Here’s the joint statement released by Arizona Sen. John McCain and president-elect Barack Obama after the two former opponents met today in Chicago:
“At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time. It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family. We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation’s security.”
20 Comments
this will be a great partnership…Obama and McCain
will actually be able to get something done in a
bi partisan manner….maybe finally the confidence
of the american people that their government is not
bought and paid for by highpowered lobbyists and
special interests will be won
Protect our security, or secure our protection? How about some specifics? Heard nothing but vague platitudes during the campaign, same still. Either way, nothing’s been promised here that hasn’t been previously promised ten thousand thousand times with no delivery.
you deserve to be a skeptic..but you need to give
it a chance
Like the way Democrats gave Bush a chance? In 2000, chants of Commander-in-thief, not my President, Bush stole the presidency… In 2004, Democrats claimed Ohio was stolen, called Bush a moron, a chicken-hawk… 2005, tried to fillibuster Justices Alito and Roberts. A move that Schumer
not only defends but says he should have done more at the time.
I don’t see why Republicans should roll-over and be bi-partisan given Democratic treatment of Republicans over the past eight years.
Obviously, the Consultant does. Which shouldn’t surpise anyone given that he is pretty much a Democrat on every social and foreign policy issue. As for special interests, last time I checked trial lawyers were a special interest and being involved in local and state judicial elections when your firm may be before the judge later on, could constitute a “special-interest” or “lobbying”, am I wrong?
I wonder if Mike Edelman has considered public service? Perhaps, Deputy Press Secretary for President-Elect Obama. I only say deputy since the President-Elect has already chosen a press secretary. This is NOT to say that ANYONE represents the Obama Administration point of view as well as Edelman. He’s number 1 on that list, but if he doesn’t mind playing second banana, I’m sure the President-Elect would appreciate his service. Maybe spokesman for the DNC?
I believe in giving the new president a chance..and in
terms of the economic proposal what I am proposing is
for now when Paulson has already asked for 700 billion
and to suggest that Obama isn’t entitled to a chance
because the democrats didn’t give bush a chance is
exactly why we have the partisan politics in washington
that people want to get rid of…Just remember that
the Bush presidency gave us a war costing 10 billion
a month and a deficit to out do all deficits as
well as the biggest economic downturn since the great
depression…I am hardly a democrat…but you can
call me independent for now…and if sarah palin ever
gets the nod for president I will give up my republican
registration for good
Anon:
It’s people like you who cannot change their partisanship, no matter what, that have caused the schism to begin with.
There are so many expectations of our new President that to fulfill them all, one would have to be a super-hero. I am very pleased to see Obama reaching out to McCain and others across the aisle, to come together for once and work to make OUR country better.
To me, this is a sign of great intelligence and humility – something sorely lacking in this lame duck administration. No one person can do it all. Its smart to recruit the best minds in our country regardless of part affiliation.
Hopeful, I doubt you were as bi-partisan when the Republicans were in power. We cannot have a situation where when the Democrats are in power we have one set of rules and another when the Republicans in power. The Consultant doesn’t understand economics as the Bush administration didn’t cause the economic downturn and the Iraq War was actually bi-partisan. And the Consultant is pretty much a liberal.
Believes Bush and the neocons lied to get us into Iraq, against tax cuts, against the second amendment, believes in a pro-choice litmus test for the Supreme Court, pro affirmative action, pro trial lawyer, against de-regulation…
anon.you have no idea what my set of beliefs
are ..you are a member of the Limbough Hannity
lets call em a liberal and discredit them…
guess what..it didn’t work in the last election
and it won’t work in the next…and believe me
I understand economics, the Laffer curve, and the
theories behind cutting taxes to stimulate the economy
guess what both time they were tried we wound up
with huge deficits..but my ideology is not the issue
the issue for republicans is that for them to be
able to win elections they have to attract people
with my views to their candidate for president…
otherwise they will remain out of office and out
of power
Actually, I do have an idea of what your viewpoints are since you repeat them ad nauseum on local tv, in the local newspapers, and on this blog. YOU try to discredit anyone who points out that you are not much of a Republican by calling them an extremist, neo-con, Limbaugh, etc…
And you proved my point by writing that you don’t believe in cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. You don’t understand economics as no conservative economist has claimed that cutting all taxes would lead to surpluses. Laffer, claimed that cutting some taxes such as the capital gains tax would be helpful because it could bring in additional revenue. By and large that is true.
By the way, anyone who has studied Keynes realizes that sometimes it is helpful for the government to run a small deficit at the federal level, so deficits in and of themselves are not entirely bad.
Just answer me this, if you spend a good portion of your day blogging and you are planning to move to Florida, why are you still listed as a name partner on your firm’s website? You don’t appear to be trying cases unless cases last an hour in between blog posts.
the last question is absolutely non of your business.
as for the rest of your post…it is republicans like
you who have taken the party back 100 years…your insistance on “the true conservatism” has nothing whatever
to do with the goldwater conservatism that formed the basis
for the movement..tax cutting is illusory because of the AMT
the only beneficiaries are people with enormous incomes
upper middle class folks get very little…thats one reason
that Bush’s tax cuts should have never been passed..along
with the notion that deregulating everything was the best
idea…that certainly worked in the financial markets
didn’t it…as for the Milton Friedman model, its a
long way from demonstrating that it does anything but
allow for speculation in the markets..ask alan greenspan
and as for Limbaugh and company he is the one hyping
that moderation is for people with no backbone..
the voters of this nation overwhelmingly rejected him
and the hard right social postions that have handcuffed
the republican party for years…getting rid of the bush
cheney neocons is the healthiest thing that could have
happened to the party…and here in new york there will
soon be legislation outlawing cross endorsements…
1. If you are going to talk about your public and private life on a blog, criticize others as corrupt, don’t be surprised when people have questions about your own career. If you don’t want to answer, fine just don’t bring it up.
2. You just proved that you are not a Republican. That’s fine. You embrace Democratic economic policies, foreign polices, and social policies. Claiming you are a moderate Republican or independent is not accurate.
3. I haven’t taken the party anywhere. I am a voter and not a legislator, commentator or lobbyist. And you proved my point once gain that you call anyone that disagrees with you an extremist or Limbaugh supporter or any of your other petty insults.
4. You have not gotten rid of anyone. Bush/Cheney by the constitution could not run for a third term. No one cares about cross endorsements or Rush Limbaugh on this blog except for you.
5. You have not refuted any of my points.
I have never called anyone corrupt I have suggested
that cross endorsements are bad policy and that
they empower certain leaders far in excess of the
party registration…you have no business criticizing
my non political carreer ..I haven;t criticized yours
thats because you don’t sign your posts..which would
be interesting to learn exactly who you are. Your definition of a Republican doesn’t make it so…there are plenty of republicans who agree with me and not you..and that is why there is a battle for the direction of the party..in fact after the election at least 30 people approaced me to tell me that they were moderate republicans who voted for Obama..maybe thats why McCain lost. I thought
McCain was a good candidate..until he picked sarah palin
that convinced me he was not up to being the leader
of the nation and that even if he was the combination
of his age and health made her selection unacceptable
and that seems to be where most voters are..
so before you attempt to be the “decider” of who a
republican is..you better take a look at the party
its principles and its losses in the last two
congressional elections and ask yourself ..do
you really want to marginalize the republican party
do you really want to make pro life the test of getting
the nomination even for vice president..and do you
want to continue to lower taxes even though we are fighting
two wars..you might also ask yourself if George W Bush
was a “true republican” getting us into Iraq on trumped
up intelligence that he and cheney cherry picked..thats
not what traditional republican foreign policy is
all about..it is no longer ronald reagan’s party ..
it is time to develop a new message that is attractive
to minorities, young voters and independents…thats
the kind of republican I am…so far all you have done
is to tell me that I am not a true republican..you havent
told us how you are a true republican although if
I miss my guess you already had that chance and didn’t
so so well..is it Richard? just a guess..because your
writing style hasn’t changed from the last time
you reviewed my website…you really should stop being
so concerned with my business life and be more concerned
about your own
Anon wrote:
“Hopeful, I doubt you were as bi-partisan when the Republicans were in power. We cannot have a situation where when the Democrats are in power we have one set of rules and another when the Republicans in power.”
Why not, I ask? It seems Anon is engaging in “nah nah nah nah nah nah, you can’t say that” a child-like response.
Of course we can have a new set of rules – that’s what this election was all about.
Anon continues “Believes Bush and the neocons lied to get us into Iraq, against tax cuts, against the second amendment, believes in a pro-choice litmus test for the Supreme Court, pro affirmative action, pro trial lawyer, against de-regulation…”
Well, duh! That’s what the majority of voters thought! You are obviously now in the minority which is probably why you are so bitter.
Stop castigating the consultant. He is clearly a thoughful, educated person who knows his own mind. There are the keywords, Anon
knowing his own mindand willing to change his opinion when the situation warrants it.You should take some lessons from him.
Hopeful: You are a partisan Democrat who obviously wants a rule change when your party is in party. No thanks. That is not what the majority of the country thought but what the Democratic base thought.
Consultant: I didn’t discuss my viewpoints on social issues but once again you prove my point and don’t bother to read posts. I did note that your viewpoints are held by Democrats and not Republicans. Any attempt by you to prove otherwise will be unsuccessful. You cannot name a single national social or foreign policy issue other than perhaps trade in which you embrace the Republican position.
I do not have to respond to your challenge since it appears
you love to pidgeonhole everyone …as either a “liberal”
or a “partisan democrat”...thats not what the discussion should be about..my viewpoints are held by both republicans
and democrats but more importantly by the largest growing
party in the nation…and that would be no party at all..
why don’t you try to attract those who think for themselves
to your cause rather than flailing away at me…I have been
consistantly supportive of virtually every republican to
run for office in this county for 35 years..I now have
some sharp disagreements with the right wing of my
party..on abortion, on tax policy, and on foreign
policy…its not that I necessarily agree with democrats
it is just that the republican party has wandered
so far away from traditional republican notions on
those issues that it makes it hard to support national
candidates who embrace them ….and when you add the
choice of sarah palin to the mix…voting for John McCain
was out of the question..now for people like you the
issue is ..do you want voters like me to come home
or not…that is the only issue..not where I work
or whether I am a partner in a lawfirm, or whether I
am retired, or a good or bad parent…etc..the issue
is the political question of the day…which way is
the republican party going to go..the way of the doo doo
or the way of a newly constructed party based on individual
accomplishments and personal liberty…something by
the way that the anti abortion wing doesn’t seem to
get….voters want the governments hand out of their
pockets..but out of their bedrooms as well…you cannot
pick and choose…but the basic principles of emphasizing
the individual not the state, of allowing the markets
to function normally, and to grow the economy are all things
i agree with but then I didn’t nationalize the banks did I
Thanks for the diatribe that you just repeat over and over again regardless of the discussion. Just to be clear you couldn’t name one issue.
As for your comment, “i agree with but then I didn’t nationalize the banks did I.” You fully supported the bailout plan. The record speaks for itself.
the consultant
September 27th, 2008 at 9:15 am
some republicans in congress don’t
want the government to actually own the assets but rather
to insure them against default thereby avoiding the necessity of making an intitial 700 billion expenditure
but rather holding off until the assets become so distressed
that the government has to make good. In any event you can
bet that by sunday night some plan willl emerge. The system
still works, and capitalism is still the best way to
run the nation…there will however not be unfettered
lassiz faire capitalism in its purest form as has been
advocated by the supply sideres for years…there will
be overisght, re regulation, and more involvement in
determining what types of collateralized mortgage obligations and or credit default swaps and derivatives
are acceptable and what there value really is
you clearly cannot read and understand nuances…you
tend to group ideas according to your own logic not
the logic that most people employ…my statement
about the banks was scarcastic..I was in no position
to effect the outcome was I. You seem to still love
to track my old statements and that is good I need
more fans…and there will in fact not be unfettered
capitalism in its PURIST FORM..That my dear fellow
does not mean we become socialist ..it means that
modifications to an imperfect system are enacted
you have a problem with oversight of these exotic
investment derrivitive type instruments that got
us here…and if you don’t support the bailout what
would you suggest..I would love to hear your solution
to the crisis.because you clearly disagree with the
bailout…
Every time i come here I am not dissapointed, nice post
for the study, but I’m real affectionate the new Zune, and prospect this, as comfortably as the superior reviews another fill tally engrossed, gift help you resolve if it’s the parcel prime for you.