comment #1

Dave says ...

"essentially backs up the underlying point"

What point was that again? That McCain slept with this chick and then did favors for her? Was the the overlying point, or the underlying point, of the NYT piece?

Hey, I'm all for pinging McCain on his preening sanctimony when it comes to the "culture" of Washington. I live here, I work here, I count plenty of lobbyists as my friends. It's an ugly business, but it's been here since, oh, the day the swamp was drained and a city built. Which is one reason why I never liked McCain's "holier-than-thou" attitude in this department, because he's a Senator, which means he OBVIOUSLY meets with lobbyists, he OBVIOUSLY meets with fundraisers, and he OBVIOUSLY does favors of one kind or another for contributors.

That's called POLITICS, folks. Happens every day. There's nothing "special interest" about it. It gets ugly when it gets secretive, when it crosses ethical lines.

But what lines were crossed here? Anyone?

comment #2

JHRussell says ...

Hold on a minute, Jeff...what are you saying the underlying message of that pile of shit NY Times article was? From my reading of it, the NY Times smeared McCain implying he had done unethical favors for lobbyists and their clients without backing it up...this Washington Post article doesn't do that...it puts lobbyists in McCain's campaign, etc., but where's the beef?

I hate the whole lobbying thing, but it is the way business is done in DC. You Obama supporters really don't want to go down this path...even though he has only been in DC a couple of years, my guess is that Obama is up to his neck in this stuff, too...

comment #3

christian says ...

Contrary to the acolytes here, Obama gets phat support from lobbyists.

comment #4

Dave says ...

My point is that Congress in 2008 (or 1998, or 1888) relies on lobbyists. That's an argument in favor of hitting McCain not so much on hypocrisy as on foolishness.

But he, like Obama, know that everybody instinctively hates lobbyists, money in politics, "special interests," etc. They're great code words, useful shorthand taglines to rail against Washington, an always inviting target.

Alas, it's the same technique that allows voters everywhere to "hate" Congress while loving their local member. Or the same technique I use when I say bitches ain't shit, but still love my GF ;-).

Anyway, until there's something there, I just don't get what the NYT is thinking. I mean, either Obama or Hillary are just as, if not far more, sordid in the lobbyist world than McCain is.

Hell, even with the Keating Five, McCain was dragged in just because the Democrats in Congress wanted to make sure it wasn't a "Democratic-only" scandal, yet his transgressions weren't as remotely egregious as those of Cranston, Riegle, and DeConcini (poor John Glenn got roped in as retaliation for McCain getting dragged in. . . yup, politics is an ugly business).

Anyway, McCain's sanctimony was well-loved by the NYT as long as it was always directed against his fellow Republicans. Now that he's the GOP nominee, *of course* the NYT is going to throw every little thing they've got against him.

Again, there might be something to this. Wake me when someone finds something.

comment #5

T. Holly says ...

It's Vicki I., not Vicky oy.

comment #6

T. Holly says ...

McCain's wife has some crazy eyes and stiff hair.

comment #7

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

...Yeah, but she was hot back in the day.

comment #8

bents75 says ...

Isn't the general point people are trying to make is that Washington "shouldn't" rely on lobbyists?

Just becuase that's the way it is done, and always has been done, doesn't mean that's the way it will always have to be done.

That's the definition of the word 'Change', which I seem to hear being thrown around a few times recently.

Work was accomplished with slaves in 1850, 1750, 1650 and for several thousand years prior to that, but people still found a way to get rid of that system without society crumbling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a whole lot in the constitution stating that lobbyists are required for a democracy to operate.