Joint Mc-Cain / Obama statement

20

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.”

Share.

About Author

20 Comments

  1. the consultant on

    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

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. the consultant on

    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

  6. 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.

  7. 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…

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. 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…

  11. 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.

  12. the consultant on

    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

  13. 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 mind – and willing to change his opinion when the situation warrants it.

    You should take some lessons from him.

  14. 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.

  15. the consultant on

    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

  16. 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

  17. the consultant on

    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…

  18. 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.