Features

KevinTheOmnivore · #1

I find this letter from McCain very amusing and candid. Senators, particularly presidential hopefuls, don't have the balls to be sarcastic asses like this.

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?f...ontent_id=1654

For Immediate Release
Monday, Feb 06, 2006

Washington D.C. Â*â€“ Today, Senator McCain sent the following letter to Senator Obama regarding ongoing Congressional efforts towards bipartisan lobbying reform. The following is the text from that letter:

February 6, 2006

The Honorable Barack Obama

United States Senate

SH-713

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadershipâ€™s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. Iâ€™m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I wonâ€™t make the same mistake again.

As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out a meaningful, bipartisan bill.

You commented in your letter about my â€œinterest in creating a task force to further studyâ€ this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senateâ€™s return in January.

Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many other members of this body, hope to exceed the publicâ€™s low expectations. We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both parties will work together to address our failings.

As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your partyâ€™s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isnâ€™t always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.

Sincerely,

John McCain

United States Senate

###

ziggytrix · #2

Makes me wonder what was in Obama's letter.

ScruU2wice · #3

freshman hazing :O

KevinTheOmnivore · #4

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Makes me wonder what was in Obama's letter.

Ask, and ye....yeah.

http://obama.senate.gov/letter/06020...ethics_reform/

You can read the first one, and Obama's response.

I don't know about anyone else, but I love this. Not just because it's political flame wars, but because there's still an underlying element of policy debate going on here. And, they're exchanging LETTERS!!

I'm tellin' ya, Obama/McCain will save this dead art form.

El Blanco · #5

Reagan-O'Neil II?

KevinTheOmnivore · #6

I'm pulling for Hamilton-Burr II.

other thoughts-- in retrospect, I think I think less of McCain for this. It's funny that he'd accuse Obama of political posturing, since tihs is very clearly posturing on McCain's part.

As Obama said in the letter, he always made it clear that he supported the bi-partisan effort, but that he was anxious to get on it. I think it's perfectly rational for Obama to question how fast a GOP dominated Congress would deal with this.

McCain is running for president. he doesn't care about what Obama said, but rather, the fact that it made him sound like a do-nothing senator. That's not a good rep. for a presidential hopeful to have.

Kulturkampf · #7

I do not know what caused McCain to lash out at the insincerity of Obama, and I do not even know if Obama is sincere or insincere being that I do not know much of the background, but instead of wasting my words like Kevin, I will just sum it up as:

McCain won the debate and is better than Obama because he is a Republican (though a wishy-washy one) (to sum up the reverse of what Kevin said).

McCain doesn't care about what Obama said, and Obama doesn't care abotu what McCain said, because in the end they are ambitious men who've only come this far because they are entirely self-absorbed and only good at spewing out political diatribe and jockeying themselves into position.

mburbank · #8

"I do not know what caused McCain to lash out at the insincerity of Obama, and I do not even know if Obama is sincere or insincere being that I do not know much of the background..."
-ChucyCheese

Hey, here's a thought. When you don't know anything at all about something, you don't need to post.

KevinTheOmnivore · #9

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

McCain won the debate and is better than Obama because he is a Republican (though a wishy-washy one) (to sum up the reverse of what Kevin said).

How is this in any way the opposite of what I said? Be honest, you didn't even read the exchange, did you?

Quote:

McCain doesn't care about what Obama said, and Obama doesn't care abotu what McCain said, because in the end they are ambitious men who've only come this far because they are entirely self-absorbed and only good at spewing out political diatribe and jockeying themselves into position.

Because ambitious men never care about what's said of them publicly.

Dude, think before you submit.

davinxtk · #10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

... but instead of wasting my words like Kevin, I will just sum it up as:

McCain won the debate and is better than Obama because he is a Republican (though a wishy-washy one) (to sum up the reverse of what Kevin said).

McCain doesn't care about what Obama said, and Obama doesn't care abotu what McCain said ...

KK, the difference between you and the Omnivore is that your words are always wasted, and very often poorly arranged (although I think that joke is now nearly as stale as your presence).

Now, I'm not sure if you know this, but you cannot "win a debate" or be "better than someone" simply by being a member of a political party. There doesn't even seem to be much debate going on here, just a bit of tactics-based mudslinging. The (very) embedded argument here seems to be whether the meetings should be bipartisan (McCain) or democratic (Obama). Do you follow that, or do you need to go back and do some reading?
Because it's pretty damn clear who has the stronger argument.

While I agree that McCain doesn't seem to care much about what Obama said, Obama does seem to care at least more about the issue than a disagreement with a colleague over how to approach it. He at the very least hasn't denounced his counterpart's sincerity based on one's preferred means of approach, which more or less just made McCain look like a big crybaby.
"My way or it's not bipartisan! YOU'RE A LIAR!"

KevinTheOmnivore · #11

Damn. Oh well, it's over.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1597671

Sens. McCain, Obama Chummy After Argument

Sens. McCain, Obama Say They Will Stop Bickering, Work Together on Reform
By JIM ABRAMS

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Two leaders in current efforts to reduce special interest influence on Congress once again appeared to be fighting on the same side Wednesday, two days after an unusually fiery falling out.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., testified together at a Senate hearing on lobbying and ethics overhaul. With a pat on the back and an exchange of compliments, they publicly put in the past an angry letter from McCain charging that Obama was more interested in scoring political points than in working together on the ethics issue.

"I'm particularly pleased to be sharing this panel with my pen pal, John McCain, and look forward to working with him," Obama said at the Senate Rules Committee hearing.

When Obama walked into the hearing room, he put his arm on McCain's shoulder and posed for photographers.

McCain told the committee that he and Obama "are moving on and are continuing to work together and I value his input."

McCain for years has campaigned to reduce the influence of money in politics and make lawmakers less beholden to special interests. His letter on Monday accused the Illinois freshman of putting partisan politics ahead of the public interest. McCain also wrote that he was mistaken in assuming that Obama's concern for good government was "genuine and admirable."

McCain apparently was upset that Obama, after being invited to a bipartisan meeting on lobbying reform, had written a letter expressing support for a plan being pushed only by Democrats.

"I have no idea what has prompted your response," Obama said in a second letter to McCain. "But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing."

The lawmakers also said they would support separate proposals to bring greater control and transparency to the specific projects that are inserted in larger bills at the request of individual members or special interest groups. Such projects, known as earmarks, often are added without the knowledge of other lawmakers.

McCain said his bill would allow senators, with a 60-vote majority, to eliminate earmarks and policy changes that are inserted into annual spending bills by House and Senate negotiators after the bills leave the Senate.

Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have introduced a similar measure.

Obama said this was "an area where we should be able to move forward quickly."

The Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is driving lobbying changes to the top of the legislative agenda. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has asked the relevant committees to come up with legislation that would clarify or limit what lawmakers can receive from lobbyists in way of gifts, meals and travel. The earmark issue could be included in such legislation.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright Â© 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

ScruU2wice · #12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

McCain doesn't care about what Obama said, and Obama doesn't care abotu what McCain said, because in the end they are ambitious men who've only come this far because they are entirely self-absorbed and only good at spewing out political diatribe and jockeying themselves into position.

Isn't that how every politician got where they are?