Obama’s Major Bain Capital Mistake
July 17, 2012 36 Comments
We’ve now entered the second week of Romney is a felon coverage in the Presidential race. The Obama campaign is clearly controlling the media narrative at this point. Hardly surprising considering the media’s support for the President. The notion that Romney is a felon is almost laughably absurd. Yet Obama is running with it and has done an admirable job of controlling the media narrative and getting Romney off the subject of the economy and Obamacare. It begs the question why Obama is doing this in July and not October.
What is clear is that he left Bain in 1999 to run the Salt Lake Olympics. Bain is a complex partnership wherein at his departure Romney remained as CEO of the managing group. He didn’t manage Bain or its investments though, as has been clearly stated by even Obama supporting Bain executives. So what’s going on here? The Salt Lake Olympics were held in 2002. It’s fairly obvious that Romney’s original intent in 1999 was to return to Bain after the 2002 Olympics. Thus he stays on as technical head of Bain even though he had no managerial power with the intent on returning after the games. Ultimately he changed his mind and ran for Governor of Massachusetts instead which likely precipitated a full break.
Why this matters to anyone is a legitimate question. Who cares whether Romney left Bain in 1999 or 2002? Especially so when there is no evidence that Romney ever held himself out as a manager of investments after he left in 1999. No one has been duped, no one has been misled. So why should voters care? Obama believes in the Chicago way of campaigning, which requires the complete personal destruction of an opponent. Obama believes that in order to win he has to completely destroy Romney. If that means insinuating he’s a felon without any evidence, so be it.
The question though is why is this coming out in July? This seems like the sort of distraction that would suit mid-October much better. Perhaps Obama believes he would be in a better position if he can define Romney as a felon and/or shady dealer now before the country is fully introduced to him at the Convention, debates and general election campaigning. Or perhaps the Obama campaign believes it has something even more scandalous (false or otherwise) to release in October that the Romney, Bain and felony discussion will be rendered irrelevant.
It’s possible the Obama team has badly miscalculated here by choosing July over October. Maybe they believed this story was nonsense and didn’t realize that it would become a media sensation, in which case they miscalculated badly. By the time October rolls around people who have decided Romney isn’t a felon aren’t going to be swayed by more felony talk. Less people are paying full attention in July but everyone has heard about this story by now. Thus, even for those who aren’t paying attention much this story will be old news in October and thus Romney will be immune from attack.
It’s one thing for Obama to spend the time between Romney’s primary victory and the Conventions trying to define the GOP opponent. You do that by spending months calling him a callous capitalist with no plan and no solution. You don’t waste your time on hard hitting personal attacks, it’s just not necessary yet because you’re defining your opponent from the bully pulpit of the White House. A good Presidential campaign saves the hard attacks for the campaign because by then the foundation is already set. In this case, you would think after months of questioning Bain moves such as laying off workers, sending jobs overseas etc. the foundation is set for a big splash like Romney is a felon.
What we’re seeing is a big mistake by Obama. This story is going to fade, by next week we won’t be talking about it anymore. Obama hasn’t done a good job laying the foundation for this sort of attack. Just look at the polls, they’re exactly where they were two or three months ago. The Bain attacks haven’t worked much. But had Obama set up a good foundation, this felony accusation would have been great in October. Two or three weeks before the election, to drop this sort of bomb and have the media talking about it nonstop might have killed Romney. Instead this information was dropped in July. It’s a headache and it’s a potential major problem. But it’s July, Romney has time to formulate an adequate response and he’ll have a chance to change the media narrative with a running mate selection. In short, the Obama campaign screwed this up.
About Steven
Though Obama has been hammering on Romney for various things, the polls have remained fairly constant. I do wonder why they ran with this story so early, but I also wonder if they have something else they are holding back. They may have screwed up this attack, but they know they are not doing so well. That means they are like a cornered animal. You never know who they are going to bite. I don’t trust them.
What do they imagine they have though? Other than Romney’s flip flops, he seems like an honest businessman and unless they have footage of him with other women (or men, Democrats love to hammer people with accusations of homosexuality) I don’t know what they could possibly have.
I’ve thought about that some, but I really don’t know what they could have. I just know how they operate and would not be surprised at anything they pull.
You make a good point. They’ll lie in order to smear Romney. It makes one wonder what sort of lie they’re going to cook up.
Oh sure Steve, its the Democratic Party that is full of homophobes not the Republican Party. Where the hell did you dig that one up from! LOL!
I expect anything and everything. these people are so desperate I wouldn’t be surprised if they whipped up race riots and blamed Romney being wealthy somehow. this administration is shameless.
This is true, nothing would surprise me with these guys.
Today was a very bad news day for you far right lunatics. On the other hand, maybe you folks agree with all these paranoid fantasies.
THE HEADLINES READ:
*Rush Limbaugh says: ‘Dark Knight Rises’ villain Bane is an anti-Romney political conspiracy.
*Arizona sheriff Apaio says Obama’s birth certificate is fake
*John McCain blast the far right loonies:Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Lyn Westmoreland, Frank Gaffney Michele Bachman about their Muslim conspiracy allegations. McCain said, “These attacks have no logic, no basis and no merit. And they need to stop. They need to stop now.”
Of course you all will continue to have faith in your view of the world blithely disregarding reality. A little quote from someone who was far wiser than we are.
“Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”
-Mark Twain
Cheers!
My understanding is that Limbaugh said the Democrats would use the Batman character against Romney, not that the character was written with with this campaign in mind. I didn’t hear what Limbaugh said (I work during the day), in fact I didn’t even know there was yet another Batman movie. Who cares what a sheriff in Arizona has to say about anything. As for McCain, he ceased to be relevant when he lost in 08. McCain is showing his true colors though. He has always been more comfortable attacking working with Democrats and attacking conservatives than being a conservative.
Are these headlines supposed to convince me that the conservative viewpoint is wrong? I’m at a loss for how three headlines on issues no one will remember by Saturday are supposed to prove conservative policy is incorrect.
Oh Steve, you are terrific!
I heard the Limbaugh statement. He said it was a deliberate conspiracy-not a coincidence. You can hear it to, word for word, if you dare to.
Who cares what a far right Republican Sheriff in Arizona does? Well, Steve, this guy has been headlines for several years, Isn’t Arizona the state with the strict immigrant identity laws that just hit the Supreme Court?
John McCain. He may be irrelevant to you far right lunatics but he has a great deal of respect among more rational people across all political divides
The purpose of the post is to keep hammering away at your far right nonsense. No single post is going to change anyone, But just as it happened to David Brock, when he finally could not blind himself to all the far right lunatics he was working for he jumped ship.
I have another quote for you.
The modern American right has a tendency to fashion conspiracy theories. “The modern American right is hermetically sealed in a media universe that lets in no natural light and no air,” “They breathe in only their own exhalations. And in that sealed, self-referential, oxygen-deprived environment, the modern American right has become addicted to conspiracy theories, which mostly is hilarious, but occasionally it has real world consequences.”
Steve: Look at your preferred reading list for your readers.Does the shoe fit? Washington times? Ann Coulter?……..
Lastly, you complain that you work and have little time to actually listen to people like Rush. Really? But you have enough time to write a sizable blog entry everyday! You are great Steve!
Excuses, excuses, excuses……..
I’m engaged in the battle of ideas, not a battle of personalities. I really don’t care what Rush Limbaugh has or hasn’t said, what a sheriff in Arizona isn’t all that relevant and no John McCain is not relevant anymore nor is anyone who loses a Presidential race. (read: John Kerry isn’t relevant either) How what these people do is supposed to convince anyone that the conservative outlook is incorrect is beyond me. Ideas stand on their own, they aren’t tied to personalities.
We all make choices in life. I choose to spend my free time writing blog posts and reading the news. That means I don’t have time to listen to Rush Limbaugh. Even if I wanted to listen to Limbaugh, I’m not going to have him blabbering away while I’m trying to do work in my office. It’s all a matter of choices, I choose to work in silence and I choose to spend my free time writing posts and reading rather than listening to other people talk.
No Steve, there is nothing wrong with being conservative. I happen to be conservative myself. There is something wrong, however, with existing in the sealed, self-referential, oxygen-deprived environment of the far right. That lunatic far right with all of its hate filled conspiracy theories and its detachment from reality. That is the group you and most of your devoted readers belong to.
In a past blog exchange you said that Roosevelt only created Social Security as a way to help him win the 1936 election.
The blogger asked for a source. You told him to read “How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America” by Burton W. Folsom. I read that book and so did the blogger. There was no statement in that book supporting your contention about FDR and Social Security. We were looking for a smoking gun . We were looking for an insider of FDR’s who had direct knowledge of FDR’s thinking and strategy. Not to be found in that book I am afraid. When confronted your EXCUSE for being wrong about the source was, “It can be surmised from the book.” So, it is actually Steven Birn’s theory about FDR and Social Security and there really is no source for your statement about FDR and Social Security.
You have been believing and spreading this kind of misinformation for a long, long time.
You were challenged about the budget office’s deficit amounts. You and LD absolutely refused to go to the source and see that you were dead wrong. Yet—-you go on. Just like Rush-blabbering nonsense.
Oh, you don’t have time to listen to Rush blabber in your office to hear what he actually said. You can actually hear it anytime at dozens of web sites that reported his amazing conspiracy theory IF you really want to know the truth about his statement.
You can hear it too-if you dare to. Rush said it was a deliberate conspiracy-not a coincidence. You apparently had time to gather information in his defense-from second hand sources of course-but not enough time to listen to his actual words. Well, there you go again, excuses, excuses and excuses to protect your little far right world and all the people sealed within its environment.
At the end of the day, I don’t care what Rush Limbaugh says on his radio show. I don’t care about is conspiracy theories or lack thereof. In fact, I question why we’re even talking about him as he’s irrelevant to this blog post.
Steve: He is on your side. He is the biggest player in the far-right political movement. He is the single biggest motivator for people who think just like you do. He is part of your far right world. He was married by a Supreme Court Justice. He is a big player. What he says matters to millions of people on the far right. Rush is fighting to defeat Obama just like you. He is motivating the far right-millions and millions of people who can help elect people you support. You don’t care about conspiracy theories. That is very interesting since you are filled to gills with them about Democrats and liberals.
Keep typing away. Some day you will wake up. Maybe?
Oh Steve, are you going to listen to what Rush actually said or not??????
No because I don’t care what Rush Limbaugh says about a stupid movie that I’m uninterested in. I don’t care if Limbaugh has a wacko conspiracy theory about a movie. I didn’t write about this topic because I just don’t care about it.
Its not about the stupid movie that I am not going to see either. its about the far-right lunacy that you are a part of. You certainly write about the evil conspiracies of the Democrats, liberals and socialists. In fact, you recently said that our public schools belong to the devil. Pretty far out there Steve! Are your conspiracy theories also pretty wacky like Rush’s? I think so.
Steve, why did you bother defending Rush if you do not care what he says? Why not ignore it-like most of the critical comments here? You know you did care enough to defend Rush. But now-now that you are challenged to actually get the truth first hand and that you now know that your statement is probably wrong- well suddenly-you don’t care a fig about Rush!
You are truly amazing Steve. Excuses, excuses, excuses to protect your little far-right world.
I write about actually things that Democrats and liberals do that actually affect policy, politics and government here in the US. I don’t write about some wacko “conspiracy” theory liberals have about a movie. It was my understanding that Rush didn’t actually argue for the conspiracy but even if he did, what difference does it make to me or society at large?
A great difference. The Tea Party is mostly a movement that has been created by and motivated by wackos like Rush. It is a potent political force. A force that you are a part of. The wacko conspiracy of the Bat Man movie was by the far-right Rush not a Democrat or liberal.
Now Steve since you refuse to actually listen to the broadcast here is a transcript for you to read:
RUSH: Have you heard this new movie, the Batman movie, what is it, The Dark Knight Lights Up or whatever the name is. That’s right, Dark Knight Rises. Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bane?
[...]
So, anyway, this evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane. And there’s now a discussion out there as to whether or not this is purposeful and whether or not it will influence voters. It’s gonna have a lot of people. This movie, the audience is gonna be huge. A lot of people are gonna see the movie, and it’s a lot of brain-dead people, entertainment, the pop culture crowd, and they’re gonna hear Bane in the movie and they’re gonna associate Bain. The thought is that when they start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, Romney and Bain, that these people will think back to the Batman movie, “Oh, yeah, I know who that is.” (laughing) There are some people who think it’ll work. Others think you’re really underestimating the American people to think that will work. [RushLimbaugh.com via Gawker]
Steve: CONCENTRATE on the last line of the first paragraph: “Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bane?” That is a laughable wacko conspiracy theory by Rush! Just a small sample of his daily idiocy. Just the like the ones that fill the far right blogs on the internet.
Steve, how many thousands and thousands of times have you refused to look at or even acknowledge any factual evidence that challenges your far-right political obsessions??????
OK, it doesn’t matter because you have faith in your beliefs so you don’t need to worry about the facts? Well, as Mark Twain said;
“Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.”
-Mark Twain
Cheers!
Yes but do you know that Limbaugh wasn’t being sarcastic at the time? He had that tendancy. Beyond that, honestly who cares? I didn’t even know there was a batman movie until this flap happened. The studio that puts that film out ought to thank Limbaugh for all the free publicity. While I have no interest in the film and won’t go see it, surely someone will learn about the film and go to it because of the Limbaugh thing.
Ok: So do you think Limbaugh is actually being paid by the studio to say outrageous things about Batman-Yes! Brilliant!That’s it! And do you think that the shooting in Aurora this morning is just another conspiracy by the Nazi- liberal Hollywood crowd to get those seats filled. Yes! Brilliant!
Steve, the fact that you did not know about the Batman movie is irrelevant. You despise popular culture in its entirety.
Sarcastic?? Is that why most of what you write is outrageous and irrational? You are just being sarcastic?
You ability to avoid reality is amazing.
I called it free publicity for a reason. Free implies the studio didn’t pay for anything.
That makes it even more brilliant! Those Hollywood liberals are evil geniuses!
Ok, so you now have another excuse” It was just Rush being sarcastic.” Amazing Steve!
Excuses, excuses excuses-don’t let reality rock that little far out right wing world of yours.
I never said it was only that it wouldn’t surprise me if Limbaugh was being sarcastic. I really don’t care one way or the other, this conversation is over.
I love your forceful, manly ways, “This conversation is over.” LOL. Saying you don’t care is what a little boy says when he feels rejected by someone that he cares about or when an event occurs and he feels he has been humiliated by another. I believe it is called disassociation.That kind of internalization of a negative emotion can cause severe long term mental health issues.
The Irrelevance of John McCain: As the politically astute Steven Birns has pontificated herein:
NY Times 7-27-12 FRONT PAGE
WASHINGTON — As Election Day edges close and most members of Congress yearn to flee Washington, Senator John McCain of Arizona is more present than ever. Only there is a new iteration of the Republican lawmaker and defeated presidential candidate who has been a constant in the capital even as he regularly transforms himself. Absent is the maverick who bucked his party on the environment and campaign finance, and verbally towel-snapped Republicans and Democrats alike on the Senate floor.
Gone, too, is the far-right leaning Mr. McCain of 2010, who found himself in a primary fight back home that caused him to retreat from his stances on immigration and global warming.
Mr. McCain instead appears to have entered Version 3 of his long and multipronged Senate career — partisan warrior and party stalwart. He takes to the Sunday TV talk shows, the Senate floor and the Capitol hallways that are filled with more reporters than mosquitoes at a garden party to press his party’s agenda on taxes, military spending and national security.
He walks largely in step with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader with whom he previously had an adversarial relationship that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
“Senator McCain is a tremendous leader in the Republican conference as well as a trusted adviser to me on a number of critical matters, including national security and fiscal issues,” Mr. McConnell said. “Being on the same side of these recent battles has not only strengthened our friendship, but it’s helped clarify the broader debate.”
This latest John McCain has emerged in the aftermath of a stinging loss in the 2008 presidential campaign to a man he considered to have a very thin résumé compared with his decades of military and public service, a loss that left him bitter about politics and the news media — a group he once jokingly referred to as his political base.
Now, after nearly three years of sniping from the sidelines, Mr. McCain is a polestar on nearly every major issue consuming the Senate, from a cybersecurity bill to the debate over Syria to an investigation into national security leaks and the fight to head off $500 billion in Pentagon cuts. He is arguably the most active senator in a frequently sleepy chamber.
Often these days, he actually smiles.
“It took me three years of feeling sorry for myself,” Mr. McCain said to a group of reporters this week as he held court outside the polished doors of a waiting senators-only elevator, taking questions as he does daily on the major topics of the day, be it the budget, the Arab Spring, postal reform or the reshuffling of Marines in Okinawa and Guam.
Mr. McCain was in all of his McCain-ness recently on the Senate floor, where he derided a group of House Republicans for suggesting that a top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton, Huma Abedin, was connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Next week, he will roll through a series of East Coast cities, holding town-hall-style meetings to speak out against planned cuts to the Pentagon that resulted from last year’s debt-ceiling deal, another core fight in which he is front and center.
In some ways it seems as if Mr. McCain remains unable to reconcile the rightward lurch he took two years ago with his clear desire to continue to put his stamp on myriad issues — at times bridging partisan divides — to burnish his legacy.
For instance, on campaign finance — an issue he was so personally associated with that his name was tied to the legislation that Mr. McConnell fought at the Supreme Court — Mr. McCain has been unwilling to work with Democrats on new bills to force more disclosure of the names of wealthy donors.
“I’ve been disappointed,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat. “I was hoping John would carry that forward, but so far with the Disclosure Act and other things we’ve got on the floor he has not joined us. I just hope he goes back to his roots.”
Many of Mr. McCain’s other interests align neatly with the big issues of the day, particularly the debate over the role of the United States in conflicts in the Middle East — in which he has largely been a staunch critic of the Obama administration — and the planned Pentagon cuts.
The pattern is similar to that of other unsuccessful presidential candidates, like Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who publicly sulked for a few years before becoming a major player on Afghanistan and other issues.
“I just think a lot of it has to do with the agenda,” Mr. McCain said of his re-emergence, in an impromptu interview with several reporters. “After I lost, I knew that the best way to get over it was to get active.” (Mr. McCain, who disputed some coverage of him by The New York Times during the 2008 campaign, has a policy of not speaking directly to reporters from The Times.)
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman who is working with Mr. McCain on a way to avoid Pentagon cuts, said that Mr. McCain was a “key spokesman” on the issue.
“It’s all relative around here in terms of partisanship,” Mr. Levin said. “Inside his party he stands shoulders above in terms of being willing to deviate from the grip of an antitax pledge.”
Mr. McCain is also a very useful advocate for his party in an election year. He provides credibility on military issues and can employ his rhetorical gifts on the Sunday talk shows (where he has appeared more than any other member of Congress this year, according to a tally by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call) to promote the party view in a way that Mr. McConnell and others cannot.
“He loves his job,” said Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a longtime friend and ally of Mr. McCain’s. “He’s the template for someone in the future who runs for president and falls short. He didn’t take his ball and go home. I am just very proud of him. He’s very, very involved in all the things that really matter around here.”
Yes Steven, I know the NY Times has as much credibility as Soviet Life Magazine. According to you only Moon’s Washington Times and Murdoch’s Fox News can be trusted for unbiased reporting.
Are we supposed to be impressed that the NY Times did a big front page piece on Presidential loser John McCain? Honestly, how did this piece end up on the front page? This isn’t news in the least, it’s commentary. John McCain is a minor factor in the Senate. But politically speaking, he has limited power. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Presidential losers never have the power or influence they had prior to losing.
No of course “we” ( who is that?) are not going to be impressed by anything the NY Times writes. After all, it is only the most influential daily newspaper in the world. Only an idiot would think that an article in the NY Times was worth considering!
So if someone is not a Presidential contender they are just a political loser in your eyes. I am so impressed with your intellect Steve! My God-you just tower above the rest of us. You are a political Einstein! If only the world would listen!
Forgive me if a fluff piece about McCain in the NY Times doesn’t convince me that he’s not a has been. Within the GOP rank and file, McCain is toxic. He isn’t well liked, he’s blamed for running a bad campaign and thus socking us with Obama. Half the rank and file blame him for Palin, the other half think the only good thing he did was pick Palin. The guy is toxic, which is of course why the left-wing media loves him and writes fluff pieces about him, for the front page no less.
The issue with McCain isn’t that he’s not a Presidential contender and thus a political loser. Paul Ryan isn’t a Presidential contender but he has power and influence in both DC and the GOP. Chuck Schumer isn’t running for President but he has power and influence in both DC and his party. The issue isn’t running for President, the issue is having lost a November Presidential race. Al Gore, John Kerry and Bob Dole never had the influence that they had prior to losing their races for President. It’s really not that difficult to understand, their parties blame them for losing and thus they lose their influence. It really isn’t tough to understand.
Oh, now I get it. The liberal media is using the loser John McCain as a decoy to siphon away support from other real contenders in the Republican party in order to help the Democrats win.So when was this liberal conspiracy hatched? Do you know who instigated it? How did you find out about it? Its funny though, now that you mention the conspiracy, last week the Nation did a cover story endorsing Sarah Palin!
When did the Nation become a mainstream press outlet? They’re expressly liberal, just like National Review is expressly conservative. What I’m writing about is mainstream, supposedly unbiased news outlets. In that, the NY Times in particular loves to trot out liberal Republicans they deem “reasonable” and profile them during major elections or during major political battles. Their message is clear, here’s a reasonable Republican to contrast with the other Republicans who the Times always labels as or reports as extreme. It’s a game that’s been played in open view for the better part of half a century.
What a bunch of crap. Do some research rather than just repeating the paranoid right wing fabrications you hear. You don’t even read the the Times. You are just repeating some nonsense from some other wing nut.
Steve, the Nation comment was a joke.
How would you know if I read the New York Times or not?
No one as misinformed as you are could possibly read the NY Times on a regular basis.Additionally. you wouldn’t be able to get past the front page without breaking out into a feverish rage over the socialist propaganda the Times calls its news.coverage.
AND NOW SOME MORE NEW YORK TIMES FLUFF ABOUT THE POLITICALLY IRRELEVANT
JOHN MCCAIN-YES STEVE YOU WERE RIGHT! JOHN MCCAIN IS OUT OF THE GAME!
Cybersecurity Bill Is Blocked in Senate by G.O.P. Filibuster
WASHINGTON — A cybersecurity bill that had been one of the Obama administration’s top national security priorities was blocked by a Republican filibuster in the Senate on Thursday, severely limiting its prospects this year.
The Senate voted 52 to 46 to cut off debate, falling eight votes short of the 60 needed to force a final vote on the measure, which had bipartisan support but ran into a fight over what amendments could be proposed to the legislation.
Soon after the vote, the White House released a statement calling the outcome “a profound disappointment.”
“The politics of obstructionism, driven by special interest groups seeking to avoid accountability, prevented Congress from passing legislation to better protect our nation from potentially catastrophic cyberattacks,” the statement said.
The bill’s most vocal opponents were a group of Republican senators led by John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who took the side of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and steadfastly opposed the legislation, arguing that it would be too burdensome for corporations.
The bill would have established optional standards for the computer systems that oversee the country’s critical infrastructure, like power grids, dams and transportation.
In the hopes of winning over Mr. McCain and the other Republicans, the bill had been significantly watered down in recent weeks by its sponsors, led by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who made the standards optional. Original versions of the bill said the standards would be mandatory and gave the government the power to enforce them.
Mr. Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who is chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and the bill’s other sponsors, including the committee’s ranking member Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, had worked for the past several years to pass cybersecurity legislation.
At a meeting last week, Mr. Lieberman got into an argument with Mr. McCain, his closest ally and friend in the Senate, about his opposition to the bill. Mr. Lieberman questioned why Mr. McCain was doing the bidding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and what Mr. McCain would say if the nation was crippled by a cyberattack.
Mr. McCain angrily said his reputation on national security issues was unquestionable.
The Obama administration had tried to sell members of Congress on the need for the legislation through closed-door briefings from high-ranking national security officials and pleas from officials who had served in George W. Bush’s administration about the looming threat of a catastrophic cyberattack.
After the vote, Ms. Collins said it was a “shameful day” and expressed disappointment with her fellow senators who lacked “a sense of urgency” about a looming cyberattack.
“We often hear the from members on both sides of the aisle, but particularly Republican members, that we need to be listening more to generals on the ground,” Ms. Collins said. “But listen to the generals who had responsibility in this area” who told members of Congress “over and over again” that the nation was not prepared for a cyberattack.
“I cannot think of another area where the threat is greater and we are less prepared,” she said.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said that “no one doubts the need to strengthen our cyberdefenses.”
“We all recognize the problem, that’s really not the issue here,” Mr. McConnell said. “It’s the matter that the majority leader has tried to steamroll a bill,” he said referring to Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada.
Despite threats of a veto from President Obama, the House passed its own cybersecurity bill in April, which called for more information sharing about between national security and intelligence agencies and businesses.
The bill called for the government to provide businesses with classified information about cyberthreats and gave companies the option of sharing information about cyberthreats with the government. White House officials said the president opposed that bill because it called for too much information sharing between the government and businesses, which could have led to violations of Americans civil liberties.
Jennifer Steinhauer contributed reporting.