-
Battle of the U.S. Senators
Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain Exchange Letters on Ethics Reform
Monday, February 6, 2006
February 2, 2006
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear John:
Thank you for inviting me to participate in the meeting yesterday to discuss lobbying and ethics reform proposals currently before the Senate. I appreciate your willingness to reach out to me and several other Senate Democrats to discuss what should be done to restore public confidence in the way that Congress conducts its business. The discussion clearly underscored the difficult challenge facing Congress.
You and many in the Democratic Caucus have played a major role in reform efforts in the Senate. In fact, the Indian Affairs Committee hearings you led were instrumental in promoting public awareness of the culture of corruption that has permeated the nation's capital.
As you know, Senator Harry Reid and others in the Democratic Caucus have taken an important step by introducing S. 2180, the Honest Leadership Act, which imposes many of the same disclosure requirements for lobbyists that you have proposed, while also strengthening enforcement, eliminating "pay to play" schemes, and imposing more restrictive rules on meals, gifts, and travel that Members and their staff can receive from special interests that advocate before Congress. This bill, which now has the support of 40 members of the Democratic Caucus, represents a significant step in addressing many of the worst aspects of corruption that have come to light as a result of the Justice Department investigation of Jack Abramoff.
I know you have expressed an interest in creating a task force to further study and discuss these matters, but I and others in the Democratic Caucus believe the more effective and timely course is to allow the committees of jurisdiction to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support. Committee consideration of these matters through the normal course will ensure that these issues are discussed in a public forum and that those within Congress, as well as those on the outside, can express their views, ensuring a thorough review of this matter.
Given the state of affairs in Washington, we have a historic opportunity to make fundamental changes in the way our government operates so that the actions we take as public officials are responsive and transparent to the American people. Thank you again for your interest in this important matter.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 leadership'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. I'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 won'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 "interest in creating a task force to further study" 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 Senate'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 public'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 party'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 isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 6, 2006
The Honorable John McCain
United States Senate
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear John:
During my short time in the U.S. Senate, one of the aspects about this institution that I have come to value most is the collegiality and the willingness to put aside partisan differences to work on issues that help the American people. It was in this spirit that I approached you to work on ethics reform, and it was in this spirit that I agreed to attend your bipartisan meeting last week. I appreciated then - and still do appreciate - your willingness to reach out to me and several other Democrats.
For this reason, I am puzzled by your response to my recent letter. Last Wednesday morning, you called to invite me to your meeting that afternoon. I changed my schedule so I could attend the meeting. Afterwards, you thanked me several times for attending the meeting, and we left pledging to work together.
As you will recall, I told everyone present at the meeting that my caucus insisted that the consideration of any ethics reform proposal go through the regular committee process. You didn't indicate any opposition to this position at the time, and I wrote the letter to reiterate this point, as well as the fact that I thought S. 2180 should be the basis for a bipartisan solution.
I confess that I have no idea what has prompted your response. But let me assure you that I am not interested in typical partisan rhetoric or posturing. The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you nor my willingness to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
--------------------------------
Is it just me, or does McCain come off as being a whiny, bitter little bitch?
Obama: Yeah, let's get rid of corruption. I heart the new Democratic proposal.
McCain: I fucking hate you. You're totally a liar. I hate you.
Obama: What?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
...all 'cause he rebuffed the task force, it seems.:idunno:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
I actually have to agree that McCain is being a bit whiney on this. He is a stand up kind of guy for the most part (probably why the far right call him a republican in name only) and I can't for the life of me think why he is getting so huffy. If he is serious about reform it shouldn't matter where a plan comes from
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If he is serious about reform it shouldn't matter where a plan comes from
Really?
Good.
Tell the democrats.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
On a side note...
Best Spoken Word Album
'The Adventures Of Guy Noir' -- Garrison Keillor
'The Al Franken Show Party Album' -- Al Franken
'Chronicles - Volume One (Bob Dylan)' -- Sean Penn
WINNER: 'Dreams From My Father (Senator Barack Obama)' -- Senator Barack Obama
'When Will Jesus Bring The Pork Chops?' (George Carlin)' -- George Carlin
:huh:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
If he is serious about reform it shouldn't matter where a plan comes from
Really?
Good.
Tell the democrats.
you think that statement only counts one way then huh.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Really?
Good.
Tell the democrats.
you think that statement only counts one way then huh.
Oh, then the dems do have a plan to fix Social Security?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
you think that statement only counts one way then huh.
Oh, then the dems
do have a plan to fix Social Security?
Having a plan and having a shit plan are two different things.
Bush had a plan for Iraq...oh wait.
You can't go "Well I have plan. What do you have? No plan? Then we go with my plan then."
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Oh, then the dems do have a plan to fix Social Security?
You can't go "Well I have plan. What do you have? No plan? Then we go with my plan then."
Neither can you say, "We can't go with your plan, because we don't have a plan of our own", like the Dems did.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
You can't go "Well I have plan. What do you have? No plan? Then we go with my plan then."
Neither can you say, "We can't go with
your plan, because
we don't have a plan of our own", like the Dems did.
Did it ever cross your mind that they might think the Bush plan sucked ball hair?
You think they were against the new Medicare and PDB plan 'cause they didn't come up with one (or did they)?
Egad. :crazy:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
you think that statement only counts one way then huh.
Oh, then the dems
do have a plan to fix Social Security?
I would say that doing nothing is actually better than the bush plan. You don't vote to make things worse. But then social security reforms for republicans is more about ideology than wishing to ensure people are covered.
Do the republicans have a plan to fix the 40+ million without healthcare or even make it affordable for those that just about have it?....
Hint: no
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Did it ever cross your mind that they might think the Bush plan sucked ball hair?
Not that, specifically, no.
In fact I'm sure nobody but you would think that.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Oh, then the dems do have a plan to fix Social Security?
I would say that doing nothing is actually better than the bush plan. You don't vote to make things worse. But then social security reforms for republicans is more about ideology than wishing to ensure people are covered.
Do the republicans have a plan to fix the 40+ million without healthcare or even make it affordable for those that just about have it?....
Hint: no
As I recall, there was some discord over the effect of Bush's plan, and there was certainly no concensus for you to hang your hat on, vid.
Your last is typical in that it fails the correctness test.
There is no one in this entire country being denied healthcare.
BTW-how does one "just about have" healthcare? :huh:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
As I recall, there was some discord over the effect of Bush's plan, and there was certainly no concensus for you to hang your hat on, vid.
Your last is typical in that it fails the correctness test.
There is no one in this entire country being denied healthcare.
BTW-how does one "just about have" healthcare? :huh:
Just able to afford the premiums (if their company provides health insurance) but one major health problem away from bankruptcy
And this is why there will NEVER be a republican government solving the problem..... "problem....what problem?"
Go on spout the "they choose not to have health insurance line"
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I would say that doing nothing is actually better than the bush plan. You don't vote to make things worse. But then social security reforms for republicans is more about ideology than wishing to ensure people are covered.
Do the republicans have a plan to fix the 40+ million without healthcare or even make it affordable for those that just about have it?....
Hint: no
As I recall, there was some discord over the effect of Bush's plan, and there was certainly no concensus for you to hang your hat on, vid.
Your last is typical in that it fails the correctness test.
There is no one in this entire country being denied healthcare.
BTW-how does one "just about have" healthcare? :huh:
He didn't say anyone was being denied healthcare. Wtf?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Oh, then the dems do have a plan to fix Social Security?
I would say that doing nothing is actually better than the bush plan. You don't vote to make things worse. But then social security reforms for republicans is more about ideology than wishing to ensure people are covered.
Do the republicans have a plan to fix
the 40+ million without healthcare or even make it affordable for those that just about have it?....
Do you read this stuff at all, at all.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I would say that doing nothing is actually better than the bush plan. You don't vote to make things worse. But then social security reforms for republicans is more about ideology than wishing to ensure people are covered.
Do the republicans have a plan to fix the 40+ million without healthcare or even make it affordable for those that just about have it?....
Do you read this stuff at all, at all.
Saying a person does not have healthcare versus a person being denied healthcare are two different things.
Are you that far gone that you haven't the slightest as to what vid is talking about?
The context of a sentence helps.
Does he have to say "a certain level of healthcare"?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Yes it should have said healthcare insurance but you are being a tad pedantic on that, it has to be impossible for a politically minded person such as yourself to not know what the point was given the whole context.
I confess it was a masterfull use of a mistype to deflect from the actual point.:P
republicans have no plan to solve the healthcare crises
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Do you read this stuff at all, at all.
Saying a person does not have healthcare versus a person being denied healthcare are two different things.
Are you that far gone that you haven't the slightest as to what vid is talking about?
The context of a sentence helps.
Does he have to say "a certain level of healthcare"?
Have you become so conditioned by the media to accept such sloppy use of language you can't tell the difference?
Would you put your pants on backward and expect no one to notice?
Do you shave only the left side of your face?
Denied means you don't get any.
It's like, if someone offers you a beer, and you say, "no, thanks" you still expect a beer?
You make an excuse that this kind of shit is acceptable?
And you call me a sheep?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
republicans have no plan to solve the healthcare crises
Correct.
Please remember I said that, so you can remind Busyman when the need arises.
He confides that you are his exclusive source for everything he doesn't shop for.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Saying a person does not have healthcare versus a person being denied healthcare are two different things.
Are you that far gone that you haven't the slightest as to what vid is talking about?
The context of a sentence helps.
Does he have to say "a certain level of healthcare"?
Have you become so conditioned by the media to accept such sloppy use of language you can't tell the difference?
Would you put your pants on backward and expect no one to notice?
Do you shave only the left side of your face?
Denied means
you don't get any.
It's like, if someone offers you a beer, and you say, "no, thanks" you still expect a beer?
You make an excuse that this kind of shit is acceptable?
And you call
me a sheep?
You can't take pedantry yet you exhibit it.
I know folk that don't have healthcare* and are not denied it.
They don't bother 'cause they don't have healthcare* and can't afford it. Unless they have a gunshot wound, the rash on their stomach won't get them to a doctor.
Once you have been denied or are told by others you will be denied, the gunshot wound will be the only thing making the trip worthwhile.
If someone is told it cost x amount of $ then they can't pay for it.
*healthcare insurance for the pedantic
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
republicans have no plan to solve the healthcare crises
Correct.
Please remember I said that, so you can remind Busyman when the need arises.
He confides that you are his exclusive source for everything he doesn't shop for.
Ha! You mean "you aren't" the source. There's a boatload that I hear about first on here (not just from vid) that I hadn't heard otherwise.
Plus what vid said was already known. He reworded it for the pedantic.
You haven't :O NEWFLASHED:O me. Mmk?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Correct.
Please remember I said that, so you can remind Busyman when the need arises.
He confides that you are his exclusive source for everything he doesn't shop for.
Ha! You mean "you aren't" the source. There's a boatload that I hear about first on here (not just from vid) that I hadn't heard otherwise.
Plus what vid said was already known. He reworded it for the pedantic.
You haven't :O NEWFLASHED:O me. Mmk?
Hmmm.
I've been a member for 3+ years, hanging out almost exclusively in here or the Lounge, and I'd be willing to bet I've used the words pedant, pedantic, pedantry, or any other variants precisely...well, never.
I must have known you'd adopt it as your own, for use as invective.
I've heard it is only applicable to honkies.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Ha! You mean "you aren't" the source. There's a boatload that I hear about first on here (not just from vid) that I hadn't heard otherwise.
Plus what vid said was already known. He reworded it for the pedantic.
You haven't :O NEWFLASHED:O me. Mmk?
Hmmm.
I've been a member for 3+ years, hanging out almost exclusively in here or the Lounge, and I'd be willing to bet I've used the words
pedant, pedantic, pedantry, or any other variants precisely...well,
never.
I must have known you'd adopt it as your own, for use as invective.
I've heard it is only applicable to honkies.
I might not ever use it again either. :snooty:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
republicans have no plan to solve the healthcare crises
Correct.
Actually rebublicans are pushing for social healthcare, they just don't want their right wing base to know. ;)
I can't believe you are not aware of this :unsure:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Correct.
Actually rebublicans are pushing for social healthcare, they just don't want their right wing base to know. ;)
I can't believe you are not aware of this :unsure:
I sure wasn't.
How so?
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Actually rebublicans are pushing for social healthcare, they just don't want their right wing base to know. ;)
I can't believe you are not aware of this :unsure:
I sure wasn't.
How so?
The knock on (or as rebublicans say "trickle down") consequence of inaction.
It may not be intentional but the policy pushes towards it
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Correct.
Actually rebublicans are pushing for social healthcare, they just don't want their right wing base to know. ;)
I can't believe you are not aware of this :unsure:
To the extent any effort exists, it doesn't matter, as long as the Dems can stand in it's way.
They truly believe they cannot be seen to support any Republican idea, no matter what.
I can't believe you are not aware of this. :dry:
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Actually rebublicans are pushing for social healthcare, they just don't want their right wing base to know. ;)
I can't believe you are not aware of this :unsure:
To the extent any effort exists, it doesn't matter, as long as the Dems can stand in it's way.
They truly believe they cannot be seen to support any Republican idea, no matter what.
Hmm yet the only bi-partisan thing republicans want to have is to try to implicate democrats in republican scandals:rolleyes:
I can't believe you are not aware of this. :dry:
I think you posted as I was explaining. By having no policy while more and more people are finding themselves unable to afford private health insurance and more companies are either reducing cover, reducing company payments or not providing health insurance at all, more and more are forced into state schemes.
Hence republican policy is driving towards state run healthcare ;)
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
To the extent any effort exists, it doesn't matter, as long as the Dems can stand in it's way.
They truly believe they cannot be seen to support any Republican idea, no matter what.
Hmm yet the only bi-partisan thing republicans want to have is to try to implicate democrats in republican scandals:rolleyes:
I can't believe you are not aware of this. :dry:
I think you posted as I was explaining. By having no policy while more and more people are finding themselves unable to afford private health insurance and more companies are either reducing cover, reducing company payments or not providing health insurance at all, more and more are forced into state schemes.
Hence republican policy is driving towards state run healthcare ;)
...and I know I'd rather have that than the healthcare I have now.
I would have had my knee surgered much better methinks.
In 2008 when our contract is up there will be a bitter fight.
-
Re: Battle of the U.S. Senators
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
To the extent any effort exists, it doesn't matter, as long as the Dems can stand in it's way.
They truly believe they cannot be seen to support any Republican idea, no matter what.
Hmm yet the only bi-partisan thing republicans want to have is to try to implicate democrats in republican scandals:rolleyes:
I can't believe you are not aware of this. :dry:
I think you posted as I was explaining. By having no policy while more and more people are finding themselves unable to afford private health insurance and more companies are either reducing cover, reducing company payments or not providing health insurance at all, more and more are forced into state schemes.
Hence republican policy is driving towards state run healthcare ;)
Market forces, my friend.
Had they been allowed to work at the outset, we wouldn't be in this situation.
Actually, if "State-run health-care" meant that it would be run by the States, that might not be so bad...
