NO MORE MR. NICE GUY

McCain launches harsh broadside at Obama
Accuses freshman senator of 'disingenuousness'

Tuesday, February 7, 2006; Posted: 1:57 a.m. EST (06:57 GMT)
USA Today


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain unleashed an unusually biting and blunt broadside Monday against one of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, accusing the freshman senator of backtracking on a previous commitment to help develop a bipartisan proposal for lobbying and ethics reform.
"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," the Arizona Republican said in a letter to Obama.
"Please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."
McCain also told Obama that "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's efforts to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness."
"I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics, the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us," McCain wrote. "Good luck to you, senator."
In response, Obama sent a letter back to McCain, saying he was "puzzled" by McCain's reaction and insisting he still supported a bipartisan approach to ethics reform.
"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," Obama wrote.
What set McCain off was a letter Obama sent him late last week, after he and several other Democrats attended a meeting hosted by McCain to discuss a bipartisan approach to lobbying and ethics reform.
In that letter, Obama expressed support for a reform bill being pushed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, rather than McCain's proposal for a bipartisan task force to look at legislation.
"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 (in the Senate) to roll up their sleeves and get to work on writing ethics and lobbying reform legislation that a majority of the Senate can support," Obama wrote.
In the letter he sent Monday, McCain accused the Democratic leadership of wanting "to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections." And he denied that his task force was designed to short-circuit the Senate committee process.
"The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation," McCain said. "I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform proposal be bipartisan."
"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."
But in his rebuttal, Obama said he made it clear during last week's meeting that the Democratic caucus would insist that any reform plan go through the normal committee process -- and that he believes Reid's bill "should be the basis for a bipartisan solution."

********************************************************************************
I've been troubled by John McCain ever since he let Karl Rove slime him, his military service, his wife, and his adopted children, in the 2000 South Carolina primary. He did not, in the debates leading up to that primary, point out what Rove's handlers were doing - they were doing anonymous "push" (or is it "push-push") polling, by calling potential voters, asking them, "If you found out that John McCain had fathered a black baby, would you be less or more likely to vote for him than you are now?" Gee, what impression do you think these Palmetto voters were left with? Of course, McCain and his (white) wife had ADOPTED several black children, but this did not matter to Karl Rove, who exploited the Southern strategy that Ken "Hillary is Angry" Mehlman "apologized" for last year. Rove's henchmen also spread a spear shortly before this primary that Cindy McCain was an alcoholic and that McCain was mentally unstable. These men even tried to smear McCain's war record (only this last smear caused McCain to get his dander up in the pre-South Carolina debate with Bush). Once Bush "defeated" McCain to win the Republican nomination (of course, polls showed that if McCain were the nominee, Al Gore would have lost handily; Bush's handlers knew this, which explained a great many things), McCain made nice.

Yes, McCain challenges the administration, and in meaningful ways (campaign finance, the anti-torture amendment, environmental initiatives, the Abramoff scandal, et. al). But, his capriciousness is still there: at the 2004 Republican National Convention, he gave a speech defending the war that seemed reasonable only in comparison to Zell Miller's and Dick Cheney's hateriotic bluster. He still wants more troops sent to Iraq - which means, let's face it, John - a draft, which he claims to be against.

I think he is more principled than most politicians (an exceedingly low standard), but has used this perception of himself to anoint himself public Arbiter of Moral Disputes in a manner that has become increasingly disgusting. Seemingly every time a partisan fight broke out over military service (or lack thereof) in 2004, McCain took it upon himself to act as "referee," declaring when the dispute should end, declaring who had gone too far, who was the victor, etc. What is the source of the authority that he claims gives him the right to do this? Yes, he was tortuted, and that fact, I think, gives him tremendous authority to speak on, say, the anti-torture amendment, but it does not necessarily give him the right to act as Judith Martin or Emily Post.

And yet, he is still playing this role, as the Obama flap shows, only this time, the referee has himself put on the boxing gloves. I don't exactly see what promise Obama "broke" to McCain (which could be the only legitimate reason, if any, for McCain's ire); even if Obama did break such a promise, Republicans have repeatedly rebuffed efforts (sometimes going back on their word in the process) to solve problems of public concern in a bipartisan fashion, without McCain's objection. The "Hurricane Katrina Commission" is not bipartisan because the Republican Congress refused to let it be (remember that George Bush wanted to investigate the failure himself? Is McCain angry at Democrats for demanding a bipartisan investigation?) Bush refused to allow for the appointment of a 9/11 Commission and McCain was fine with that; it took a pubic shaming for that Commission (whitewashed) to be developed. The oxymoronic "Senate Intelligence" hearings that began yesterday on the President's spying/lying (splying) program began with Arlen Specter pettily refusing to swear in Alberto Gonzales. McCain didn't object, even as he has vociferously objected to the very existence of Gonzales.

McCain talks of "self-interested partisan posturing" and a Democratic willingness to exploit the issue of lobbying and ethics reform. Let's see..... Why have these issues come up? Because "Blackjackoff" Abramoff pled guilty to multiple counts of bribery, money laundering, and violatio of election laws. His crimes implicated almost exclusively Republicans, as even the National Review has admitted. So, McCain is saying that the Democrats can't make an issue of this? Let me get this straight. He can call Michael Moore a "disingenuous filmmaker" in the middle of a convention speech (surely this was not done for partisan posturing, though), but the Democrats can't call a spade a spade? Why not? If K Street were a Democratic scandal, I would not, and no one should, begrudge the Republicans the opportunity to "exploit" the issue. "Exploitation" is neither a virtue nor a vice, just like the word "activist" is not. It all depends on how the "activism" and "exploitation" is done. If they are done in the service of the public interest and of the law, there is no reason for complaint, and McCain has no reason to believe that this "freshman senator" whom he knows nothing about plans to demagogue the issue any more than Sam Brownshirt (R-KS) would if the Democrats were the party under the lobbying spotlight.
Once again, McCain's desire to self-anoint himself as the arbiter of right and wrong, and now, as the mind-reader of people's thoughts and intentions, has come to the fore. While it is refreshing that he at least has said what he meant this time instead of couching his statement in pleasantries, what he has said has done no one any good. As the famous Dr. Samuel Johnson remarked to the owner of a dog whose dog lifted its hind leg for ten seconds straight, "It is done well (i.e. the dog has made its point), but one is surprised to find it done at all."