McCain's the true man, socking it to Obama before either were running for President

College Confidential Community
1

<p>This has not been held secret, but it has resurfaced recently as a popular blog topic.</p>

<p>True reformer calling out rookie opportunist :)</p>

<p>Don't forget
Barack Obama: "There Is One Person Who's Been Consistent On Reform Issues, And That's Been John McCain."</p>

<p>It's an absolute joke, this guy tied to a terrorist, tied to a Socialist party, tied to the corrupt ACORN, Democratic cronies that encouraged Freddie/Fannie to doom us financially, etc. McCain is who we need.</p>

<p><a href="http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a72aa248-ed25-4ec1-9c20-1386b3ee960c&Region_id=&Issue_id=%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=a72aa248-ed25-4ec1-9c20-1386b3ee960c&Region_id=&Issue_id=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>February 6, 2006</p>

<p>Dear Senator Obama:</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

<p>John McCain</p>

<p>United States Senate </p>

<p>Mac laying the attack :cool:</p>

<p><3</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
It's an absolute joke, this guy tied to a terrorist, tied to a Socialist party, tied to the corrupt ACORN, Democratic cronies that encouraged Freddie/Fannie to doom us financially, etc. McCain is who we need.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's cute. Simplifying someone's policies makes you look ignorant. Many Democrats do this to McCain, and it ****es me off like nothing else. Why don't you investigate each one of your statements and then return to this forum? For starters, nobody "encouraged" Freddie and Fanny to doom us financially. It's debatable whether the institutions themselves "doomed" us at all...I would say it was the lack of government regulation on banks. But hey, that's my opinion. I won't call your's a "joke."</p>

3

<p>Absolutely they did. Corruption was known, financial soundness was lacking, and yet the Democrats wanted hush hush until everyone was involved with these toxic illiquid useless assets.</p>

<p>Bill Clinton, Alec Baldwin, Jim Cramer (Hillary lover), all point to the Democrats not reining in Freddie/Fannie, causing this mess, but you can keep hoping and wishing that it was anybody but the Democrat's faults. </p>

<p>No surprise that your arguments are completely lacking in any kind of basis in facts.</p>

<p>FACT</p>

<p>In 1995, the Clinton people encouraged subprime loans to extend housing to people that couldn't afford it... The promise wasn't shady, but the implementation was. Coupled with the fact that Freddie/Fannie took on any kind of crap loan going their way, while their execs got rich to the blind eye of Democrats, while their company sank, despite warnings by Bush!!! in 2003, Greenspan, Bill Clinton in the 90s, etc.</p>

<p>Clinton blamed the Democrats for failing to side with him and the Republicans in trying to rein in Freddie/Fannie. This was in response to a question about the financial crisis, unpressed about Freddie/Fannie, but of course, he recognized the true cause.</p>

<p>Burdened regulations forcing banks to lend quota to people that couldn't afford it caused this. Again, Clinton, Bush, Republicans tried to do actual useful regulation, but they couldn't. It's hard when the Democrats are flush with Fannie/Freddie money, and of course, even with a majority in the Congress, we see that they were inept enough to fail to have 40% of their own party vote with them on the bailout.</p>

<p>Watch Burning Down the House. Read. Educate yourself.
Seeds</a> of collapse sown here - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The Nile isn't just a river in Egpyt. People need to wake up.</p>

4

<p>pugfug90, would you please explain to me how McCain would deviate from the Republican politics that got us into this mess in the first place? Without making your point by bashing Obama? I'm not being sarcastic by the way, I really am curious.</p>

5

<p>This is getting old. What part of my post do you disagree?</p>

6

<p>Pug is, like many of us, nothing more than a cheerleader. But his section is emptying as the game gets further out of reach, and what once were cheers have been reduced to the sporadic shouts of angry drunks.</p>

7

<p>Pug, do you have anything better to do with your life then to spew stuff from google? Yes, we understand, you have a lot of time to look up links and to type out ridiculously long posts in honor of your hero, McCain. The truth is, nobody really cares what you think of Obama. Your opinions may have been listened to at one time, but now you are the annoying fly that just won't go away. </p>

<p>Sorry, this has nothing to do with the OP, but it was something that's been bothering me for a while.</p>

8

<p>hahahah it's really funny omg.... poor pug trawling through google every day spewing vicious vitriolic about Obama on behalf of McCain... what's gonna happen when one day pug realizes that probably 3/4 of currently active CC-ers in October/November of ANY given year are below voting age?</p>

9

<p>Pug - </p>

<p>Why do you have such vitrolic hatred of progressiveism?</p>

<p>Without it, blacks would still be slaves (or at least second class citizens), women would still be unable to vote, the environment would be destroyed in the name of short-term profits, homosexuals would be beaten and subject to discrimination, and the middle class would be struggling on minimal income.</p>

<p>If you really want today's Republicanism to work, then you need to get together with your buddies and figure out how to protect the environment, ensure living wages, and eradicate poverty without government regulation and unions. </p>

<p>Until then, we will always need Big Daddy government to keep us from running into the street.</p>

10

<p>What? Showing that McCain exhibited sincerity and bipartisanship while calling out Obama for being a pawn of the Democrats is "antiprogressive"?</p>

<p>???</p>

<p>Not that I am in favor of "progressivism" aka government intrusion, but how is mentioning Obama's strange friends, his strange groups, his complacency in the catalysts that started this financial storm, and his partisanship, "antiprogressivism"?</p>

<p>Overreaching, much?</p>

<p>Yup Jack, you're right, Republicans want to pillage the earth and don't care if people are hurting :rolleyes:</p>

<p>I hear a lot of blah blah, shut up about the facts, I don't hear much in the way of specifically pointing out what people don't like. surprise surprise.</p>

11

<p>pugfug90, you're a living, breathing talking points machine. There's no sense "debating" with someone who's categorically unwilling to deviate even a millimeter from the spoon-fed "OBAMA = TERRORIST" line of attack.</p>

12

<p>
[quote]
I hear a lot of blah blah, shut up about the facts, I don't hear much in the way of specifically pointing out what people don't like. surprise surprise.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, you just ignore the people who give specifics.</p>

13

<p>Not to get your hopes up, Pug, but I think you and SP were made for each other. You could have a picture of Willie Horton above your hearth--sort of a unifying symbol.</p>

14

<p>Let's have some straight talk.</p>

<p>Why don't you investigate each one of your statements and then return to this forum? For starters, nobody "encouraged" Freddie and Fanny to doom us financially.</p>

<p>Yeah they did. In the face of obviously unsound financials, Democrats resisted efforts for sound regulations. But why would they? Heck, their nominee got more money from then than any Congressman but the Democrat in charge of the financial committee himself. Your in as much denial as Maxine Waters.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?em=&pagewanted=print%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/business/05fannie.html?em=&pagewanted=print&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It gets tiring, but it's fun arguing with facts and logic over blind rhetoric...so again.</p>

<p>Recently on that crazy Maher show...</p>

<p>MOORE: Well, let's talk about regulation. One of the insti...the biggest institutions that's failed this year was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is an institution that your friends, the Democrats... in fact you, Congresswoman, did not want to regulate...</p>

<p>REP. MAXINE WATERS (D-CA): ...I believed...I believed...</p>

<p>MOORE: ...you said it wasn't broke, you said it wasn't broke, you said it wasn't broke five years ago at a Congressional hearing, and you took $15,000 of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie.</p>

<p>WATERS: ...no I didn't.</p>

<p>MOORE: Yeah, you did, it's in the Senate (inaudible)... </p>

<p>What</a> They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ.com</p>

<p>Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez:</p>

<p>Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?</p>

<p>Bill Clinton, in response to Andrew Cuomo a question about if Bush caused the financial crisis, squarely placed the blame on the Democrats for failing to side with him and the Republicans in trying to rein in these companies.</p>

<p>would you please explain to me how McCain would deviate from the Republican politics that got us into this mess in the first place? Without making your point by bashing Obama? I'm not being sarcastic by the way, I really am curious.</p>

<p>Doh! bla bla bla GOP GOP GOP bla bla no specific policy accusactions</p>

<p>But his section is emptying as the game gets further out of reach, and what once were cheers have been reduced to the sporadic shouts of angry drunks.</p>

<p>waaaaa</p>

<p>The truth is, nobody really cares what you think of Obama.</p>

<p>Pity :(</p>

<p>There's no sense "debating" with someone who's categorically unwilling to deviate even a millimeter from the spoon-fed "OBAMA = TERRORIST" line of attack.</p>

<p>Yup, ignore all else, cry Obama's not a terrorist.</p>

<p>It seems to me that people are scared of the facts yup yup :)</p>

15

<p>Seriously Pug. You act like a two year old. If something doesn't go your way, or somebody calls you out, you completely change the topic or pull out something from google. You need another hobby.</p>

16

<p>Please tell me how I deviated from any subject. The topic at hand is clear. The rhetoric and accusations coming from left-field about nothing aren't.</p>

17

<p>why bother even trying to argue with pug? he likes to get an orgasmic ego boost every time he thinks he's won by ignoring counterarguments and changing the subject and then drawing up ANOTHER "incontrovertible" proof from Google. just wait till Nov 4th.</p>

18

<p>tsk tsk
shame on these people getting so rattled
:rolleyes:</p>

<p>bla bla shut up can't handle facts GOP sucks bla bla</p>

19

<p>^^ exactly what im talking about. people can't be bothered with him and he thinks he's won. LOL that, my friend, is ultimate loser talk.</p>

20

<p>^^^
Exactly what I'm talking about, people can't be bothered to refute the facts, so they go ramble about how horrible the GOP...:D</p>