LA Times editorial crowned McCain the "winner" of Arizona immigration "referendum" -- but he campaigned for at least two of the losers
SUMMARY: A Los Angeles Times editorial described Arizona's 2006 midterm election results as "[a] referendum on immigration policy" and proclaimed Sen. John McCain its "winner," even though he personally campaigned for and endorsed candidates whose defeat the editorial touted as evidence of McCain's supposed victory.
A November 8 Los Angeles Times editorial, describing Arizona's 2006 midterm election results as "[a] referendum on immigration policy," proclaimed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) its "winner," even though he personally campaigned for and endorsed candidates whose defeat the editorial touted as evidence of McCain's supposed victory.
The editorial observed that Democratic candidates defeated several Republicans who opposed the McCain-supported "comprehensive approach to immigration reform that provides more visas for guest workers, modifies the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country and improves border security." As the "best illustrations" of McCain's purported victory, the editorial cited the victories of Democratic Reps.-elect Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords, "who had aligned themselves on immigration with McCain," over Rep. J.D. Hayworth and former Republican state Rep. Randy Graf, respectively, who were "both known for their firebrand stances on border security."
But in crowning McCain "the winner," the editorial did not mention that the Arizona senator campaigned for and endorsed both Hayworth and Graf over Mitchell and Giffords, as Media Matters has noted. The editorial also cited the defeat of Republican gubernatorial challenger Len Munsil, but did not mention that McCain endorsed Munsil and starred in a campaign commercial on his behalf.
From the November 8 Los Angeles Times editorial:
ARIZONA HELD A referendum on immigration policy Tuesday. The winner was John McCain.
McCain, the state's senior senator, wasn't actually on the ballot. Rather, candidates across the state campaigned for or against an idea that McCain and a few other Arizonans in Congress have championed: a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that provides more visas for guest workers, modifies the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country and improves border security.
Critics of this approach, including Republican candidates for governor, attorney general and two of Arizona's eight House seats, argued instead for sealing the borders and enforcing current immigration laws. They all were defeated, despite the frustration and anger expressed by many Arizonans about the torrent of border jumpers.
Those emotions were evident in the overwhelming support Tuesday for ballot initiatives to deny bail, curtail subsidies for education and childcare, limit civil damage awards for illegal immigrants and make English the state's official language. Voters backed all these proposals, reflecting a widespread belief that illegal immigrants impose a variety of burdens on taxpayers.
Nevertheless, voters in the state demanded a more nuanced and pragmatic solution than that being offered by the most virulently anti-illegal immigration candidates. The best illustrations came in the races for two House seats, one representing the sparsely populated border counties in southeastern Arizona and the other representing some upscale suburbs east of Phoenix. A six-term Republican incumbent, J.D. Hayworth, and a former Republican state representative, Randy Graf -- both known for their firebrand stances on border security -- lost to Democrats Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords, who had aligned themselves on immigration with McCain.
The LA Times has taken a big lurch to the right the last few months. Atrocious, uninformed editorials, written by young, out-of-state know nothings are only a symptom of the bigger problem there.
Their love affair with Schwarzenegger, their rank 'advertorials', and their now clear goal of redistricting the state in order to provide "balance" to help Republicans candidates, has made the paper unreadable. But the good news is that they are being outsold left and right by the NYT.
But there's more bad news for LA: the Weekly dumping Harold Myerson and liberal politics in general means that this town has some pretty bleak journalistic prospects ahead. The good old days are gone.
Bush will get his proposed immigration reform as he wanted. The Dems and him are going to ruin this country by granting amnesty to millions of LAW BREAKERS! "Peacful people that want to work....", " Jobs Americans wont due"......
Congress is full of a bunch of sissies! Nothing is more important to them than the good ole mighty buck!
Granting amnesty will bring civil war to this country.
I REFUSE to sit back and watch that happen. I REFUSE TO!
Law breakers..... AMNESTY FOR LAW BREAKERS?
But then again, look at frisco and thier stance on child molesters.....
Is there amnesty for pot peddlers? amnesty for drunk drivers? Amnesty for American Citizens? NOOOOOOOO
I support amnesty for people who were arrested for possession of marijuana. If you were driving under the influence or carrying a weapon with you at the time is another story.
By the way, what do you propose we do with all the illegal immigrants? You do realize how impossible rounding them all up and sending them to Mexico would be, right? Especially when many of them were born on American soil.
to Illegal Immigration is very simple, and with the DEMS in Control is a Distinct Possibility: Harsh Penalties, with strict enforcement, for Employers who emply Illegals. No Jobs Equals No Illegals.
employ
illegal immigration in Arizona. His state has the dubious distinction of allowing the greates number of infiltrations of any border state. I recall McCain on meet the Press a couple years back totally avoiding the question by asking himself a new question followed by a lengthy answer to his own question. They call him the Straight Talker, yeah right.
a few days and McCain, Waffler Deluxe, will offer the latest popular Immigration Policy. He is great at covering both sides of controversial issues. Can't wait to see Him expain his flip/flop positions during up coming political debates.
This editorial by the LA times is superficial and disengenous. I am an Arizona resident and have followed these elections closely.
MMFA is right on point with this item. What in the world is the LA Times talking about?
McCain's candidates lost!
People rejected Len Munsil because he is a religious zealot and Napolitano is a popular governor. JD Hayworth lost because people are tired of his "bullying" and "bomb-throwing", as the Arizona Republic editorialized in endorsing Harry Mitchell. Randy Graf lost because he too is a religious zealot.
Add to this the convoluted and conflated argument that this "victory" for McCain is based on his stance on illegal immigration. Many people here do support tough immigration reform, (as evidenced by the passing of three ballot measures dealing with this issue). McCain's more moderate approach also has its adherents. But it is certainly not the only issue out there.
To say that Arizona voters are in lock-step with McCain is just ridiculous. While he is greatly respected and listened to, let me tell you AZ is a maverick state that goes its own way.
I have lost a lot of respect for McCain since he endorsed Len Munsil. He will not get my vote next election, whether for senator or president. Memo to the LA Times: Analyze your own elections; you have no clue when it comes to ours.
I cannot turn off the italics...it's the vast right wing conspiracy.
however, i think that there are as many misguided people on the issue of immigration as on the issue of budget deficits. it's a denial of the future. we just passed 300 million population and are very quickly headed to over 400 million, mostly due to immigrants and their higher birth rates. this is not a good thing. it will have a tremendously negative environmental effect. it also involves a tremedous infrastructure cost, that is why california continues to add debt as a way to balance their budget. [something ahnald promised he would not do.] it is also not as simple as "cheap labor". i was watching nbc news about a month ago and it was a generally pro-immigration piece. but they inadvertantly put their finger on the problem. they noted that there were some shortages of farm workers to pick strawberries, but they also noted that construction work in california paid about 8 dollars more an hour than picking crops, and that's what some illegals were doing. which means any "legalization" is going to produce people who won't do those "jobs americans won't do", as soon as they can get legally hired to do something better. it's a dog forever chasing it's tail. which leaves us with 1- a guestworker program strictly for farmers. canada has one, we used to have one for jamaicans who cut sugar cane in florida. or 2 - let the strawberries go to countries south of the border. we seem to have had no problem letting the manufacturing jobs go. [and the democrats can take their share of blame on that] what is unacceptable are these arguments about amnesty every few years. the one under reagan was promised to be a one time we won't ask again deal. looks like a lot of people lied. the democratic governors of both arizona and new mexico both declared emergencies along their borders earlier this year. racism or reality?