It's ridiculous, and clear misinformation by the media that helps forward the conservative agenda, to not mention John McCain's ties to lobbyists. He is a hypocrite on this issue - ignoring that hypocrisy is a horrific thing for the media to do.

And just for the spelling police since I was typing fast it is "hypocrite" My bad.

BoobthePee, Are you saying that these "paragons of virtue" inside the McCain campaign did not hold these positions? If so, you are an ass and a blind one at that. Just asking.

Princethejerk

No I am not saying that, I am saying lets discuss it with a valid source, not Mother Jones. I believe spheres of influence impact both campaigns. 

Bobbie, Once again, what is a valid source to you and the POV. You don't believe anything that isn't ConTalk. And how did you know I was a jerk? Do we know one another? Seems that BB is right and youse guys have "special powers". Maybe that is why you do not have to believe anything, even if it is true. Special Powers don't upset us.

Where have I said I never believe anything?  And for the ten thousand time, and I know it hurts you but I do not support McCain, I am voting for Obama.  I like Obama (maybe that is where POV and I disagree). However that does not mean I do not have an open mind and ask questions. McCain is dirty and his campaign is dirty, but I want valid arguments against that.

I tell you what I would like to see be brought up more by the media, the old Keating Five. That should be a valid issue in this election and I never hear a word about it.

Once again there Bobbie, you KNOW it hurts me that you do not support McCain..and exactly where did I say that? Honestly, do you use a Ouija board? You seem to know all. I hereby declare you the SEER of MMFA.

Keating 5...It's coming..just not the right time. But it may not be needed.

Once again there Bobbie, you KNOW it hurts me that you do not support McCain..and exactly where did I say that?

You did not so I apologize, you did however indicate that I believe "contalk" so I made an assumption again sorry to assume.

You don't believe anything that isn't ConTalk. -princeofwheels

Honestly, do you use a Ouija board? You seem to know all. I hereby declare you the SEER of MMFA. ha ha , that is funny. No I am afraid of Quija boards LOL

Touche...Stay around here. Keeps things interesting...especially your psychic abilities...    ;>)

Its not so much that I like McCain, as that I do not feel Obama has any idea what he is doing.  I simply dont think a few short years in the senate, with half of that spent running for President is enough to be President. 

I suppose that McCain's confusion over Spain's location/human rights status, his claim that he would fire someone as President that he can't fire, and his desire to deregulate health care just like Wall Street are very confidence-inspiring.  Experience doesn't mean much if it doesn't help you do your job any better.

Besides, by your own standards the Palin pick should offend you.  McCain has to be concerned about the possibility that he won't finish his first term, so obviously he doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks about experience.

Hitler and the Nazi party had years of experience. Experience is not all it's craked-up to be. bush has had a lot of experience with a chain saw and he used it on the constitution with the help of his henchmen.

But Sarah Palin is qualified to be a heart beat away from the Presidency with her experience as governor of Alaska? 

What makes McCain qualiified? Does he have executive experience?  Besides being a POW and playing the POW card for what else does he have?

A NASTY temper.

And an increasingly confused mind.

Forget Mother Jones. How many Financial lobbyists are in McCain's camp compared to Obama?

Do you know?

what is a valid source for you as it relates to the number of lobbyists on a candidate's campaign?

You have to be kidding.  Mother Jones.  Wow, talk about an honest broker of the news.  What a joke. 

You question the source. That's fine.

Do you have another source that states that John McCain has no ties to lobbyists from the financial world?

Another Great point Point of View my friend , this was from Wikepedia

Mother Jones is an independent, nonprofit magazine rooted in liberal political values and known for its investigative reporting. The winner of National Magazine Awards in General Excellence in 2001[1] and 2007,[2] Mother Jones has been nominated for 17 National Magazine Awards and has won five times.[1]

With a paid circulation of 233,000 (the average for the first half of 2006), Mother Jones is the most widely read progressive publication in the United States. Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery serve as co-editors.

The magazine was named after Mary Harris Jones, a.k.a Mother Jones, a trade union activist, opponent of child labor, and self-described "hellraiser". The stated mission of Mother Jones is to produce revelatory journalism that in its power and reach informs and inspires a more just and democratic world.[3]

Mother Jones is published by the Foundation for National Progress, a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. Mother Jones and the FNP are based in San Francisco.

This would be like a conservative stating something about Obama from Newsmax. Motherjones has no credibility in this topic.

Newsmax doesn't lack credibility because it's conservative, it lacks credibility because it's filled with very biased opinion pieces, and has a history of, let's say, not sticking too closely to the facts.

My only beef with the Mother Jones piece is I would have liked to have seen the position held by, or connection to McCain, of the people on the list. Which are actually on staff, which are bundlers, etc. But I'm guessing that those of you dismissing the source probably didn't even go to the link.

Since you mentioned Newsmax, I went to the hime page, and clicked on the first item on the "Inside Cover" list. It's an article using an Op-Ed by Rush Limbaugh(complaining once again about being taken out of context) as its only source.

Newsmax is garbage , I do not believe I defended them.

It is amazing thought that Newsmax has a weekly spot on the Imus show now, paid as a commercial.

They also post comercials on the net. All you see is an image of Obama and the text 'Is obama finished? Take part in an important survey'. When you click  on the image, they want you to give your email, DOB etc.

No one said you defended Newsmax. You did, however, say this....

"This would be like a conservative stating something about Obama from Newsmax. Motherjones has no credibility in this topic."

You claimed the two sources were equivalent. They aren't. That's the flaw in your argument.

Bottle of "Sue"

Again you are wrong. I never said the both were the same. Where do you come up with this stuff?  Your a nickel too short and a dollar too long.

POV , you are making me laugh very hard tonight, thank you . LOL

maybe bob can explain the contradiction between these two statements:

"this would be like a conservative stating something about obama from newsmax".

"i never said both were the same".  you said it would be "like", as in similar.

Sure

When i said

"this would be like a conservative stating something about obama from newsmax".

I said that a use of the source by a partisan newssource like newsmax would be tainted.

I never said Mother Jones has the same context as Newsmax.

I said like in "analogy"

I am sure you will not like my answer though and you will go on and on and on.  Instead of commenting on what Reid did not report? Which is the story here. 

If Reid went to the site that Graydogs posted, Reid would know what to say.

http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/

it's not a matter of not caring for your answer.  analogy is listed as a synonym of "likeness", which is  the meaning of your term "like", and the definition of analogy [your word]: "analogy is similarity , as of properties or functions, between things that are otherwise not comparable."   and "point of view" called using mother jones a "joke".  to which you replied:  "another great point  point of view my friend". 

as for commenting on what reid said, obviously i'm not the one questioning the fact that mother jones listed the many many mccain underlings who lobbied for the financial institutions he now attacks.   if you can tell me why you agree that citing  material from mother jones is a "joke", then we can have a discussion from there.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/likeness

Yeah, I had to just walk away from this one when it went like this;

Bobthep: A=B

Somebody else: Are you saying that A=B?

Bobthep: I never said that,Where do you come up with this crazy stuff?

Pointyview: They must be drunk.

Nice attempt to define me but it is wrong.

http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/

No Mother Jones?.......Well, how about WorldNetDaily.

This article was written by conservative's best friend, Jerome Corsi.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56479

Pearlene

I do note believe Jerome Corsi has any credibility, besides his vendetta and hate campaign against Obama he has also smeared George Soros by claming he gives money to McCain.  The guy is a complete nutjob.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56177

Bob, if you don't believe Mother Jones or Jerome Corsi then look the people who work for the McCain campaign up in the Senate Office of Public Records under the Lobbying Disclosure Act. THIS is a "valid source" for the SAME information reported by Mother Jones and Jerome Corsi.

Sometimes facts are simply facts.

Thanks Pearlene, it is not that I do not believe Mother Jones , i just wished there were other outlets reporting it. Jerome Corsi is crazy however, I just wish he would go away. 

Graydogs provided a great site that I have bookmarked, it tells alot about McCain and his dishonesty.

http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/

"...it is not that i do not believe mother jones..."

"mother jones has no credibility in this topic."

which statement do you happen to believe at this moment?

Both, people can have different views. 

It looks like you want to make the thread about me (Thanks) but it really is about CBS Reid.  I can believe a magazine, but they may not have credibilty on a particular subject.

Have you not looked at the great site Graydogs mentioned?

http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/

You're out of your mind.  The phrase "people can have different views" doesn't mean you can hold conflicting views simultaneously.

"You have to be kidding.  Mother Jones.  Wow, talk about an honest broker of the news.  What a joke."

That's the comment you emphatically agreed with.  Don't come on here now telling us that you believe the magazine in general.  If they don't have credibility on this subject, then you don't believe them anyway.  Why would you believe something that has no credibility?  That's sort of what the word means, that something doesn't merit belief.

actually bob, you made the thread about you by contradicting yourself from post to post, as others have noted.  and you, me or anyone else does not have to "believe" mother jones on anything.  but we are not talking opinion here, but a list of mccain supporters and staff who have lobbied and recieved money from financial institutions.  mother jones composed that list.  if you have any information that it is inaccurate, then let's hear that.   otherwise, you're just joining in with an attack on mother jones for no reason.

Col.....I think what is missing, is the source for the article in not just Mother Jones, and Mother Jones itself links to other sources for it's information. They reffer to Institutional Investor, U.S. News & World Repor, Politico, etc. but as usual those who are here to unravel the comment threads start by attacking Mother Jones.

Unfortunatey those on the right aren't interested in fact checking.

This site is super for checking out McCain's lobbyists, money, and connections to each issue. Just click on the issues or the lobbyists photos for details.

http://www.mccainslobbyists.com/

Campaign Money Watch
1828 L Street NW, #250 | Washington, DC 20036
info@campaignmoney.org

Campaign Money Watch works to hold politicians accountable for opposing comprehensive public financing of elections and other campaign finance reforms, and for the favors they give to special interest lobbyists and big money donors. Campaign Money Watch is a project of Public Campaign Action Fu

Graydogs, thank you for this information , it is very useful.

To clarify: I mean "They" as in Ebay...the article, not Mother Jones.

"....They reffer to Institutional Investor, U.S. News & World Repor, Politico, etc....."

Well, Mr McCain must be out of self control. This speech about " crisis in Wall street.............in the middle of it." indicates to me this man has lost it and cannot remember his own 26 years in Congress. We have an opportunity every four years to reward or punish the governance of an elected official. GW Bush got on Tv yesterday for a few minutes and in that time raised our taxes 700 Billion dollars. Took our own money ( as he described it in the past ). And idiot # 2 wants to continue this crap and may even accentuate it by his own admitted ignorance of economcs. Why is he really running for the top job ?

Did the report from father smith include anything about the Obama and other democrat leaders that employed the ones who led fannie mae, and in turn responded by lobbying and giving the money needed to affect policy back to Obama and other demsin congress?

Put up or shut up. Why don't you report on it or stfu? 

Come on, give us the facts.

Facts? I think the run-on sentence with the piled on talking points was sufficient.

These MMFA cons are amazing in their befuddlement.

D'ya ever wonder if they aren't actually staffers or proprietors posing as caricatures? 

Personally, I stopped wondering about that long ago.

To wonder would imply that I had any doubts.

Righty "free market" has crashed and put the US up to it's ears in the banking, finance, and mortgage business - McCain and his friends can take the bow for this - they've moved us toward socialism big time - and his views on medical care will take us there as well. Can a guy be both a war hero AND a jerk? (Remember Duke Cunningham?) And what kind of a jerk would pick a Palin ? C'mon.

I'm not defending McCain but isn't it the role of the "evening news" to report what was happening that day and weren't McCain's comments made that day? Of course they didn't go into what else happened in "recent years" as Mother Jones was quoted. There are real omissions in the news but this wasn't one of them. This is playing into one's agenda. I expect real analysis of the media not propaganda from Media Matters. Maybe its time for a new web site called "Media Matters Matters" where each MediaMatters posting is analized for truth. Again, repeat after me, 'EVENING NEWS'.

So, BofO, you believe that it is the "evening news'" responsability to merely tell you what former POW John McCain says without making any attempt to detirmine the objective truth about his statements.

Well, that ain't reporting, son. That's just stenography.

so the "evening news" should only report on what happens that day?  when did that start?  mmfa did not even say that mother jones had to be mentioned.  they just pointed out that there is lots of evidence that mccain has lots of aides with ties to the financial industry, and that could have been part of the story. 

Palin would be a disaster in the likely event that she took over. McCain would be pretty awful too but he gets the war hero pass. From the Sunni-Shiite mix up to Katie Couric's absurdly doctored interview to save him he just says Bush in 2000.

I was just discussing this point with my wife. She made the -- what appears to be a vary salient comparison from the realm of science fiction -- Dr. Who's 6 words that can bring down any government "Doesn't the prime minister look tired?"

McCain has had his tired moment and like Bob Dole it could kill his campaign.

"Doesn't the candidate McCain look tired?"

Sorry I thought I had thought I had attached this to Brabantio's comment above. Oops.

The "Spain" episode should kill his campaign.  Obama should hammer him with it.

I just don't see a charitable explanation for that.  If he got confused, then he was really confused.  It's hard to see how the interviewer could have made it any clearer that she was talking about Spain.  If he understood it, then why bring up human rights and democracy?  Is he not familiar with Spain's record and government, or NATO status?  And since McCain already said he would meet with Zapatero months ago, that would indicate he wasn't concerned about these things then.  Why the change?

The campaign says that he wasn't confused.  So McCain called our ally's record on human rights and democracy into question just because he felt like it, or what?  If foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suit, how bad is it that he insulted an entire country for no discernible reason?  If "lipstick on a pig" was a gaffe, this is nothing short of suicide.

I would like to see Obama go after Mcbush on the Spain issue. You are very correct brabantino, McCain is not familar with Spains record or government or the status they have in NATO. McCain is as weak in foreign policy as Sarah Palin is , they are both dangerous and liars.

I only hope the American people are not stupid enough again to believe this garbage.

McCain thought Spain was in Latin America, for cripes' sake. If that isn't a reason to dismantle him on his supposed foreign policy "strong suit," nothing is.

I notice that those who take Mother Jones to task have not bothered to state one item they have published that isn't true. I'm sure it is because they can't, and to them, just screaming "MOTHER JONES IS A JOKE!" suffices as a reasoned, logical argument.