Levi Johnson throws Sarah under the bus again and again

THE KOD

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
McCain weighs in on Palin in 2012
Posted: October 11th, 2009 09:01 AM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

WASHINGTON (CNN) ? Former Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain is openly admitting that there were tensions between his former campaign manager Steve Schmidt and those close to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain?s one-time White House running mate. Still, McCain calls Palin ?a formidable force? in the GOP and remains open to the possibility of Palin being his party?s presidential nominee in 2012.

?With a high-pressure situation, there's always tensions that develop within campaigns,? McCain says in a wide-ranging interview that airs Sunday on CNN?s State of the Union. ?And there were clearly tensions between Steve Schmidt and people in the Palin camp.?

Still, McCain said, Palin was an asset to his presidential campaign.

?There are fundamental facts ? that cannot be denied,? McCain adds. ?When we selected or asked Sarah Palin to be my running mate, it energized our party. We were ahead in the polls, until the stock market crashed. And she still is a formidable force in the Republican Party.?

?I have great affection for her,? McCain continues. But ?did we always agree on everything in the past? Will we in the future? No.?

While McCain said he could not predict what would happen in the next presidential election, the Arizona Republican says he is open to many potential nominees for his party ? including Palin.

?Look let's let a thousand flowers bloom. Let's come up with a winning combination the next time. ? let's all go through the process, rather than condemning anybody's chances,? he says, reacting to recent comments about Palin by Schmidt. ?And I'm happy to say we have some great people out there, and Sarah is one of them.?

Asked about Palin?s prospects in 2012, Schmidt said he did not think Palin could be a winning candidate in the next presidential election.:SIB

?And, in fact, were she to be the nominee, we could have a catastrophic election result,? Schmidt told CNN National Correspondent John King in an October 2 interview.:scared

Asked about Schmidt?s comments, a Palin spokeswoman said the former vice presidential nominee would address the tensions within the McCain-Palin campaign in her forthcoming book, "Going Rogue,? which is due to hit bookstore shelves next month.

....................................................................

Chris October 11th, 2009 10:39 am ET

I know there are a lot of conservatives out there who say McCain lost the election because he wasn't conservative enough. I think the real reason he lost the election was because of Palin. Many people were sick of the hardcore Right Wing ideology and partisanship of the Bush years. What the neo-cons can't seem to understand or accept is that McCain won the Republican nomination precisely because he was such a moderate and had shown he was willing to work across the aisle. That's what made him appealing to both the more mainstream members of the GOP and independents. Although I was leaning towards Obama, I could still have seen myself voting for McCain.

It is only when he brought in Palin to appeal to the base, that many people say he lost their votes, including mine
.................................................................
 
Last edited:
deadeye

deadeye

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 22, 2006
398
1
18
south texas
bored

bored

man are you guys bored or what. go pick up an enquirer sarah is toast as a politician. anybody who thinks otherwise is crazy.
 
Trench

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Take it from Dr. Phil, Skulnik...

Take it from Dr. Phil, Skulnik...

Trampled Underfoot said:
You need to start being honest with yourself Skul.
Click to expand...
drphil1.jpg

"Tramp's right Skulnik. Clinical studies
have shown that homophobia's merely an
attempt to disguise your own feelings of
sexual inadequacy with women coupled with
your underlying desire to be with other men."
 
Last edited:
Trench

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
deadeye said:
man are you guys bored or what. go pick up an enquirer sarah is toast as a politician. anybody who thinks otherwise is crazy.
Click to expand...
Fuck, we're not done with Palin by a long shot. She's the gift that keeps on giving. You know, sorta like Herpes. :142smilie
 
THE KOD

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Leadership PACs let cash flow to congressmen from lobbyists, special interests
By Bob Keefe

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

WASHINGTON ? Never mind the lousy economy and recently revamped rules designed to make it tougher for lobbyists to entertain Washington lawmakers.

Some members of Congress are still living the good life on other people?s money.

Take U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss. This year alone, a political action committee run by the Georgia senator hosted a $48,000 golf outing and fund-raiser at the Breakers in Palm Beach, Fla. It spent $6,000 for golf and lodging at Pebble Beach, Calif., and $3,000-plus for golf and catering in Seaside, Calif., according to Federal Election Commission documents. Last year, the PAC spent more than $100,000 hosting golf events, including Chambliss? golf fees, travel, lodging and other expenses.

Chambliss? Republican Majority Fund PAC also regularly picks up the tab for fancy dinners and parties, including a $6,300 dinner at a Ruth?s Chris steakhouse in Washington, D.C., in March.

Where does the money come from? Almost all of it was contributed by lobbying groups and special interest organizations, such as the National Chicken Council, the National Beer Wholesalers Association and political action committees of companies such as Aflac, Coca-Cola, Federal Express and Home Depot.

Two years ago, Congress made it illegal for lobbyists to buy gifts or pay for travel for members of Congress.

But through ?leadership PACs? such as Chambliss? Republican Majority Fund, members of Congress can raise all the money they want from lobbyists and special interest groups ? in increments of up to $5,000 per election cycle ? and use it just about any way they want. Through June of this year alone, Chambliss? PAC raised more than $185,000, according to FEC records; some leadership PACs raise and spend millions of dollars each year.

There?s nothing illegal or new about leadership PACs.

?This is a perfectly legal entity, and many senators have similar fund-raising organizations,? said Bronwyn LanceChester, Chambliss? spokeswoman. She said the senator would not be available for an interview for this story.

In the wake of the new lobbying rules, leadership PACs have grown in popularity. A recent investigation by the nonprofit watchdog journalism group ProPublica found that more than 70 percent of members of Congress have leadership PACs. The ProPublica investigation featured Chambliss prominently and resurrected details about his leadership PAC that were first uncovered by the AJC in November.

In Georgia?s congressional delegation, both senators and 11 of its 13 representatives have leadership PACs. Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Lithonia and Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Athens are the exceptions ? mainly because they?re relatively new to Congress, spokespeople for the congressmen said.

Critics say the contributions that pour into leadership PACs are just more evidence that money from lobbyists and special interests still rules in Washington.

?This just amplifies the already clear message that there?s an overwhelming influence of money in the whole [political] process,? said Bill Bozarth, executive director of Common Cause Georgia, a public advocacy group.


Few limits on expenses

Ostensibly, leadership PACs are used by incumbent members of Congress to raise money for the campaigns of new candidates in their party or those who are up for re-election.

Chambliss? PAC, for instance, gave $5,000 earlier this year to the U.S. Senate campaign of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and $5,000 to the re-election campaign of fellow Georgia Republican U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson. The PAC also gave to the re-election campaigns of GOP senators and representatives from states stretching from Louisiana to South Dakota.

There are few limits on how leadership PAC money can be used. Like Chambliss, some members of Congress use PAC money to host golf tournaments and other events to raise even more money. Others use PAC money for other expenses.

For instance, U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel, a New York Democrat who?s currently facing an ethics investigation, spent $64,000 from his PAC on an oil portrait of himself, according to ProPublica.

In Georgia?s congressional delegation, U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Gainesville Republican who?s running for governor, spent about $10,000 for an event last year at a golf course in Chattanooga through his Red Rooster Leadership PAC, records show. Included in the expenses was $4,700 for photographs.

Isakson has used money from his 21st Century Majority Fund leadership PAC to pay for dinners and Christmas gifts for his staff, plane tickets for his wife, Dianne, to travel from Atlanta to Senate-related events in Washington, and for catered barbecue from a Marietta restaurant for an annual gathering for GOP senators.

Isakson?s PAC also paid about $50,000 to host a two-day golf tournament in Atlanta earlier this month that ? like Chambliss? golf outings ? was designed to raise more money to be forwarded to party candidates.

In an interview, Isakson said that ? with few exceptions ? his leadership PAC doesn?t pay for any of his personal expenses. He also pointed out that his PAC holds only two fund-raising/entertainment events a year, the Atlanta golf tournament and a catered dinner in Washington. The vast majority of money his PAC takes in goes to other candidates.

Asked about his wife?s plane tickets, Isakson said it was a legitimate expense for a leadership PAC ? and better than using taxpayer money to pay for it.

Isakson also downplayed any potential of influence peddling by PAC contributors.

?I don?t look at a campaign gift as a quid pro quo for anything,? he said. If contributors to his PAC don?t like what he?s doing or where their money is going, he added, they can simply quit giving.

Chambliss? spokeswoman defended the costs of his golf outings and golf-related events, saying they?re necessary to raise money for the PAC that in turn can be used to support Republican candidates.

?The RMF [Republican Majority Fund] has traditionally raised money through golfing events, which, by their nature, are more expensive to host than other types of fundraising events,? LanceChester said in a statement.


From PACS come perks

Besides good meals and good fun, politicians get other benefits from leadership PACs.

For one, giving money to party candidates makes them look good in the eyes of party leaders and colleagues, which in turn can result in help with their own campaigns, as well as better committee assignments and other perks.

?I don?t care what member you are, you get noticed when you help other people,? said Michael Andel, chief of staff for Democratic U.S. Rep. David Scott of Atlanta.

Leadership PACs also help assure partisan contributors that their money isn?t going to money or causes they don?t support.

That?s one of the reasons U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston, a Savannah Republican, started his 13th Colony Leadership Committee PAC, spokesman Chris Crawford said. Contributors to the PAC don?t need to worry that their money is going to any Democratic candidates or causes, unlike with other contributions they may make, Crawford said.

Golf tournaments seem to be the preferred type of fund-raiser for leadership PACs ? even for politicians who don?t golf.

Kingston?s leadership PAC, for instance, pays about $30,000 a year to host a golf tournament fund-raiser in Alexandria, Va.

But since Kingston doesn?t golf, Crawford said, about the only thing he gets out of it is a free lunch
................................................................

Even when laws are passed to stop it , they find ways to get their money.

Thats why its such a joke about health care reform. They are doing exactly the same thing and that buying people to oppose it.

when does this stop.

America is being thrown down the toilet by these people.
 
THE KOD

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,499
263
83
Victory Lane
Rates to rise under Senate health plan, industry group says Story Highlights
Senate Finance Committee is expected to vote on health overhaul plan Tuesday

Industry group: Private health insurance would rise over next decade under plan:142smilie


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Health insurance premiums for the typical American family would increase by another $4,000 by 2019 under a key Senate overhaul plan, according to an industry trade group analysis.

Sen. Max Baucus' Finance Committee is likely to vote Tuesday on an $829 billion bill to overhaul health care.

The report raised new questions about the political viability of the 10-year, $829 billion compromise bill drafted under the guidance of Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, chairman of the Finance Senate Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee is expected to vote on the plan Tuesday. The vote represents a potential turning point in the health care debate. Baucus' committee is the last of five congressional panels to consider health care legislation before debate begins in the full House of Representatives and Senate.

The report from the group America's Health Insurance Plans concludes that, under the Baucus plan, the costs of private health insurance would rise by 111 percent over the next decade. Under the current system, costs would rise by 79 percent, the report said.

Premiums for individuals could rise by an extra $1,500 if the Baucus plan is implemented, the report said.

It said premiums will rise faster under the Baucus plan in part because it doesn't do enough to require individuals to purchase coverage. A failure to draw enough young, healthy people into the insurance system would drive up rates for everyone else, the report concluded.

Under the plan, individuals who did not buy coverage would face a fine of up to $750.

Don't Miss
Key health care vote set for Tuesday
Agency predicts health care bill will cost $829 billion
In depth: Health care in America
At the same time, a proposed tax on employer-sponsored, high-cost "Cadillac" plans could result in higher premiums for many private consumers, the report said. It also highlighted likely cost-shifting due to Medicare cuts and an array of new taxes and fees on industries tied to the health care sector.

The White House blasted the report Monday, calling it inaccurate and self-serving.

"This is a self-serving analysis from the insurance industry, one of the major opponents of health insurance reform," White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said.

"It comes on the eve of a vote that will reduce the industry's profits. It is hard to take it seriously. The analysis completely ignores critical policies [that] will lower costs for those that have insurance, expand coverage and provide affordable health insurance options to millions of Americans who are priced out of today's health insurance market or are locked out by unfair insurance company practices."

Finance Committee spokesman Scott Mulhauser called the analysis "a health insurance company hatchet job -- plain and simple."

The analysis from America's Health Insurance Plans, first reported by The Washington Post, was conducted by the firm PricewaterhouseCoopers.

A separate analysis last week from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the Baucus bill would reduce the national deficit by slightly more than $80 billion over the next decade.

The office asserted the plan would provide insurance to an additional 29 million people and extend coverage to 94 percent of the country's nonelderly population.

The measure initially was drafted after months of negotiations among the Finance Committee's so-called Gang of Six, a group of three Republicans and three Democrats. It represents the only proposal so far with the potential to attract any Republican support.

The Baucus plan is also the only plan under serious consideration that excludes a government-run public health insurance option. Several top Democrats -- including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California -- have questioned whether it is possible contain costs without creating a public option to serve as a check on private insurers.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose the government-run insurance option, saying it would drive private insurers from the market and eventually bring a government takeover of the health care system.
...............................................................

Health Ins Companys

YOU LIE

outside now
 
Chadman

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
What gets me is that so many of these companies, that people who own stock in, and pay their hard earned (?) money for, are putting that faith in the hands of lobbyists and politicians, and nobody on the right seems to care. You guys pay the money to these companies, put faith in them, want complete autonomy to continue to do that, and these companies could give a crap about you. When you invest in a company, I assume there's very little in you that cares about right or wrong when it comes to society, and the common good, as long as your portfolio goes positive. I know, I look too.

So many of you are oblivious to what is going on around you, and don't realize you are backing the wrong sensibility. (at least in my view...). Carry on...
 
Duff Miver

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Scott-Atlanta said:
Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose the government-run insurance option, saying it would drive private insurers from the market and eventually bring a government takeover of the health care system.
Click to expand...


Which would be a very good thing.

Do you think capitalism is more efficient? Okay, try this: ask UPS or FedEx to pick up a letter from your house and deliver it to mine for 42 cents.

LOL!
 
Lumi

Lumi

LOKI
Forum Member
Aug 30, 2002
21,104
58
0
58
In the shadows
Duff Miver said:
Which would be a very good thing.

Do you think capitalism is more efficient? Okay, try this: ask UPS or FedEx to pick up a letter from your house and deliver it to mine for 42 cents.

LOL!
Click to expand...

try to get usps to do it for 42 cents, and they will return it, if you are going to make an argument, at least know the postal rates
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top