NY Daily News: "[M]averick" McCain "immediately accepted" adopted daughter
In a June 18 article profiling Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) wife, Cindy, New York Daily News reporter Rich Schapiro referred to the GOP presidential candidate as a "maverick" in the context of his willingness to accept an adopted daughter into his family. Schapiro wrote that after Cindy McCain adopted a baby in Bangladesh without informing her husband, "the maverick senator immediately accepted his new daughter, Cindy McCain said."
Schapiro is only among the very latest to refer to McCain a "maverick," a descriptor used by the media with great frequency, despite numerous instances in which McCain has aligned himself with the Bush administration or the GOP congressional leadership, and -- as in this case -- without providing an explanation for its relevance to the information being conveyed.
From the June 18 New York Daily News article:
And then, in 1991, Cindy McCain traveled to Bangladesh with a nonprofit group she had founded and ended up securing medical visas for two sickly babies she had come across at an orphanage.
She came home with one of the babies, Bridget, without telling her husband. But the maverick senator immediately accepted his new daughter, Cindy McCain said.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
hahaha... I guess you gotta start somewhere. McCain is widely considered a maverick in that he rarely toes the 'party' line. To pick this out as media misinformation is funny.
McCain...rarely toes the 'party' line.
LOL...now that is funny! If by rarely toeing the party line, do you mean like on:
Gun control?...after supporting gun control, McCain now advocates "no gun control."
Tax cuts?...McCain first opposed the Bush tax cuts, but now favors making them permanent.
That's just a couple examples where McCain has done a complete about-face in order to pursue the Republican nomination. So, help me out...how is McCain still a maverick?
I'm not arguing his positions. You may well be correct. And I'm not arguing that McCain does not at times go along with the Administration.
One example that comes to mind is "the gang of 14" that McCain headed during the Supreme Court confirmation process of John Roberts.
Or how about the McCain Feingold act?
These are two examples and I think there are more, but without going into 'search mode' I'll end here.
I'm not arguing his positions. You may well be correct.
Take some time before you write. If that were the case, then you'd have no argument left for supporting the "maverick" assertion. However, you don't seem to have meant this at all since you went on to argue based on McCain's positions on two issues.
One example that comes to mind is "the gang of 14" that McCain headed during the Supreme Court confirmation process of John Roberts.
Hmmm...true...if you equate being part of the "gang" to being a maverick.
Or how about the McCain Feingold act?
A good example of what McCain was rather than what he is. That was 2002...this is 2007. Was McCain a maverick? Sure. Is he now? No...he's become one of the masses yelling out "we're all unique."
These are two examples and I think there are more, but without going into 'search mode' I'll end here.
I'll give you one mentioned by some sources...environmental issues. However, his record is best described as mixed. Some of his votes seem contradictory. So, on the environment, he would seem to be either conflicted or responsive to the latest lobby/political pressure.
...despite numerous instances in which McCain has aligned himself with the Bush administration or the GOP congressional leadership.
McCain has to align himself with the Bush admin sometimes. If he didn't, he wouldn't be referred to as a "Maverick". He be referred to as a Democrat.
In a June 18 article profiling Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) wife, Cindy, New York Daily News reporter Rich Schapiro referred to the GOP presidential candidate as a "maverick" in the context of his willingness to accept an adopted daughter into his family.
That's not how I read this at all. I don't see that Schapiro is suggesting McCain is a *maverick* because he accepted the adoption his wife did not discuss with him first [that's a tad odd right there]
Schapiro could have just as easily written-- Arizona Senator, Former Vietnam POW, Long Time Senator, Republican Senator or any number of identifying, descriptive adjectives... instead he decided to use that frequently misguided description: Maverick Senator.
No relevance of course, but for whatever reason "Maverick" is a favorite descriptor used by the media when referring to the old irrelevant flip flopping coot no matter what the topic.
except that you are putting words in MMFA's mouth. they never made that claim.
I think you're misreading the article. The context wasn't given as a reason for referring to McCain as a maverick. MMFA is only objecting to the idea that McCain is a "maverick." In this case, the context is irrelevant.
I like "veteran" Senator - kinda double-duty vocabulary.
We get it. You don't like the term "maverick" used as a descriptor for McCain under any circumstances. And any misinformative media person who blatantly uses it won't get away with it.
Meh.
But MMFA is an "insignificant" site that "no one cares about", REMEMBER???
MMFA's useless rambling should be of no consequence, RIGHT?
I don't believe I ever said that MMFA was insignificant and that noone cares about it.
I don't recall hearing that from you, but there certainly many out there and in here who do say that.
But I have to say, the way the whole story is written (not by MMFA, but the general telling) makes it sound like his brought home the orphan and presented it much like you would bring home a lost puppy. It just sounds too much like "can I keep her, dad?"
Sorry for not clarifying that I wasn't quoting you. It's not as if you'd ever admit or concede anything anyway.
I was tyring to paraphrase the rightwing noise machine assessment of MMFA.
Thanks for the erroneous accusation, then the clarification, and the insult anyway.
You're welcome.
Geez, Tommy, bless you for being so even. That's one of the reasons I'm always glad to see you contributing, even when I don't agree with you. You tend toward reasoned debate even when the discussion goes elsewhere ^_^
Then you don't know the same Tommy I know.
As level-headed and impersonal as he may be a vast majority of the time, I have been the target of his contempt in the past.
Correction. Your posts may have prompted a difference of opinion from me......anything more personal than that towards you, from me, would not be warranted if not provoked.
Correction: Your contempt wasn't provoked. I did not reply to you. It did not mention you.
Maverick: one who takes an independent stand, as in politics
Tommy do you think this adequately describes McCain?
Labels in the media tend to stick. Slick Willy or flip flop Kerry comes to mind. Maverick does not in any way describe the McCain currently running. A better description would be: "McCain ran in 2000 as a maverick but in the last 7 years has found himself very much in line with the current administration and less of an independent "
Pearlene,
Basically, I could care less......and I normally don't even post under these "McCain/maverick" topic threads because it is mostly useless to me. I guess I just did on this one because it just seems like whenever someone in the media utters the word when describing McCain, this website gets all bunched up over it......it's silly.
Is it accurate? Probably not nearly as much as before, but I am not a McCain supporter so I am not the best judge, I suppose.
Tommy, I'm not a McCain supporter but when the media gives you a label weather positive or negative it tends to stick.
But I also believe in McCain's case he's shot himself in the foot so many times that even if the media keeps labeling him a maverick it won't help.
Pearlene, I don't want to hurt your feelings, or diminish your street cred, but I agree. ;-)
AA, with your classy apology still ringing in my ear I can't help but have warm feeling in your agreement. :-)
I'm going to let you guys settle this among yourselves. I don't want to be the only commie in the thread.
What would be interesting to know is if McCain or his people had certain words and discriptors "FOCUS GROUPED" to get the positives/negatives of each. If they found that "maverick" polled well as a handle for McCain, then of course they will stick to that NO MATTER WHAT.
I believe McCain has struck a deal: He' Bush's YES man on issues that are of vital importance to the administration ... Iraq in particular ... and in return, the GOP smear machine will refrain from changing that "maverick" handle to one which will completely sink McCain's candidacy, like "flip-flopper" or "liberal" or "erratic" or "without principles".
Nothing else could explain the fact that, had anyone ELSE behaved with McCain's record, the GOP smear machine would be all over him. As it is, they keep promoting HIS frame, even though it's a bad fit.
Hahaha... I don't know what happened to the first posts but upon rereading the thread, it looks to me like Cindy McClain is calling John the maverick. Maybe she's caught up in the media label too?
That being said, in this context is maverick a positive term or a negative one? It looks to me depends on which side of the corral one saddles. ;-)
As far as conservative mis-information it looks to me like there ain't much there, there.
However a tip-of-the-hat goes out to John and Cindy for their adoption.
Sweet fancy moses...what planet did Jenny Hoffman grow up on?
This article ranks at the top of the ridiculous scale...dragging a wife and child into a political discussion because of a writers throwaway line of "maverick McCain".
Shameful lunacy in the real world...political pandering in mmfa's world.
In a June 18 article profiling Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) wife, Cindy, New York Daily News reporter Rich Schapiro referred to the GOP presidential candidate as a "maverick" in the context of his willingness to accept an adopted daughter into his family.
That's not how I read this at all. I don't see that Schapiro is suggesting McCain is a *maverick* because he accepted the adoption his wife did not discuss first with him [that's a tad odd--don'y ya think?]
Schapiro could have just as easily written-- Arizona Senator, Former Vietnam POW Senator, Long Time Senator, Republican Senator or any number of identifying, descriptive adjectives... instead he decided to use that frequently misguided description: Maverick Senator.
No relevance of course, but for whatever reason "Maverick" is a favorite descriptor used by the media when referring to the old irrelevant flip flopping coot no matter what the topic.
A tad odd perhaps. I don't have much information on their relationship. Not sure I want any. No hostility towards Macain or his family. Hope all prosper.
No I don't feel maverick describes him for me.
Frankly though your last reminded me of the family secret recipe for coot.
For some reason after reading this, it reminds me of one of those nature documentaries.........the ones where the announcer breathes a sigh of relief, and states that we can all rest easily now, as the dominant animal of the herd/group has accepted the baby, stray, orphan, etc. into the herd.
It's good that "Maverick" McCain accepted the child, because who knows what hsi wife would have had to do with it......take it back?
Anotheramerican....this has nothing to do with "mis-information", as many, if not most, of MMFA articles don't deal with mis-information. This is about a pattern being used by the media to connect the image of maverick to McCain. What reason did they have to call him a maverick when discussing their child? None.
That's what I was thinking,Graydogs. Is the implication that your average man would have slaughtered the baby?
As odd as it seems for a wife to simply bring home a new adopted baby, unannounced to her husband, I would assume she wasn't giving it a 50-50 shot as to whether he would accept the new child.
HB.... absolutely. The entire statement about his wife stating he accepted a baby she decided to bring home without his knowledge, and the use of that descriptive handle before his name is a bizzare, period. Was it an excuse to show us that "the maverick" also has a sensitive side, and accepts a child into his household without being asked?
Pearlene points out that maverick means someone who is independant, as in politics..... but to me it reminds me of the TV show Maverick.....a handsome card shark, who takes charge and runs a bit on the wild side. He can get out of any fix, and the women loved him. Also, wasn't Tom Cruise or one of the other fighter pilots, called Marverick in Top Gun? The name means much more than an independent person.
Scooter makes you thinks of a young, fun loving guy....maybe the pranster in a group of buddies. They all like him. Maverick has more of a rouge male sound to it. Remember the marketing behind Bush......he's always home at the ranch "clearing brush". He has the big sprawling "ranch". Thompson has his rental truck....it's all image, and carefully thought out by professionals.
They hire people to come up with just the right description for people, and change wording used by politicians when they feel the voters are turned off by a single word. This is why MMFA shows these patterns, so MMFA readers are aware of media manipulation, how it is used, and what to listen for when listening to the media. For those who are saying MMFA is against the media calling McCain Maverick, this is not true....they are showing us the tricks of the trade so we can be better informed.
What's crazy, if it is true, is that HIS WIFE brought home a baby WITHOUT CONSULTING HIM?!?! Look, I can see if it were a kitten and you could discuss it later, but to bring home A CHILD without letting your partner knowing what's going on is... WIERD and CRAZY!
Graydogs,
I didn't get that reading whatsoever.
As for MMFA, they say this about themselves:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
It seems to me they missed by a mile here. First the baby was adopted in 1991. Hardly real time.
Secondly it is not mis-information.
Thirdly it doesn't forward a conservative agenda to attach a non partisan descriptor to describe McCain. (See Jeter's post above.)
It is purely agenda driven, rabid partisanship.
Is it just me or are MMFA's threads becoming less and less relevant and more and more goofy?
Deputy Fife, the article above is from JUne 18.That's today, pretty "real time" here on Earth.
Now apologize and Tommy can tell you how classy you are. ;0)
You just might have to hit ol' AA with a 912.
[link to ttatwavs.atspace.com]
Har, King.Nice BF sound bite. You may have to register those keyboard hands with the FBI as lethal weapons!
hahaha.. funny!
HBL,
Please alert me anytime one of your fellow liberals issues an apology for anything they have ever misrepresented here, because I will certainly be more than happy to label them as "classy" as well.
I will wait patiently.
I'm sorry for all of my misrepresntin, Tommy. I don't know what came over me.
Worrierking just apologized.
I have on numerous occasions.For being factually wrong, sarcasm that didn't translate into text, misinterpreting another posters comment, etc.
I just liked that it took Barney being caught dead-to-rights wrong in his insulting, condescending remarks to two posters, having his ignorance politely pointed out by a couple of posters, and a prompt by yet another poster to get him to admit it, then he got a parade.
I'm just messing with AA because I like his posts. The Barney moniker just came up because I like Ol' Deputy Fife's ability to be humiliated in every episode, and come back with the same swaggering bravado that put the egg on his face the day before.
I'm not saying this is a uniquely American trait, but being traditionally a land of second (3rd,4th, etc.) chances,I think we've made an art of the Clean Slate. I don't know if I'd call it admiration, but I am impressed with those whose opinion of their own credibility and self-image is completely unaffected by the real world, or what happened yesterday.
I'm glad that the occasional admission of mistakes by those who don't do it easily is given positive reinforcement. Like the Prodigal Son, they need the props, and I think it ultimately elevates the discussion here.
Beach, can I be Andy?
I have a plastic sheriff badge & a cap gun [that used to belong to my kids]. I own an acoustic guitar [I can't play but I look really cool holding it] and golly gee I'm a nice down to earth person.
I also had an honest to goodness real Aunt Bea!
There's my resume. I'll await your decision :-)
There's a new sheriff in town.
Jeter, I think I've been thrust into the Andy role, with my soft spot for Barney, trying to protect him and keep him from embarrassing himself.
We do have an opening for Floyd the Barber, or you can just be the Damn Yankee passing through town.
Well AA keeps referring to you as Gomer so I figured there was still an opening for Andy. But seeing you started this....you should be Andy.
I'll take Opie if that part hasn't been given away yet. I'm still a kid at heart :-)
And I'd be a real good son Paw.
Okie-dokie on the Opie. Just promise me you won't grow up to be a phony Hollywood director after playing a 1950s Milwaukee teenager.
I promise Paw.
I won't go bald either ;-)
Has anyone applied for the Otis position yet?
Auditions are out at Rafe Hollister's still, right after church.
Great, I can fill up my jug after my audition.
Gomer,
I just wanted to point out that I find you labeling me condescending is, in my opinion, actually condescending on your part. It also seems to me that you have latched on to me in some sort of weird, down home way.
I guess I should be flattered. So I'll stop by the garage on a regular basis and we can re-run this to the cows come home.
ps. Jeter, I think you'd make a mighty fine Andy. Might fine.
;-)
Did rock and roll ever make it to Mayberry?
You sure you want to be Andy? An acquaintance once mentioned to me that Andy lies in every episode. I never checked to see if it was absolutely true, but I did find the observation interesting.
Gomer, Give me some credit please.
I knew when the article was written. Even though MMFA does post some silly things, it would have been pointed out much earlier if they were reaching back to 1991 for articles to post.
So someone wrote a little puff piece on McCain. It ain't news and in my opinion showing some real whacko leftist partisanship thought processes by MMFA to even bring this up. It reeks of desperatism.
Do you know why the media is trying to paint him as maverick when he’s obviously not a maverick?
They are simply slow on the uptake. Like someone earlier said, McCain got tagged with it in 2000 and it stuck.
I do believe he will fade as election time draws nearer.
AnotherAmerican....read my post above yours. It explains a little better how I feel about this.
I do know what MMFA has on their site about mis-information, but I have been reading MMFA since the first day, and I have seen that they are involved in far more than just "mis-informtaion".
I think this site is has been more like a study course in understanding manipulation by the media.....patterns in the media used to sway opions, showing mis-information, showing political bias, patterns of gender and race discrimination.....too numerous to mention everything, but you get the idea.
I get really tired of those who come here and ask "why is this here"? The articles aren't supposed to be rated by how good are they for the discussion groups. The articles may sound insignificant to many visitors, but in the long haul, they are a bounty of refererence material for media watchers and voters who want to be informed.
The most important thing I have learned from MMFA is to not take everything that I read or see, or hear as the truth. From reading MMFA links and articles, I've learned to look up original sources.....not take the word of a blogger, author, journalist, or popular media mouth as a fact just because they have millions of listeners/readers. I have become more informed when discussing politics with others. I am also more critical of statements by Democrats, so I have become...I hope... a more informed voter.
Correction....by "media".....I am talking about right wing bias and manipulation patterns that MMFA documents.
Graydogs,
I appreciate your explanation. Contrary to some opinions, I too try to get to the root of most every topic.
However I do believe that with all of it's rhetoric, MMFA is simply an progressive agenda driven website that only gives lip service to its mission and in reality is so rabidly partisan that it embarrasses itself with these threads. Oh it plays well to the choir but looks silly to many of us who have a conservative slant.
I'm not saying they can't keep publishing these threads, after all, if they didn't we'd have nothing to comment on, but that doesn't take away from my perception.
But AA......MMFA IS a PROGRESSIVE site, and PARTISAN. That's not a secret. Why do people always find it nessasary to point that out, like we don't already know this?
This site is here to keep Progressives informed about the manipulation of the media by the right. Hopefully right wing visitors will "get it" too.
They monitor much more than an individual person is able to do, or has time for. It may be a slight manipulation of facts, or a story, or the use of words to leave a negative or positive impression. It might be sexism, or manipulation of a photo or an on screen scroll. It might be outright lies or bigotry, but looked at in full...such as 15 media outlets doing the same thing, 10 times a day for several months, something "slight" and not worth the bother by you or others, forms a much bigger picture.
What it does is force people to think about everything we hear or read. In the past I might have read or heard something and took it as a fact because a well known columnist or highly rated cable talking head said it's true. Now, if it looks, quaks and walks like a duck...and the media mouth says it's a turkey, I want them to back up their claim.....I also take time to check out the stories myself if needed.
MMFA is here to follow the conservative mis-information in the media, but I can promise you, that people who trully understand this site, also apply the same criteria to left wing politicians and media. Wanting people to back up their claims is not a partisan thing. I have complained to progressive radio shows when I discovered inaccuracy, as have other progressive callers from time to time.
The reason this is here is because MMFA does not agree with McCain ever being described as a maverick. They make that perfectly clear whenever anyone dares to breathe that as a despriptive adjective before his name.
The reason this is also here is becuase MMFA supporters are afraid of McCain and other Republicans so for the next 17 months we will see these types of posts. Its bad enough the site is pro Olbermann and promotes the Olbermann line, but when it nitpiks a story about the McCain daughter it gets personal.
We get it you hate McCain , the man gave up 5 years of his life in a POW Camp but that is not good enough for most of the partisan haters.
Simply sad.
On the other hand, Max Cleland gave up three limbs and that's not enough for the haters on the right.
Max Cleland is an American hero, but he is not the subject, McCain is. If I lived in Georgia he would have had my vote over that fool Chambliss. Again defocusing is the only tool the haters have.
I don't know what the hell you're talking about. I know the subject is McCain. You're the one who made the implication that because he was a POW he's untouchable.
Some of those who consider him untouchable were also the ones denigrating Max.
I have nothing against Senator McCain. In the right circumstances, I could vote for him. But he's a party hack and a George Bush apologist, not a maverick.
I never said he was an untouchable, I do not believe anyone is untouchable. We get it , most of the posters on here hate McCain, that is fine, lets stop pussy footing around.
I don't hate anyone. You've implied twice that I was a hater.
So you, in fact, don't get it.
I never said or implied you were a "hater" I did however imply that there are people on who are on this site that Do hate McCain.
Empty accusation. I can say with equal certainty there are people on this website that hate broccoli! Who cares?
God bless Max Cleland and his service. It was an unfortunate accident of picking up a dropped hand grenade in a safe zone, (correct me if I am wrong,) that caused his injuries in Viet Nam.
That being said, I think the objection to Cleland was his politics and voting record and not his service and honorable sacrifice he gave to our Country.
It was as you say his politics, but it was also his patriotism that was questioned by some.
Some? Maybe you are correct? I don't recall any. But this is off topic.
God bless Max Cleland and his family.
I live in Georgia. Chambliss directly challenged Cleland's patriotism and compared him to Saddam and Osama. It was absolutely disgusting. I have no respect for Chambliss.
There is no need to attack Cleland as you are trying to do with that fabricated story. I felt the issue here was the hate toward McCain by many on this site including the authors of this site. Why do they just not admit they hate thsi man?
Sueeld, Hate is not a word that I've seen in this tread regarding McCain. You used the word. Many disagree with McCain and don't like his politics but I don't think they used the word hate.
Rightwingers hate people.
Liberals hate behavior.
Because rightwingers hate people, and they think in black-n-white, they assume that everyone else hates people too.
That's why SueEld thinks that people must hate McCain, and that it's their unfair and unwarranted hatred of McCain that colors their opinion of him.
In fact, it's McCain's behavior that liberals object to, and it's fair and reasonable examination of his behavior that creates our opinions about him.
"That being said, I think the objection to Cleland was his politics and voting record and not his service and honorable sacrifice he gave to our Country. "
Maybe you should also direct this to Sue as well, only replace "Cleland" with "McCain".
Isn't tunnel vision fun?
Here, let me try...
5 years in a POW camp does not give you the moral authority to musically incite war against a Middle Eastern nation, nothing does.
5 years in a POW camp does, however, seem to make all of Iraq's problems disappear whenever you drop in to go shopping for rugs.
So the issue is not that he is being called a Maverick but the war in Iraq? Just trying to see what the real issue is?
The issue I was responding to, as raised by you, was my unwillingness to believe everything McCain says and stand behind everything he does, despite his past ordeal as a POW.
Now I'm the one who's confused.
I do not believe I ever stated that everything that comes out of McCains mouth should be believed, remember the Keating 5?
Point was hate directed toward him.
Pete, I think you just had your "tunnel vision" question answered. I don't think it's fun for the one afflicted, but amusing to the rest of us.
The issue is McCain is labeled by the media as a maverick which is incorrect. Maverick implies independent thinking in politics, which McCain has demonstrated over the last 7 year that he is not in any way an independent thinker.
It appears that some writers can't help by try to help McCain, who is slipping daily in the polls, by adding and old label.
Maverick: one who takes an independent stand, as in politics
McCain hasn't been independent since 2000 and writers who continue to try to add the old label of maverick are fighting and uphill battle, with no help from McCain. As long as McCain sticks to kissing Junior;s a**, sucking up to the Falwell groups and backing Juniors so called immigration bill he's a sinking ship. All the old labels in the world wont help McCain until he takes his nose out of Juniors a** and become a true independent.
I don't think there is any need to switch the topic to gay bashing.
As the most Conservative voter in the 109th Congress McCain ranked 3rd, which means he beat out everyone except two.
McCain is nowhere near being an independant thinker. Hagel was given the maverick label as well.
95 percent of Hagel's vote is pure towing the Bush line. Hagel even approved of the illegal wire tapping. For Hagel it was trash the Constitution march to Bush.
Two Republicans that have been labeled maverick one is ranked as the third highest Conservative voter and the other voted along the Bush line 95 percent.
Something is really messed up with the media giving these two Republicans the label maverick. Something is really messed up indeed.
harle,
That would make sense if Bush were a true 100% conservative. However some of his proposals are not considered conservative. So McCain and Hegel by voting conservative and being characterized as a 'maverick' or two can be 'euphemistically' correct.
Well so far we've found no McCain haters. Surprise! Many of us were disappointed that he is not a maverick and that he in fact, has compromised himself so much, sacrificing his principles to kiss up to BushCo. For What? His presidential ambitions seem in the toilet. Most of us feel sorry for the guy.
We are disappointed in a number of Republicans who instead of voting their conscience sold out to the highest bidder.