Is Russert talking about John "I Am Lobbyists Worst Nightmare" McCain? Maybe Russert is just giving McCain a little more time to jettisone a few more of his army of lobbyists who are running his campaign. Hey, maybe Russert could interview Charlie Black in the meantime. Just a suggestion...  ;>)

despite the media's long-perpetuated myth of McCain as a straight-talking maverick who is feared by lobbyists

Of course the lobbyists fear McCain.  They are sincerely afraid that he will stop signing their paychecks!

When is someone going to pin McCain down and ask him about the contradictions regarding the army of lobbyists running his campaign? I've only seen him asked once and McCain's reply was to the effect that these were all honorable or honest men. Regardless whether these are honest lobbyists, it's still a contradiction that McCain has so many of these people running his campaign. It just doesn't smell right...

Yeah lets just talk about all of these issues while Americans pay $5 a gallon for gas.

The oil industry lobby is a pretty strong one, last I heard.

And how will smearing having this discussed on Meet the Press change our gas prices?

smearing

 

Interesting word choice. 

How will coming here and making a stink change gas prices?

Yes, that's what he asked. As if we cannot discuss the errors and omissions of Tim Russert and chew gum at the same time. Well, maybe Bobthep can't do it, but we can. As if gas price concerns have anything to do with the errors and omissions of Tim Russert.

It's a total non sequitor to bring up gas prices on this thread. How like Bobthep to try to distract from the current discussion.

Yep. And there influence in killing CAFE standards and biofuels is a good reason why we are paying so much.

Are you serious? Democracy was sold to special interests a long time ago and lobbyists are the highly paid bag men. McCain says one thing and does another...ooooh, big surprise.

Yawn

Tell ya what-- when those wonderful Democrats actually do something about it, let me know. Far as I'm concerned they are no better than the Republicans & are beholding to lobbyist as well.

All politicians are guilty...but not all of them are like the fraud, John McCain, who claims to be the enemy of lobbyists. That is the point, my friend...

Irony,

Name me one politican that claims to be the friend of lobbyist.

They all say the same crap. That includes Obama & Clinton.

Yes - they all say the same thing.  Only Obama's actions are consistent with his words, however, as he does not employ any lobbyists in his campaign, and has therefore avoided embarassing dismissals.

False. 

First, you do not need to employ lobbyists to be guilty of taking money from them.  After all, thats the basis of special interest groups.

Second, Obama has taken money from them by claiming there is a difference between "lawyer advocates" and "lawyer lobbyists" which is hair splitting and untrue...there is no difference.

No Columbus, he never said that!

There's this:

"A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans"

Hillary Clinton, defending her huge lobbyist funding at YearlyKos.

McCain has lobbyist support regardless what he says, and so does Obama.

During campaign speeches, Obama frequently makes the contention that “I’m the only candidate who doesn’t take money from corporate PACs and lobbyists.”

Obama has raised nearly $14 million from lawyers and lobbyists. In October, Obama raised about $125,000 at a fundraising event in the Washington offices of Greenberg Traurig, the law firm that once employed convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Obama has sought to draw a distinction between “lawyer advocates” and “lawyer lobbyists,” but some non-partisan experts see that as “a distinction without a difference,” as they both operate as special interests.

Columbus,

Can you reference your numbers and the comment by non-partisans?

Center for Responsive Politcs and League of Women Voters to name two sources.  And before you claim this is a partisan outlook, its not.  There are multiple sources of this (one from his own Chicago's Tribune http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obama_lobbyists_no_lawyers_yes.html) as well as a three piece set of candidate falsehoods on Fox (on McCain, Clinton, and Obama):

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/trail-of-tall-tales-barack-obama/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/21/trail-of-tall-tales-hillary-clinton/

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/22/trail-of-tall-tales-john-mccain/

 

Columbus,

First of all, your $14 million number is a complete fabrication (and Fox News is not a source for anything but lies).

Second, the $125,000 was raised at a fundraiser, no lobbyists contributed.

Third, according to factcheck.org, Obama has not accepted any money from any PACs or lobbyists period.

Fourth, he never said he would not take money from lawyers.

Fifth, Obama did not try to make any distinctions, he simply refuses money from lobbyists.

So, once again you were very loose with the facts.

It can't be up to one party to get big money out of politics.

All McCain all the time here at MMFA.  Where did everyone else go?

I see they are now reaching back to February to expose some alleged  misinformation of missing information by the media because someone at MMFA can't find anything more current to whine about.

 Ahh the sweet stroll down memory lane and past gas. :-)

Yes, let's ignore the geriatric gymnast...he just wants to be President.  ;>)

How soon we forget Bush.

If only we could.

Bob, I wish we all could. But the damage is irreversable.

So is the smearing.

True.

Especially after what Bush and Co. did to anyone who disagreed with them in these almost brutal 8 years.

Bobthep says that we've forgotten Bush. Of course that's totally off the point and irrelevant.

Media Matters doesn't highlight any particular candidate or office holder. They highlight misinformation and omissions in the media that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda.

If there's lots of inaccurate info out there in the media about Bush, then they have lots of posts relating to Bush here. If there's inaccurate coverage, or the converse, a lack of coverage of McCain, then they cover it.

The media isn't covering Bush too much. He's not doing much, and since he'll be in office only 7 more months, then he's not a top storymaker anymore.

All McCain all the time here at MMFA.  Where did everyone else go?

Seems Brock & Co. have stamped out all other Conservative mis-information ;-)

Except for that conservative advocacy of calling some women "b*tch" on CNN.

Ah, name-calling.  Cheers, Jeter.

Your lonely and you only dig politicians at the state level?

Oh Governor,

You spent that entire thread dodging credibility grenades, do you really want to back to that minefield again?  

I still maintain that it's sexist for a man to call a woman that word, regardless of circumstances, if that's what you mean.

We know, we know, but you still had your head handed to you on that thread...what are you, a masochist?

you still had your head handed to you on that thread

 

Really?  Do tell, Tommy, when is it not sexist for a man to call a women a "b*tch"?  Bet you can't do it.... 

When is it not?  How about when the shoe fits...?

There are multiple meanings of the word first off.  Most commonly referring to someones attitude.  No different than a woman calling a man a "D***".  Its not sexist, just a term based on attitude.

When the shoe fits?  That's when it's not sexist?  When a woman's acting like a b_ _ _ _ then she's a b_ _ _ _ ?  My god.

Oh I know, it was proven on that thread that a man can call a women a b*tch and do so without being sexist if the woman's deserving of the title based on her behavior. VERY happy to disagree with you on that.

I love the pride you wiggle in for that, good for you.  Too bad, however, you chose to hurl schoolyard expletives and link to genital bashing cartoons at anonymous posters here with such ease. 

Keep patting yourself on the back for not being "sexist" Governor, for apparently you aren't able to do it to often.

I never said I was not sexist.

Finally, a point in which you can take yourself to task and argue within the confines of your own mindless rantings.....whew!

Nice job dodging my question at 4:27:13.

Have a good weekend. 

You too, have a sexism free weekend!

Wahhhhhh Wahhhhhhh

Gov I see you flagged my other posts to you. Baby.

You should not threaten me with violence, Jeter.

What?

Oh my God you're insane.

Good bye Gov. Twerp.

Name-calling and threats.  Good work.

He flags posts that make him look downright silly.  Typical.

Exactly Columbus.

His flag finger must get tired ;-)

No, Jeter, I flagged your post in which you threatened me violence.  There was nothing silly about it.

What a liar. I never threatened you with violence. Seriously dude, you have some issues.

Consider yourself on my Ignore List from this day forward.

Incorrect.

There has been more on the Castellanos thread since you left, it is rather amusing.

 

Maybe to you it is.  When a man calls a woman that word, it's done first because she's a woman and second, to put her is her place.  That you think can do it devoid of it being sexist, simply aint funny.  Period.

What's funny is that you think that you're a better authority on word meanings than a dictionary.  Even accepting your assertion of the only way the word is used (which is ludicrous), you still have no point.  Because then if you're dealing with a woman who thinks that she has a right to do whatever she wants but that a man doesn't, then "putting her in her place" could be putting her on an equal level with men.  That would be consistent with believing in gender equality, while sexism is about A)demeaning women as an entire gender and B)asserting their inferiority to men.  Part A doesn't work because you can know not all women are like that, and part B doesn't apply for reasons I've stated.

Likewise, it wouldn't be sexist for a woman to call a domineering man a prick to put him in his place.  Would you really chastise a woman for that?  If men can't assert their own equality the same way women can, then there is no equality.  And like I said on that thread, I empathize with the historic inequality of the female gender, but that's not going to make me accept the idea that women can do absolutely anything they want to men and then cry about nasty names.

The fact that you think you can pursue this argument onto another thread indicates that you don't have a sense of humility.  Established meanings of words don't matter to you, your failed arguments don't affect your attitude, you just think your opinion overrides any facts and logic whether you can address them meaningfully or not.  That lends no credibility to your posts, and makes for a horrible representation of your ideology.  If you can do better, you should.

Your opinion is noted, and the lack of reason behind it has been amply demonstrated.  You can make the same baseless assertion over and over again until Doomsday, it won't magically make it true.  I do believe I saw you express that same sentiment to someone else recently, so you should have no problem grasping that point.

That term, used by a man to refer to a woman, is done to specifically attibute a given behavior to her gender.

Yes, you abandoned that point on the other thread.  Again, saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

That you and Columbus and 2 other men are in agreement on the b word, does not make me wrong.  I stand by my assertion.

No, it has nothing to do with anyone else.  Your failure to support your argument is what makes you wrong.

A man calls a woman that word first on the basis that she's a woman.  And that's a fact.

And gender-specific is not sexist by itself.  This has been demonstrated already.  Why do you imagine your assertions have any value when you can't address the arguments?

Attributing behavior to someone's gender is sexist.

But it's not attributing any behavior to the gender, just the person.  Something specific to behavior is not prejudicial, therefore it is not sexist.  I honestly don't know how much simpler I can make it for you.

You make it about gender with your choice of insult.

Again, no.  Just because it specifies the gender doesn't mean it insults the entire gender.  The term can be chosen simply because it fits the gender, not because the insult is directly aimed at it.  No matter how many ways you rephrase your unsubstantiated point, it's still unsubstantiated.

The term can be chosen simply because it fits the gender, not because the insult is directly aimed at it.

 

How does the term "bitch" fit the gender?

It's fitting because it's gender-specific, by your own argument.  "Son-of-a-bitch" wouldn't be fitting because that refers to men, for instance.

There's another part of that story, where the boyfriend physically threatened me for money since they couldn't get it through litigation.  I called him an a-hole.  I don't apologize for that either, they were both vile, contemptible people.  I think we can agree on that.

That term is gender-specific in my usage.  When I say it, it refers to a man.  But obviously when I use that term I'm not insulting him first because he's my own gender, it's because of behavior and the choice of word is appropriate because it's a man.  And it can't be about applying his behavior to all men, because it would be applying it to myself as well.  Obviously I'm not going to do that.

But as soon as I'm talking about a woman, then I must be insulting her based on her gender first instead of her behavior.   Anything else is just not possible, because apparently one cannot make a harsh criticism of someone outside of their own gender for any reason whatsoever without being sexist.  Almost as if by magic, my entire set of attitudes about gender equality disappear, and I'm attributing whatever she did to every woman on earth.  And this immediate and radical transformation occurs without me even knowing it!

Truly hilarious.  By any standards of behavior what this woman did to me was absolutely unacceptable, but to insult her means I'm talking about her gender above anything else.

I'm sure you'll ignore the glaring idiocy of your argument and reply with a zombie-like repetition of something that's been shot down three times already, but I'm willing to be surprised by a relevant response.

The term "bitch" is patently sexist.  You can't change that fact.

Not in your mind, if you are incapable of any analysis whatsoever.  I can't force you to make cogent and relevant replies.  The prediction of the zombie-like reply was too easy to make.

Isn't this the same game Tommy plays so often?  You can't change his mind no matter how weak his argument clearly is, then he acts as if his position is valid because he hasn't changed his mind.

Something to think about, if you find yourself capable of thinking about something. 

I’ll concede that using a sexist term does not make the user sexist, but I simply don’t agree that there’s a way to use a sexist term in a non-sexist manner.

But it's not a "sexist" term if it's used to describe behavior.  If it's used to describe all women, yes, but otherwise, no.  The definition of "sexism" supports this, which is something you simply refuse to acknowledge.

It's a sexist term because it describes women's behavior.

Really?  What behavioral traits are listed in any definition of the term that are exclusively demonstrated by women?  How does the term assert that all women possess these traits?  The only way that argument works is if you believe all women behave reprehensibly.  Otherwise, it only applies to some women.

And again, if it only applies to some women, then it isn't sexist, because sexism is the denigration of the entire gender by definition.  No matter how many times you assert the meaning of that word, the dictionary trumps your "opinion".   I'm sorry that objective reality is such a hurdle for your contrary argumentative whims.

It's not a whim that that term is sexist.

Then you should be able to address the points presented to you instead of just repeating unsubstantiated assertions. 

I just noticed something else as I was reviewing the original thread.  When I told you about my personal use of the word, you said "I don't blame you for calling her a sexist name under those conditions."   Then you said:"let’s cut the crap, that scenario was all about gender.  If it weren’t then he would have called something offensive but gender-neutral." (emphasis in original)

If it was "all" about gender, then how could the conditions (which is her behavior, nothing else) possibly make my comment to her understandable?  But as soon as Tommy talks to you, it couldn't be about behavior at all, because if it was I would use a gender-neutral term.  What happened to change your views there, outside of someone you don't like taking issue with your comment?

That's a contrary argumentative whim.  You don't like someone so you'll adjust your views to contradict them.  You don't deny acts of sexism for yourself, your definition is so broad that one has to imagine that the vast majority of people make sexist comments at one point or another, and the act can be justified to some degree depending on conditions.  Bearing these admissions of yours in mind, why take issue with what Jeter said in the first place? 

First off, if you admit sexist comments yourself then it's not a big deal when someone else does it.  You don't really have any moral high ground there, obviously, so it's not really worth pursuing the point very far.  More importantly, you're not five years old, you know some women are malicious and unpleasant.  My story shouldn't have been some grand revelation to you, and you indicate it's not because you admit you have your own stories to tell.  So even though you surely realize there are times when you can't blame people for using the term because of some women's behavior, you say Jeter is a sexist for saying that some women "deserve" the title.  As I said elsewhere, if you can't blame someone for using the term, then the term is obviously deserved.

All of this strongly indicates that you were acting on your personal dislike, not on any principled disagreement with what he actually said.  That's an opinion, but you see that I can back mine up.

I eagerly await your one-sentence disagreement. 

Don't have time today but I can mention that "bitch" is a term all about describing female behavior.  And it's patently sexist.

This has been addressed already, and repetition doesn't make it true.

To continue from that thread, since the text boxes are getting so thin:

"A man calls a women that word first because she is a woman and second to put her in her place,  You've done it, I've done it. It's sexist."

Here's another issue I have.  If every single person who's called someone of the opposite gender a gender-specific name is sexist, that's an awful lot of people.  Everyone who's been cheated on, stolen from, lied to, abused, had their children abused or molested or murdered, whatever, they're all sexists.  Men and women alike.  At some point the charge loses its impact.  It's like chastising someone for drinking a beer, at least half the world's population has consumed alcohol at some point or other so it doesn't mean much.  The frequency of the behavior defines the social acceptability of it.  If we all do it, then it's "so what?" when it's pointed out.

Now I, personally, think sexism is a terrible thing.  Men and women should be treated equally because they are equal.  If you change the definition of the word to encompass all of those people then you dilute the term for those who really do think that one gender is inferior.  You equate two completely different levels and types of behavior by consolidating them into one term.

Well you have to love the way conservatives talk to women, look at how McCain called his wife a c***. 

Maybe McCain's in the news a lot.  Maybe McCain's the presumptive nominee for the Republican ticket.  Maybe McCain's lobbyist problems get worse the further you dig.  Maybe McCain's lobbyist ties are relevant since the Maverick bills himself as the lobbyist's enemy.

Geez, AA, you know what would really help the cause of the rightys around here?

If there could be one single item where none of you insisted on posting a comment that had no other purpose than to prove that you completely missed the point.

MMFA didn't reach back to February for misinformation.

 You are right about one thing;February was quite a while ago. It's also when Tim Russert assured his audience that he wasn't done with the stories on Grampy's ethics problems.

As of May 18, although some other sources have been reporting on Mccain's less-than-savory dealings, Russert has largely ignored it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll check some of the other threads and see who need a "helping hand"with the fundamentals.

 -- All McCain all the time here at MMFA. -- anotheramerican

Here's some info on one very plausible explanation:

 -- Wealthy Democrats are preparing a four-month, $40 million media campaign centered on attacks on Sen. John McCain. And it will be led by David Brock...quietly assumed the chairmanship of what's expected to be the main vehicle for independent Democratic attacks on McCain, now called Progressive Media USA. -- Politico

 -- Progressive Media USA, the group organized to be the main soft-money advertising vehicle for Democrats in the fall, will dramatically scale back its efforts in deference to the wishes of the party's presumptive nominee...Those familiar with the group's decision cast it as largely the result of the stated desire of Sen.Barack Obama's campaign to not direct funds to outside organizations in hopes of better controlling the Democratic message in the fall. -- Huffington Post

 -- Progressive Media USA ...is responsible for a strikingly large number of the anti-McCain stories to appear in the national press over the past six months. 

However, at the behest of the Obama campaign senior leadership,it has now been decapitated and decommissioned by Barack Obama's uber-wealthy donors. -- openleft.com 

The worm has turned.

Look at the bright side.  MMFA did a study a while back documenting the fact that Democrats were underrepresented on the program so now Meet the Press is correcting that mistake by concentrating on the Democratic race for the nomination.  Geez, you guys are never happy.

Ah, great point.  Where is that lopsided chart heavy with all the rightwing pundits and rightwingers vs. the leftwingers on MTP? Now it's all Democrats and McCain is on the back burner and, well, that isn't good either.  Drats!

Would it be possible for Timmie Russert to ask a Democrat...

about the lobbying and cronyism issues of John McBush? 

Oh,no, no, no!!!!!  They might attack St. John McCain. 

Or would he prefer to focus on Rev. Wright and flag lapel pins, and who "really" loves America, etc. ad nauseum?

Aw, come on you guys...

Russert is eventually going to get to this stuff.  Around January, February '09.

Obama will be President then and nobody will care about this issue.

Nice speculation, but only time will tell whether that will happen, or someone will cry "racism" if he loses.

Columbus,

A racist like ytou should not discuss racism.

Seems like quite a lot of John's party are beginning to be unhappy with him.

It does seem strange that he's their candidate. I take it as evidence that the previous kingmakers in the GOP have lost influence and/or motivation in this election cycle. Its also possible many are in jail or are fighting to stay out of it.

Barring taxes, conservative judicial appointments, and emperor sized executive powers, I don't know how much of the neocon ajenda he has aligence to.

McCain is a hypocrite. Seems that he hasn't changed since the time he was caught with his hand in " Keating Five S&L scandal" cookiejar. We have to listen to him preach ethics and about how he hasn't taken a pennies worth of pork money while he's been gaming the system by securing millions in federal funds for large land developers.

I'm still waiting to hear anyone in the MSM talk about this!!!

Here's an article reported by Reuters on 18 May 2008:

http://www.truthout.org/article/mccain-secured-federal-funds-aiding-developer

Other news organizations have had no trouble finding the time and the data and the interest to cover the lobbyist ties McCain has. For Meet the Press to have not covered it is news. For them to have not covered it since February when Russert himself acknowledged that it's a story that should be covered is really offensive.

His failure to cover that on a major Sunday morning talk show helps forward the conservative agenda that McCain not have his blemishes covered. McCain tries to be the maverick. The news media helps promote that image, but reality shows us that he is not a maverick now if he ever was before.