Well, I for one, won't send a single penny to Mr. McCain.

See, for years John McCain thought he was quite the schizzle when the NYT fawned over him for sticking it to those conservative knuckle-draggers. And he basked in their praise. You know, being that wascally Maverick and all.

Now that they've predictably turned on him, he wants our help? Guf. Faw.

No thanks, John. They're your buddies. You deal with 'em. Maybe next time you'll check the flea content before bedding down with the mutts.

"Maybe next time you'll check the flea content before bedding down with the mutts."

Did that stop you from supporting Paul?

Years ago, the NYT changed it's motto from "All the news that's fit to print," to "We just make this crap up!"

Editorial commentary at the NYT starts at the top of page one and continues through the classifieds.

Talk about a "blow up in your face" piece of cheesy writing; it's on par with Dan Rather and Mary Mapes cooked books stuff about GWB...and similarly motivated.

The Piper

I'm sure the right will continue to focus on the sex allegation - as McCain is - to deflect attention away from the important part of the story -- McCain's very cozy relationship with lobbyists - 59 in all working for him or his campaign as of a few weeks ago, including a couple currently employed as lobbyists and conducting business from his campaign bus, no less. McCain says it's not a problem, trust him - and to an extent, I do. But for a candidate who preaches against the evils of lobbyist influence in Washington, he certainly goes out on a limb with Rick Davis, Charles black Jr, Thomas Loeffler, Steve Schmidt, Mark McKinnon...and dozens more of their ilk running his campaign.
Yup - keep the focus on the sex and ignore the real story about John McCain's political hypocrisy and who he's really working for.

Yeah Kelly. I'm a Ron Paul supporter. /rolls eyes

Get a clue.

And JimD? I suppose you'd rather our candidates be funded by illegal contributions from Communist China?

"And JimD? I suppose you'd rather our candidates be funded by illegal contributions from Communist China?"

Hey - where do you think the billions that keep our economy afloat every day comes from? They virtually own us, thanks to McCain and his corporate governance ilk.
I'd rather see NO contributions from pacs, lobbyists, bundled doners or corporations. Individual private doners only, and a modest cap on that to boot.
But you guys have nixed that with the premise that corporations have a right to "free speech" in the form of huge contributions the average individual citizen can't possibly match.
So we've got two primary contenders spending five-mil A DAY trying to win the nomination - with currency floated by the Chinese no less. Absolutely insane...

I'd rather see NO contributions from pacs, lobbyists, bundled doners or corporations.

Oh, I see. So some citizens are able to express their First Amendment rights, while others are not. At least according to you.

Or just the groups, lobbyists and organizations you agree with?

By the way, your boogeyman corporations are what? People. Citizens. Groups of individuals. Those with the same rights as 'individuals'. But wait, you want to silence them, too, by putting a 'cap' on their speech.

Yet you question the sanity of others.

I'll admit, the amount of money needed to run a presidential campaign is astounding. But the worst 'solution' is to thwart and hamper the free speech of the supporters of those candidates.

Open disclosure. Timely, open disclosure. And if you don't like the amount or source of a candidate's funding, then don't support that candidate.

Well Jim, you asked and I gave you my answer. The prohibition of all PACs, all corporate donations (etc) and only allowing small, individual donations would be a level playing field - and I'm suggesting - a field more commensurate with the interests of the citizenry as a whole. If a corporation wants to support a particular candidate, they could gather folks to support that candidate with individual, personal donations.
It ain't going to happen, of course, since corporations have been deemed to have the same "freedom of speech" rights as individuals, and as such, have the right to promote what's in their best interest in the form of campaign financing - giving them overwhelming financial political power over individual citizens.
But I'd have no problem altering the concept of campaigning financing's expression of speech, if it returned influence to individual citizens - a more inherently level playing field than we're now afforded.