Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Quick DU guide to understanding McCain's recent lies relating to his lobbyist pals

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:03 AM
Original message
Quick DU guide to understanding McCain's recent lies relating to his lobbyist pals
McCain's campaign stated that the Senator was not asked by Paxon or the Paxon lobbyist about writing the FCC to assist them. His own previous testimony admits to meeting with them about that very thing and Paxon himself stated that he met with him at his office and that the Paxon lobbyist arranged the meeting.

The McCain campaign denial:

"No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding."

The truth as told by Paxon:

"I remember going there to meet with him." He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."

McCain's 2002 deposition:

"I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue." and "I'm sure I spoke with him, yes."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NastyRiffraff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
1. McCain isn't having a good week (and I'm glad)
There's the Paxson issue, which I'm glad has center stage instead of the thinly resourced sex issue. He's outright lying.

Then there's the finance issue where he's trying to violate a law he helped write.

Cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I need an idiot guide to the other one. In and outs of the law and what he did
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NastyRiffraff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 03:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Okay, here you go:
Edited on Tue Feb-26-08 04:09 AM by NastyRiffraff
2002: McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Finance Reform Act passes.
Among other things, the bill regulates public campaign financing, including a spending limit of $54 million for the primary season.

2007: McCain applies for public financing
Early on, his campaign was struggling for money.

December, 2007: McCain applies for a $4 million bank loan with matching campaign money as collateral.

McCain's foundering campaign gets new life after the Iowa primary; money starts coming in.

February, 2008: McCain, having spent all or most of the $54 million limit, writes the FEC requesting that he back out of the program.
That's permitted provided the candidate hasn't yet gotten federal money, or who have not received a loan using that money as collateral.

Feb. 2008: The FEC tells McCain he can't back out of the system; he can only request.
However, The FEC is unable to vote on the request, since it lacks a quorum of four commissioners.

Feb. 22, 2008: McCain thumbs his nose at he FEC
"It's not a decision. It's an opinion, according to our people."

Feb. 25, 2008: McCain's campaign tells the FEC outright he doesn't need their approval to opt out
It also said he could spend as much as he wants, and that he was still entitled to the share of the matching funds used as collateral for the bank loan.

Note: Overspending the limit can result in a heavy fine, and/or up to five years in jail, per the McCain-Feingold bill.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
usregimechange Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks, saving...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
5. along the same lines of
Week 1: "We don't wiretap without a court order/warrant."

exposed

Week 2: "Okay, we wiretap without a warrant, but it's only terrorists."

exposed

Week 3: "Okay, so we're wiretapping without a warrant on American citizens, but it's only because they're talking to terrorists."

exposed

Week 4: "Okay, so we're wiretapping without a warrant on American citizens who aren't talking to terrorists. We're trying to prevent another 9/11. If we were doing this before 9/11/2001, we might have prevented the attack!"

exposed - wiretapping well before 9/11/2001 ... and yet, the attacks happened ...

Week 5: ...

wait a little while ... McCain will contradict himself yet again ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 16th 2024, 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC