Yesterday John McCain wrote a snarky letter attacking Senator Barack Obama for not being a part of one of the right’s phony-baloney “let’s study the issue until everybody forgets about it” committees. Today Sen. Obama wrote back to McCain saying essentially - hey, if you want to actually get something done instead of jawbone it - support this bill almost all the Dems are supporting.
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.
No word on whether Sen. Obama said “face!” when he was done.
That was a weird confrontation between two pretty decent people. Unlike McCain to be that way. I guess he was hoping Osama Obama Ford (Kennedy-brian Williams pronunciation) would eschew partisanship and join Ben Nelson and Lieberman working with him. McCain, applauded here as a fine senator when he criticized Bush, does have a temper.
Dugger
McCain has Democrats working with him. Obama went the Democrat-only route. Do you SERIOUSLY claim Obam’s is the bi-partisan route - or did you just throw out a quick, thought-free response?
Dugger
You know what would be bipartisan? Passing the honest leadership act and not pretending otherwise.
If what’s going on in Washington truly is a “bipartisan” scandal, then why are Republicans so eager to be seen as the ones fixing the problem? Why not buy into Reid’s bill and declare that “both parties are cleaning up a problem created by both parties”?
I can come up with a couple of ideas, neither of which flatter the GOP leadership.
I SERIOUSLY believe the bipartisan solution to this problem is passing the honest leadership act and not sitting around yacking about if there’s a problem or not. If the Republicans are serious about cleaning up the culture of corruption, they should support the act.
An interesting interpretation from Josh Marshall.
The bipartisan solution is one that involves both parties - not the one you like best. And as there are more Rs than Ds, that solution will have to be agreeable to middle America . It’ll have to fly in the Red States.
Dugger
I guarantee you even most Republican voters would support the Honest Leadership Act, the Republican voters aren’t beholden to the lobbyists like the Washington Republicans are.
It looks to me like a “Let’s Try to Take some of those spoils away from the Victors Act” or, “Heads Dems win, Tails Reps lose” kind of bill.
Typical (D) “bi - partisanship”.
Really?
Which part? The “no hiring your unqualified friends for government jobs” part or the “stop doing business with companies that cheat the taxpayers” part?
Obama wants a bill with teeth. McCain wants a bill with bipartisan sponsors. That’s the crux of the debate. If you think corruption is a big problem then it shouldn’t matter if the bill has bipartisan sponsors. Just pass a strong bill with teeth. And if you propose a strong bill that Republicans reject then you take it to the voters. That’s perfectly appropriate in a democracy. If you care more about getting “something” passed, even if it’s some milquetoast blue ribbon panel that gets the support of the most corrupt members of the GOP caucus then support McCain on this. McCain wants desperately to be the author of any reform package. He doesn’t really care how effective it is, as long as he is associated with the bill’s passage.
Close the Revolving Door.
Toughen Public Disclosure of Lobbyist Activity. Only a nuisance
Ban Lobbyist Gifts and Travel. Unenforceable, and prohibitive of political free speech. Revise / Repeal this provision if and when Dems gain the majority.
Shut Down Pay-to-Play Schemes Like the “K Street Project.” Revise / Repeal this provision if and when Dems gain the majority.
Disclosure of Outside Job Negotiations. Violates “freedom of association” provisions of the Constitution.
Prohibit “Dead of Night” Special Interest Provisions. Revise / Repeal this provision if and when Dems gain the majority.
Zero Tolerance for Contract Cheaters. Dreaming! I’m always dreaming!
Prohibit Cronyism in Key Appointments. Revise / Repeal this provision if and when Dems gain the majority.
Thanks, Frank. Now we know which provisions would interfere with what you consider the legitimate “spoils” to which the majority is entitled.
I’m not sure what you mean, but it’s not the first time.
And. of course, you make no reference to the provisions I felt were unconstitutional. But “cherry - picking’s” your M.O.
But, hey, it wasn’t my piece of “disposable” legislation, anyway.
You want it more slowly? Can do.
First, you wrote this:
OK, so you think the Reid proposal is designed to deprive the “victors” of what they’ve rightfully won.
Then, you gave us commentary on each provision, including these:
Allright. So you think the Dems aren’t really serious about these four provisions. Instead, you think they just want to take these things away until they can regain control of Congress, right?
There are two ways to interpret what you’ve written:
1) The Republicans, by right of their control of Congress, are entitled to these things the Dems would prohibit. Even the Dems would take these advantages if only they were able.
or
2) These things really should be prohibited, but what’s the point? If the Dems are ever back in power, they’ll rewrite the rules anyway, so we should just live with the corruption we have now.
Which is it?
Oh, and the “unconstitutional” thing?
I didn’t address it because it was a ridiculous comment. Which member of Congress would be so bold as to challenge the law in court? “I should have the right–the right, I say–to sell my services to the highest bidder!”
Elrod,
I’m not sure McCain strongly disagreed with Obama - technically. His picque has to do with McCain believing Obama had given him his word that he would work with McCain’s bi partisan group and then backed down on it when party bosses told Obama to get back in line.
Dugger
Quaker, No, but I judged McCain is saying they (he and Ford - sorry) had an understanding (private?).
Dugger
There were others at the meeting. Have you seen any of their accounts of what assurances Obama gave?
Ford? Do you mean Obama?
Yeah, I mean Obama. I was just following the liberal media’s lead. My understanding is that the Democratic senator who does not exist and has never existed (for the left wing) from Connecticut is backing up McCain. I suspect Obama double-crossed McCain at the behest of his powerful leaders..
Dugger
If you’re talking about the former vice-presidential candidate’s appearance on Mr. Imus’ show, your understanding is incorrect. He ducked and weaved.
Are you reflexively assuming the Republican’s version is accurate and the Democrat is lying? Or can you point to actual evidence?
Neither. I said suspect. If it were not you and I, I would have been more circumspect. Like it, though, how he is now “the Republican” (fetid sewer rat!) but a while back when opposing Bush, he was a noble war hero, wounded POW and all around good guy. And you may well be correct are Smokin Joe, but I saw postings saying he more backed McCain than the other way around.
Dugger (Insert friendly but Stupid *ss smiley face here)
Touchy, touchy!
I also referred to Obama as “the Democrat” in the same sentence. Fair and balanced, doncha know?
As for the rest:
…sometimes, sometimes not. It amazes me that he’s willing to forgive Bush for the insults of the 2000 primaries.
Verifiable facts that we can all agree on, unless he’s running against a Bush…
…not in my book. He may have credibility on some issues, but his self-proclaimed affinity for “straight talk” is mostly self-aggrandizement.