Given their agenda, how ELSE could they be expected to achieve their goals?

The newest 'push' by the MSM is that McCain is too "old". Hope they keep it up, it'll piss off the senior citizens. Nothing like ticking off the one group that can be counted on to vote.

McCain has exceeded his legal spending caps -- it is not "possibly" illegal it is illegal and all a matter of public record.

Nothing may ever come of it -- many crimes go unpunished.

They cannot win with their present ideology...yet. However, they have identified their victory as somewhere in the future. At the present trajectory, they will be victorious because they are stacking the deck in their favor. Those of us who understand the Constitution and the principles that are represented are dying out. We're dinosaurs. The textbooks that are being used today accurately convey the events of this nation's founding, but they do not discuss the principles (representative government, individual rights, etc.) upon which the founding rests. And without the principles, the events become increasingly less important, until the day that even they can be eliminated. The other side understands that the battle must be moved to the classroom. And they are counting on us to compromise. Because we don't want to seem, well, intolerant.

But, someday, they won't require intrigue to win elections. They'll have won our children. All they have to do is wait for us to do nothing.

I think a central tenet of modern liberalism is that the end justifies the means. Racial discrimination is OK if it gets more blacks into college. Speech restrictions are fine if it reduces 'hate'. Cheating their way into elected office is just another aspect of this. Liberals believe they are better people than conservatives, so it's better for the world if they're running it, even if they have to destroy democratic institutions to achieve that end.

When I last checked Mr. McCain was running as a Republican.

I won't comment any more.

Continue with the topic of Democrat bashing.

Best wishes!

I wonder how many people have read the Constitution lately? Funny thing that the Clintons or anyone (including El Rushbo) seems to have not read it closely. Article II clearly states that the President must be a man--native born and at least 35 years of age. The leaves Hillary out in the cold looking in. As far as I know, that has not been changed by any amendment to the Constitution. Oh, before anyone says the 19th amendment is the one that changed that, had better read it more closely. All that amendment did was give women the right to vote and said nothing about giving a woman the wherewithal to run for President or for that matter Vice-president (ala Geraldine Ferraro).

a move by the Democrats to attempt to win the election outside of the ballot box.

So McCain violating his own federal law is a dirty move by Democrats. Have the Democrats perfected mind control now?

There is something seriously troubling about a party using all the tricks and scams and various ploys to try to win an election by default.

How is that troubling? There are laws that define valid petitions. There are laws that define proper campaign finance behavior. Why are you so opposed to following laws? If we weren't supposed to adhere to them, they wouldn't be laws. Why is it that those who push to enforce the laws are dirty in your book, while those who are found to be violating them are the victims? Were Republicans acting dirty when they organized an effort to challenge potential voters? Were those found ineligible to vote victims of a pattern of troubling behavior by Republicans?

It doesn't matter if you think it's a stupid law. If it's on the books, there's no shame in ensuring it's enforced. Or should one only push to enforce laws where one has no stake in the outcome?

And a little while ago, Dafydd ab Hugh noted a rather fascinating pattern in Barack Obama's political history

Oh, yes. A "pattern". One where candidates were held to the law, and two others where *gasp* the media dove into the personal lives of candidates and found unsavory histories. Why, that never happens apart from Obama elections, does it?!

And while it's fun (oh, so very fun) to see McCain squirm

Yes, that fits a troubling pattern of behavior, where you find it "fun" when Republicans break laws, but threatening to the core of our nation when Democrats do.

stan25 ~ The Constitution says no such thing:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

It does use the pronoun "he" in several places, but in actual English, that's how we did it until weak-kneed morons started capitulating to radical feminists who saw the oppressive hand of Patriarchy in every shadow, including the language. So today we write idiotic nonsensical made-up words like "chairperson" to appease the gyno-warriors.

Naturally, if the Founders had any idea some woman like Hillary might ever get near the job, they very well might have included that restriction.

I think the founders included in the first 10 amendments to the Consitution the second amendment for just such an occasion as envisioned by B. Hussein Obama. I think if for some reason Obama gets to run unopposed, he will get to run for his life.

McCain's birth might technically require a little more thought for his eligibility than Obama's.

But in the spirit of what law it trying to accomplish, Obama is in a worse position. The point of the Law appears to want to discourage anyone with mixed national loyaties from becoming President.

Obama was raised in Indonesia from about 6 to age 10. A critical age range for developing attachments outside one's family and developing your identity, imho.

At least, a few months in a crib on a US military base doesn't come close.

My money says Adrian pops back in before long under a new name, possibly a new IP. But for now, it seems that ignoring the trolls who love to change the subject actually works. But don't worry Adrian. Brian's got your back :)

Remember a little while ago, there was a bit to-do when it was "discovered" that McCain had been born in the Panama Canal Zone? All of a sudden there was talk about that disqualifying him from the presidency.

Well, there's also "talk" of having Obama assassinated. Shall we consider that the considered opinion of the right?

But please, just ignore all the "talk" from the left about how stupid it would be to disqualify McCain. Or the attempt of a Democratic senator to make it a non-issue for McCain. But that would give you less to find "troubling", and you can't have that now, can you?

Just rest assured that it's the Democrats who play dirty tricks such as ratting out the lurid sexcapades of their opponents. Republicans would never do such a thing for politics!

it seems that ignoring the trolls who love to change the subject actually works. But don't worry Adrian. Brian's got your back

I see that you're unable to post on topic, and instead need to resort to personal comments. Hmm, what's that called again...?

No matter. As DJ is fond of claiming, that just shows that I'm right on point.

This business of attempting to disqualify McCain puts me in mind of the New Jersey election for United States Senator, wherein the incumbent, Democrat Bob Torricelli, was plagued by scandal, facing indictment, and running well behind his Republican challenger. Torricelli withdrew from the race -- but at a point in the race where New Jersey law forbade his party to present a new nominee to the electorate. The New Jersey Supreme Court allowed them to do it anyway. The rationale: Unless both major-party candidates present nominees, the people don't really have a choice. And so 78 year old Frank Lautenberg was placed on the ballot, and won the election.

Mind you, there were four other candidates on the ballot other than Torricelli: a Republican, a Libertarian, a Right-To-Lifer, and a Green. But without a Democrat "the people don't have a real choice." So the explicit requirements of the law had to be ignored.

Yes, Republicans have attempted this sort of thing, too, though they almost never win such battles. The salient point is the extraordinary degree of legal privilege that's granted to the "major" parties. Almost as if they were de facto organs of government in their own right.

Are they?

I won't comment any more.
Continue with the topic of Democrat bashing.
Best wishes!

Awww. Don't go away mad. Just, uh, go away.

Adrian, a couple of points you might find annoying:

1) Accusation is NOT the same as guilt. As much as you might wish it, just you saying he broke the law is not sufficient.

2) This one really ought to frost you: McCain is accused of breaking a law he co-wrote. Wouldn't he be an expert on just what would and would not constitute a violation?

J.

I'm sorry, he wrote it? Do lawmakers actually draft the laws they sign off on, or do they state in broad terms what they're trying to accomplish and allow those more familiar with the minutiae of such things to draft their bills?

There is something seriously troubling about a party using all the tricks and scams and various ploys to try to win an election by default
------------------------------------
Yup that 's the modern dem party.

Even in politics, it's seldom that you see such a dirty lie

Looks like the liberal left is desparate to attack McCain, and they will grasp at anything to avoid facing the blatant racims, anti-semitism, and anti-Americanism in the dem party.

Think Progress retracts McCain plagiarism charge

Hey Brian! The "talk" about the assassination of Obama came from the LEFT. Remember? I think you may be confusing that incident with the one where a lefty Hollywood script had an assassin shooting the CURRENT US President. Even used his name so that there would be no confusion about which president was the target.

I apologize for coming back after I said I wouldn't but I did have to answer this"

#18

1. It's like seeing someone jaywalk -- he's not been found guilty, or even charged with something but you can watch the guy walk across the street right before your very eyes -- you can see him breaking the law. He's a scofflaw.

2. Who is accusing McCain of breaking the law with his name on it? There are many other campaign finance laws. I don't think McCain's illegal campaign financing is related to the bill with his name on it. The complaint doesn't mention the words "McCain-Feingold." I never mentioned the words "McCain-Feingold."

It would seem that people who want to comment off-topic ought to create their own blogs.

Or thrown to the blogs [elsewhere].

I certainly agree with JT that the Democrats certainly seem to run to the courts and the media in an attempt to undermine election results they don't like. The MI and FLA brouhaha is an excellent example of the lack of integrity the leadership has in following its own rules. While there are plenty of examples of other parties using mudslinging and scumslinging to depose their opponents before and after an election, just how many recent examples are there of the Republicans using the courts to alter elections? I say recent as in the past 20 years?

The MI and FLA brouhaha is an excellent example of the lack of integrity the leadership has in following its own rules.

In case you're not aware, the rules have been followed. There's no rule against anyone loudly bitching about it, though.

just how many recent examples are there of the Republicans using the courts to alter elections?

Umm, ever hear of Bush v. Gore? Then of course there's this one. And this one. And this. need more?

McCain wants to use the same opt-out option in the campaign finance law as Howard Dean used in 2004. The FEC approved Dean's opt-out, so it's legal, but Democrats are insisting McCain go through the same approval procedure. Problem is, the FEC doesn't have a quorum and can't rule because the Democrats have been blocking Bush's commissioner appointments, so McCain is prevented from getting the same approval Dean did.

Oh, and one of the Senators blocking FEC appointments?

Senator Barack Obama.

How conveeenient.

Brian,

Explain how the MS Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the November election is "the Republicans using the courts to alter elections".

For that matter, how exactly was the SCOTUS decision in Bush vs. Gore "the Republicans using the courts to alter elections"?

And from the Seattle Times article- The (R) loses his court case, and this is "the Republicans using the courts to alter elections"?

Ditto for the Sacramento link. And the Orange County link.

What are you saying- that because (R)'s take election results to court and lose, that they are trying to rig the system? If so, they are doing a pretty poor job of it. If anything, I see these examples as one party losing elections and pouting about it. No grand suprise there.

Anyway, I'm off to dinner & a movie. Please reply if you want and I'll check back tomorrow. Have a great evening!

I apologize for coming back after I said I wouldn't but I did have to answer this"

Like a dog to his vomit...

Explain how...

The outcomes of those cases either affected the outcomes of the elections, or tried to affect the outcomes of the elections. Expanding the list to tried to seemed relevant, seeing as this post focuses on cases against McCain that have not been successful either.

What are you saying- that because (R)'s take election results to court and lose, that they are trying to rig the system?

Well, it's Jay who's making a judgment about those who seek electoral victories by using courts. I was simply responding to the question asked of how many recent examples are there of the Republicans doing it.

Oh, and one of the Senators blocking FEC appointments?

Senator Barack Obama.

How conveeenient.
------------------------------------
Another example of Obama 's new politics. Also using Adrian 's standard, Obama campaign has been using illegal campaigning in churches (especially black churches). These are existing laws in the book before McCain&Feingold and the Obama campaign doesn't mind breaking the law either. And Andrian thinks this is cool! Maybe Obama cannot distance himself from Pastor Wright (while he was willing to throw his grandma under the bus) because of these illegal political campaigning!

Brian,

You have to love the irony in your post.

The question was asked:

"just how many recent examples are there of the Republicans using the courts to alter elections?"

And you link to the Democrats mouthpiece, the Seattle Times, as evidence that the Republicans use the courts to alter elections.

Are you at all familiar with the last election for Governor in Washington?

Christine Gregoire lost. Just like the Algore lost in Florida. But she didn't like to lose so she demanded a recount.

She lost a second time. She didn't like losing a second time, so again she demanded a recount.

Third time is a charm I guess, because she won on the third recount. Then she demanded they stop recounting and make her governor.

It's very rich that you point that out as an example of what Jay Tea calls the Hobson's Choice.

But of course you would do that, you started with Bush v. Gore. How dare Bush take Gore to court over Gore's demands that they recount the vote his way in Florida.

You do have a point though and Jay Tea should perhaps alter his post from above.

The Democrats cannot win elections unless they A: Take it to court, or B: Have a recount until they do win the election.

Baggi,
Thanks for the good legwork and show again that Brian does live up to his infamous reputation on this blog.

#32 The Democrats cannot win elections unless they A: Take it to court, or B: Have a recount until they do win the election.

And this reminds us of the ultimate irony: Nixon/Kennedy and the Illinois night of the voting dead in 1960. No hanging chads.....just dead people in Cook County hoisting JFK over the top.

This game was invented, patented and packaged by the Democrat machine. Think not? Watch what happens between now and August in the Democrat Primary.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080329/D8VMPPIO0.html

I predicted several weeks ago that when Maggie Williams was brought in to run the campaign the Clintons were effectively signaling that all gloves were off.

Stay tuned.

Oh, and one of the Senators blocking FEC appointments?
Senator Barack Obama.
How conveeenient.

Get your facts straight. Obama and others oppose a single nominee (Spakovsky). In December, the hold on Spakovsky was lifted, and Harry Reid offered the Republicans a straight up-or-down vote on each nominee individually, including Spakovsky. Mitch McConnell (R) refused, insisting that all nominees must be voted on as a single slate. THAT is what is blocking the FEC appointments.

The offer from the Dems still stands today: and up-or-down vote on each nominee. All McConnell has to do is say OK. Isn't that what Republicans have always called for? Straight majority up-or-down votes? Well, apparently they're no longer interested in those now that they're in the minority. Go figure.

On a related note, here's a fun little blast from the past:

Frustrated by recent Federal Election Commission rulings that he believes will undermine a campaign-finance bill he helped sponsor, Senator John McCain said today that he would seek to block all nominations before the Senate until a proposed new appointee to the panel was allowed to take office.

McCain must be frustrated with McConnell blocking the appointments to the FEC, but what goes around comes around, eh?

You have to love the irony in your post.

The irony is in yours. You just provided more support for the notion that Democrats win by fighting for votes to be properly counted, and Republicans win by using courts to stop them. That's more extreme than the point I was trying to make, but since you made it so clearly, I'll go along with that.

In December, the hold on Spakovsky was lifted, and Harry Reid offered the Republicans a straight up-or-down vote on each nominee individually, including Spakovsky. Mitch McConnell (R) refused, insisting that all nominees must be voted on as a single slate. THAT is what is blocking the FEC appointments.
-------------------------------------
Thanks for proving Jay 's point. Why not vote on all four of them at the same time so that they can be seated and have a quorum? Dont' we need to have a fully functional for the upcoming election? Sorry to forget that dems don't have any standard and they don't want democracy. That 's why they have a system so that the superdelegates can overrule the will of the average dem voters. But we should agree with Brian that McCain does deserve the trouble for reaching out to the Dem cesspool. Hope he learns by now that they will stoop to anything to stab him when he becomes the Rep nominee.

BTW, on a side note about things coming around, I couldn't help enjoying the liberals attacking Clintons for their campaign shenigans. At the same time, it is good to see the Clintons to press forward with their presidential ambition even at the cost of destroying the dem party. We need to thank Obama for his help in exposing the blatant racism, antisemitism, sexism, and anti-Americanism in the Dem party.

The irony is in yours. You just provided more support for the notion that Democrats win by fighting for votes to be properly counted,
-------------------------------------
Again cannot he honest. In other words, the dems don't respect the rule and want to change it until they win. Thanks for proving Jay 's point again. And you are trying to spin for that? So every election, we should go to court to recount. No wonder the dems don't want voter ID registration and dem counties usually have trouble with voting. It is tough to shake up your infamous reputation.

More evidence for the dems' love for an honest and fair election

According to Newsweek, "it's only fair to conclude" that the Obama campaign is not trying to flip Texas county convention delegates

Ralph Nader is for democracy in the dem primary. Sweet!

"Senator Clinton:

"Just read where Senator Patrick Leahy is calling on you to drop out of the Presidential race. Believe me.

I know something about this. Here's my advice: Don't listen to people when they tell you not to run anymore. That's just political bigotry.

"Listen to your own inner citizen First Amendment voice. This is America. Just like every other citizen, you have a right to run. Whenever you like. For as long as you like.

"It's up to you, Hillary. Just tell them -- It's democracy. Get used to it.

On another side note of what comes around

Why support Obama or Hillary?

"The real issue is this. Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America, a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?"

In other words, the dems don't respect the rule and want to change it until they win.... So every election, we should go to court to recount.

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but go back and try again. In those cases it was the Republicans going to court, not the Democrats.

My money was wrong. He actually came back under his own name. And sooner than I expected.

Anytime a democrat demands fair elections I laugh. In 1960 Papa Kennedy clearly bought the election for his son. 1964 Lyndon Johnson openly used voter fraud in Texas, so many dead people voted we thought it was the rapture. 2000 Gore wanted to hand pick the voter recount by county, the republicans wanted all of Florida recounted. Ohio in 2004 and the other examples listed above. Face it, the dem's almost succeeded in planting all the liberal judges, but alas, now there are more conservative judges and it just rankles the left. I love it so. ww

You just provided more support for the notion that Democrats win by fighting for votes to be properly counted, and Republicans win by using courts to stop them.

Show me where I did that.

You mean like when Gore went to court to stop overseas military votes, whoops...

Thanks Brian. I was confused about who was doing what. I think I've got it now.

If a Dem takes a Republican to court (because they lost, or to force a recount of selected counties, etc.), and if the Republicans show up in court to defend, then just the presence of the Republicans in court counts as them using the courts to win elections.

If I kick your ass, and you try to fight back, then I could I guess say that you use violence to try to win.

I know reading comprehension isn't your strong point, but go back and try again.
-----------------------------------
Maybe you are talking about yourself here Brian and we know that HONESTY is not your strong point. Go back and try to be honest just for once!

BTW, again, we should listen to Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, to make the liberals happy and to unite the country. According to Dean, Americans shouldn't vote for Obama or Hillary. We all should vote for McCain. That 's the way to unite the country!

Liberals must love it. Dirty tricks in the Texas Democratic Caucus

You are correct on the law, Jay. Shoulda gone to law school.