What the net can do

When it tries.

I guess I'll get to use this pic a lot

Senator John McCain has staked his campaign for the presidency in large part on his reputation as a reformer intent on curbing the influence of money in politics.

But an examination by The New York Times of a list of 106 elite fund-raisers who have brought in more than $100,000 each for Mr. McCain found that about a sixth of them were lobbyists. The list of “bundlers” was released on Friday by the McCain campaign.

The sizable number of lobbyists, who are outnumbered on the list only by those working in the financial services industry, offers another example of the balancing act that Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is having to strike as he campaigns for the presidency and seeks to maintain his reputation as a reformer.

The McCain campaign’s disclosure on Friday of its top bundlers of contributions was part of its efforts to furnish a sense of financial transparency to the public, in keeping with Mr. McCain’s past focus on overhauling campaign finance and his criticism of the influence of special interests in Washington.

[snip]

But the McCain campaign, which struggled over much of the past year in raising money, is now seeking to emulate the record-setting money machine that powered George W. Bush to victories in 2000 and 2004, bestowing special titles upon bundlers who exceed certain financial targets.

Instead of “Pioneers” and “Rangers,” as President Bush’s top fund-raisers were called, Mr. McCain is dubbing the 73 people so far who have brought in $100,000 or more “Trailblazers,” while the 33 who brought in $250,000 or more are being called “Innovators.”

Campaign finance watchdogs criticized the Pioneer and Ranger system for establishing an elite class of donors, many of whom went on to ambassadorships and other political appointments. But Mr. McCain’s advisers believe the system offers the best chance for the campaign to encourage as many people as possible to raise large amounts of cash for him.

Mr. McCain has badly trailed both Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in fund-raising — in March, for example, he brought in $15 million, compared with Mr. Obama’s $40 million and Mrs. Clinton’s $20 million. While Mr. McCain’s Democratic counterparts, especially Mr. Obama, have enjoyed much success in harvesting small-dollar donations over the Internet, Mr. McCain has not built an effective Internet fund-raising machine, forcing him to depend on a circle of wealthy donors.

And how can you talk about transparency when you try to pretend your wife doesn't have 100 million in unknown investments? Transparency? Like how he's trying to ignore the rules on public financing for campaigns and actually breaking the law?

Voting

Jim Yeager of skippy the bush kangaroo talks about his vote:

i don't require wall-to-wall, or blog-to-blog (for that matter), coverage of all this incessant and irritating fundraising, campaigning, fundraising, polling, fundraising, triangulating, fundraising, celebrifying, fundraising, tut-tutting, fundraising, preaching to the choir, and god-f#*k%#g-damned fundraising. i've already placed my bets -- the dems across the board, even though they suck. that's all there is to it, and any liberal, libertarian, green, or progressive purist who doesn't like it can kiss my freakin' ass.

Exactly.

This is just an historically common shift

And so, must be good for the Republican party. Really. Honest. They meant to do that:

Fundraising for Republican campaign organizations lags. That is strikingly so in the House, where the party committee spent more than it raised in each of the past two months, reported only $1.6 million in the bank at the end of August and a debt of nearly $4 million.

Democrats reported $22.1 million in the bank and a debt of slightly more than $3 million.

Candidate recruitment has been uneven, particularly in the Senate, where Republicans must defend 22 of the 34 seats on the ballot next year. Democrats boast top-tier challengers for GOP-held seats in Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Minnesota and Oregon.

[snip]

After a long turn in power in Congress, LaHood and other Republicans say the change in fortunes is partly the result of historical cycles. "The American people like a change," he said.

At the same time, President Bush's approval is stuck in the mid-30s and the Iraq war remains unpopular with the public.

Nor have the ethics woes that plagued the party in last year's elections abated. Corruption investigations swirl around Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens and California Rep. John Doolittle. To the particular distress of party leaders, Idaho Sen. Larry Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct last summer in an airport men's room sex sting operation and has yet to make good on an earlier pledge to resign.

Stevens and Doolittle deny all wrongdoing, as does Craig, who has asked a Minnesota judge to permit him to withdraw his guilty plea.

Polls, too, chart the decline of the Republicans.

A recent Gallup poll reported that 59 percent of those surveyed have an unfavorable impression of the Republican Party. By a margin of 47-42 percent, they said Democrats will do a better job of protecting against terrorism and military threats. Asked which party would better maintain prosperity, the majority preferred the Democrats, 54-34.

Awww.... Let me give you some conservative compassion:

Look, you complete dopes,

Being elected, being in government does NOT mean a free wallow in the trough, no matter how fun the Republicans made it look.

Accountability. When those who are elected get to answer to those who elected them. Repeat after me: investigations, cover-ups, denials, exposure, confessions, jail time, shame.

We're planning to hold you guys accountable, too. Via Marshall, the Guardian:

House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.

Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them. They're also having second thoughts about having to wait an extra year before they can become high-paid lobbyists themselves should they retire or be defeated at the polls.

The growing resistance to several proposed reforms now threatens passage of a bill that once seemed on track to fulfill Democrats' campaign promise of cleaner fundraising and lobbying practices.

We've seen what absolute power does to those who are corruptible, thanks to Bush. Maybe we should just make a fourth branch of government, the special prosecutor's office?