It was interesting, till I came to this:

Why is it liberals always want us to do as they say, not as they do? Of
course he's not a hypocrite. Don't accuse him of being a hypocrite.
He's a Democrat. Democrats can't be hypocrites. You actually have to
stand for something to be a hypocrite.

Facts are good. Put-downs are stupid.

Facts are good. Put-downs are stupid.

Whew, Isn't that the truth?

So, why not engage in the facts, and why, instead, engage in a put-down?

Here are the facts contained in the article:

Presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, co-sponsor of campaign finance reform laws, faces similar scrutiny. He's been criticized for relying on lobbyists to run his campaign.

McCain and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton also had Greenberg Traurig events, but they accept lobbyist and PAC money, saying it won't sway them.

Call him a hypocrite but of the three he still comes out the best.

That's interesting. You should clip it and maybe we could discuss it. In the meantime, why not address this clip about Obama and masbury's twisted pretzel tactic?

So far, on facts we are: 0 Facts for 2 Leftist fanatics.
and: 2 fallacies for 2 Leftist fanitical comments.

Par.

Why didn't n2sooners clip it? It is part of the clipped article. Why don't you read the articles?

Why don't you address the article and not the clippers?

I'm not addressing the clippers. I'm addressing the fallacies and the irrelevance of the comments that are obviously avoiding the clip.

More psychobabble.

I thought Obama was to be the candidate of 'change.' Looks to me like he is just like all the rest just with less experience. He said early in the election that he was going to take public instead of private financing if he made it to the general election, any bets on if mister change lives up to that promise?

And you can bash Clinton and McCain all you want. I don't like any of them. I don't want to see any of them elected. I don't have a favorite. I am just tired of seeing Obama being put on a pedestal like he is the second coming of Christ or something. He is just as bad as the rest and the skeletons in his closet are even worse.

I doubt if Obama does go with public funding because John McCain has already violated the rules and exceeded the public spending cap in the primary. My understanding is that he (McCain) is currently breaking the law.

I think he has skeletons in the closet by I think they are less than McCain and Hillary.

That's why we vote.

Actually, McCain isn't breaking any laws. He may be breaking some election rules, but because of the democrats, there is no one to enforce those rules. Seems both the democrats and McCain are being bitten in the butt by their own stupidity.

Technically whether someone is around to enforce a rule would not stop someone from breaking a law.

There are election financing laws. I don't think they stop becoming laws because someone calls them "rules".

I will admit that there is some debate about whether the laws have been violated. And it is interesting that the DNC has filed a lawsuit......... but against the Federal Election Commission for not enforcing the law.

But considering all of this, Obama still seems to come out on top of these three candidates. Afterall, Hillary is taking financing directly from lobbyists and lobbyists are running the McCain campaign (although the main lobbyist resigned recently from his lobbying position).

The whole problem here is that the FEC CAN'T act due to the same reason McCain is stuck, because they (the democrats) are blocking nominations to the FEC. If there were enough members to act, then there would be enough members to actually allow McCain to switch (which they most likely would).

It is funny that this is happening to McCain, but the democrats have no room to talk since the whole thing has been brought around by their own crooked political maneuvering.

Not even George Will (conservative) sees it as only the Democrats blocking the FEC nominations. The Democrats oppose the nomination of Spakovsky who has been involved in the typical republican disenfranchisement of voters through voter roll purges, ala Florida in 2000 and 2004, and lobbying for national voter ID's.

The Republicans have responded all or none.

It seems to me that the ones most blocking the nomination process are the republicans not the Democrats.

Which I guess suits me fine. Obama will raise tons more money than McCain, if that's how the republicans want to have it.

The parties get to make their own nominations, two for the dems and two for the gop. The democrats are trying to dictate who the republicans can nominate. The republicans are more than willing to accept the democrat nominations if the democrats accept theirs.

Well I imagine the republicans would accept them all.

You assertion that the republicans pick theirs and the Democrats pick theirs is not accurate. The president appoints them and the Senate confirms them. The two "Democrats" and Spakovsky were never confirmed they were recess appointments by Bush.

Lenhard wants to overturn the McCain-Feingold Act.

Walther seems to be tied to Harry Reid.

However seeing as how the president appoints them it looks like the person who good remove the log jam is none other than bush himself. However he is not one noted for compromise, which use to be a part of statesmanship in this country.

In fairness, another article I see states that Reid suggested Lenhard and Walther.

As a progressive they all look unsuitable to me when I read further.

Cronies at the FEC.