hopeful also said McCain's health care plans reflect "the agenda of the drug and insurance lobbyists, who back his campaign and use money and influence to block real health care reform."

*****

Yes he did!

McCain defends pressing agency to act on license

Says ex-chair called his role 'appropriate'

WASHINGTON - Senator John McCain yesterday defended pushing a government agency to decide whether to issue a TV license to a major donor, asserting that the agency's former chairman had cleared his role as "appropriate."

But the Federal Communications Commission chairman involved in the case, William E. Kennard, actually wrote a letter to McCain at the time saying that his request for the agency to take action was "highly unusual" and that he was concerned that McCain's action would interfere with the agency's "due process."

Asked to explain the apparent contradiction, a McCain spokeswoman said yesterday that the Arizona senator was citing exoneration from a chairman who left the commission in 1997 - even though that was two years before McCain pushed the FCC to decide the case. The spokeswoman denied that McCain sought to mislead the public.

*****

“I was exonerated two years before I wrote the letter“

That sounds like the “straight talk” has become less and less so.

Sunday funnies -
Nader announces new bid for White House

LBH wrote "You have no idea what I do for society ..."

That is correct.

But I have a good idea by know what you do to it!

a "silly season in politics"

When Nader decides he has to run again,

When anybody is pretending they care about McCain’s sex life,

When some say the “Surge” is working,

When HRC thinks she can tie BHO to win,

When pundits blather about the convention and surperdelegates because they can - not because it is really a concern,

I missed a few but . . .

In all seriousness, Ralph Nader is likely suffering from mercury poisoning:

Ralph apparently eats the same thing for lunch every day (tuna on lightly toasted wheat, skim milk)

It would explain a lot.

Speaking of the "surge", analysts brought up a point I hadn't considered. They say the surge may have helped to reduce violence, but a great deal of credit actually goes to Muqtada al-Sadr having ordered a ceasefire by the Mahdi Army, which was thankfully extended for another six months a few days ago.

Obama accuser fails polygraph

Deception indicated in tests on drug, sex charges

WASHINGTON – The Minnesota man who accused leading presidential candidate Barack Obama of cocaine use and having sex with him in the back of a limousine nine years ago has reportedly failed two polygraph tests administered by the website WhiteHouse.com.

The tests were administered to Larry Sinclair Friday by Ed Gelb, former president of the American Polygraph Association, according to the site. One dealt with the sex claim and the other with the drug allegation. Deception was indicated in both, the report said.

******

Sorry but I had to un-troll a little. The source is not reliable but . . .