ABC's Tapper questions "authentic[ity]" of Democrats but not Republicans
On the January 29 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper said that "[t]he question is whether anti-war Democrats will find" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) rhetoric against the war in Iraq "authentic." However, Tapper previously called Republican Sen. John McCain's (AZ) efforts to "build[] bridges ... with conservative Christians" "smart" when McCain delivered the 2006 commencement address at Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University despite McCain having called Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson "the forces of evil" six years earlier. In a segment about McCain's criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq rhetoric, Tapper suggested McCain was part of a pattern of "once-supportive Republicans now distancing themselves from President Bush and the war in Iraq" without questioning whether McCain's criticism would be perceived as "authentic." Moreover, Tapper's question fits a pattern in his reporting of questioning the authenticity of Democrats but not Republicans.
As Media Matters for America noted, discussing Clinton's then-possible presidential run on the May 31, 2006, broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, Tapper cited an ABC News/Washington Post poll claiming that "a daunting 42 percent of all Americans say they will never vote for her," adding that "[s]ome think she's too liberal. Others think she's untrustworthy." However, the poll actually found that a majority of those polled said Clinton was "honest and trustworthy." While a minority thought she is "too liberal," a majority said her views are "about right."
On October 28, 1999, Tapper wrote in an article for Salon.com -- where he was Washington correspondent before joining ABC in 2003 -- that then-Vice President Al Gore "too often, to too many voters, seems insincere." On November 17, 1999, Tapper wrote that then-Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-VA) "is stiff and awkward ... His robotics make Al Gore look like Robin Williams," but he described Robb's Republican opponent, George Allen, as "folksy, authentic, 'good ol' George,' as [former Washington Post Richmond, Virginia, bureau chief Don] Baker calls him." On November 1, 2000, Tapper wrote that Gore "is almost always incapable of communicating deep and sincere emotion in settings like this without coming across as a phony."
By contrast, on the May 15, 2006, edition of World News Tonight, Tapper noted that McCain had called Falwell an "agent[] of intolerance" and then spoke at Liberty University, but he added that "for a possible presidential candidate in 2008, building bridges is smart, especially bridges to conservative Christians who vote in large numbers in Republican primaries." On the August 22, 2006, edition of World News, Tapper noted that McCain expressed disagreement with Bush administration rhetoric on Iraq as "underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifice that would be required." But Tapper did not question whether McCain's criticism was "authentic," despite McCain's previous defense of Bush's rhetoric on Iraq.
From the May 15, 2006, edition of ABC's World News Tonight:
TAPPER: Six years ago, when McCain was running against George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination, Jerry Falwell was part of a team of evangelicals who attacked McCain as insufficiently conservative. And there were more personal smears. McCain responded, calling Falwell an "agent of intolerance" and "force of evil."
McCAIN: I reject individuals such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who take our party in the wrong direction.
TAPPER: But in the last few months, the two have buried the hatchet.
McCAIN: One of the lessons that I've learned in life, and I have to relearn it all the time: Don't hold a grudge and don't get personal.
TAPPER: For a possible presidential candidate in 2008, building bridges is smart, especially bridges to conservative Christians who vote in large numbers in Republican primaries.
FALWELL: He could, in fact, I believe, become the champion, the hero of religious conservatives.
TAPPER: McCain says he's reaching out. Critics say he's selling out.
From the August 22, 2006, edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
TAPPER: In Ohio today, Senator John McCain, an ardent supporter of the Iraq war, accused the Bush administration of failing to adequately prepare the American public for war.
McCAIN: We were led to believe that this would be some kind of a day at the beach.
TAPPER: The likely 2008 presidential candidate specifically singled out for criticism President Bush's 2003 "Mission Accomplished" event.
McCAIN: The biggest mistakes we've made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifice that would be required. "Stuff happens," "mission accomplished," "last throes."
TAPPER: McCain's remarks come amidst a number of once-supportive Republicans now distancing themselves from President Bush and the war in Iraq.
From the January 29 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
TAPPER: With the anti-war march in Washington, D.C. this weekend underlying how unpopular the war has become, the woman who voted to go to war in Iraq just over four years ago was sharply critical of President Bush.
CLINTON: If we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote, and I never would have voted to give this president that authority.
TAPPER: Using language she's never used before, seeming to take personal offense.
CLINTON: The president has said this is going to be left to his successor. I think it's the height of irresponsibility, and I really resent it.
TAPPER: The question is whether anti-war Democrats will find this authentic.
[...]
TAPPER: For fellow New Yorker Rudy Giuliani campaigning in New Hampshire, the question is the exact opposite. Can a man who is authentically liberal on social issues, such as abortion, win the Republican nomination?















Thanks for this piece, MMFA. I find it annoying that McCain gets a free pass on his opportunistic changes of position but yet even a slightly nuanced adjustment of postion by a Democrat is considered a major "flip flop". Once again, so much for the myth of liberal media bias.
So nice how Jake and other corporate lapdog media members can question the "authenticity" of Democrats, but never raise the question of the authenticity of such luminaires as Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, etc. . . .
Hey! That's not fair. Everyone knows those guys are just victims of those dadgum liberal activist judges.
Hillary's like all career politicians...say or do anything to get elected. In Iowa she pandered to the ethanol industry and Iowa voters by stating her support for boosting ethanol.
- "I believe we've got to take a strong stand on limiting our dependence on foreign oil. And we have a perfect example here in Iowa about how it can work with all of the ethanol that's being produced here." - Hillary Clinton - 2007
- "There is no sound public policy reason for mandating the use of ethanol." - Hillary Clinton - 2002
Hillary's authenticity appears to be a legitimate topic.
I absolutely agree. But so is McCain's, which is the point of this item.
While a politician's authenticity is a legitimate topic of discussion, your example doesn't expose inautheticity on Clinton's part. She favors expansion of ethanol use, but doesn't favor mandates. There is no contradiction there.
You should think these things through a little before you post them.
Another question about Hillary's authenticity...the Iraq War resolution.
- "So he took the authority that I and others gave him and he misused it...if we had known then what we know now, there never would have been a vote and I never would have voted to give this president that authority." - Hillary Clinton-2007
- "There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I've followed for more than a decade....I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, tried to discount the political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can't based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation." - Hillary Clinton-2003
A case with regard to her positions on the Iraq War Resolution is more valid. I've certainly had my qualms about her with regard to that. I simply wanted to point out that there was absolutely no contradiction presented in the ethanol example.
Any politician who has made many statements over a wide variety of topics can be quote-mined for statements that give a superficial appearance of being contradictory. You have to look at the broad record for the truth.
Wesley, BillJ has it right; Hillary is actually backing away from a government mandate. That should make you happy...right?
Nope.
Hillary has a long history of voting against ethanol...now she show's up in the corn belt...and thinks ethanol is wonderful. Trying to argue about mandating ethanol vs. support for ethanol is weak.
Is that all you've got? Ethanol?!
We've got an administration that has a lie for every question, last throes, new way forward, absolutely we're winning, tremendous success in Iraq, etc. and more American soldiers dying every day, and all you can argue about is Hillary's position?
I'm not arguing anything.
I'm showing evidence why voters might not view Hillary as "authentic".
You have a point, for voters who both (1) are too stupid to understand that supporting something doesn't mean you have to mandate it, and (2) closely follow her every statement about ethanol. So that's what, two people?
The basic inauthenticity of the Democrats running for President is the Iraq War Resolution for the ones who voted for it. There is a stink about them that their vote was really based on something they won't say out loud, namely, campaign contributions. What was Haim Saban telling them he wanted? Among others who give candidates millions and millions.
They can't explain that vote, can't justify it. Democrats held the majority in the Senate in fall 2002; they didn't have to bring that resolution to the floor before holding extensive hearings that would nail down exactly what the plan would be to invade and occupy Iraq. They could have had in some experts in law enforcement to say how much personnel was required to maintain order among a population of X million in a city. Those experts could have told the Senators what would likely happen if the entire government is run into hiding after a bombing campaign. We've had riots in this country where law and order broke down.
Obama opposed the Iraq War but he speaks in vague generalities. I am hoping, hoping that we get a better candidate. Gore, Clark, Webb, Kerry did a lot to apologize for his vote and he would have been OK by me. For the rest, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Biden -- they're not much different from Bush; they don't sufficiently hold themselves accountable for that vote they cast. Maybe its pride or maybe its even leaving themselves wriggle room so they could do it again about attacking Iran.
Andra, I agree with you to a degree.
That they voted for the resolution is still a problem for me. I'm not sure about the motivation for those votes, and maybe some of the have a reason for it that I can accept.
I reject the notion that the evidence that was presented to them was pursuasive. The idea of protecting campaign contributions is cynical and if true, their actions are reprehensible. Perhaps for some, their own insecurity lead to their vote. They were afraid that in the prevailing national climate, they would never be re-elected. That I could accept, but only if they can first admit it, and second show that they have regrown a spine.
Joe,
Connect the dots. Saban gave the Democrats $14 million; he was funding the "Saban Center" at the Brookings Institution. The Saban Center headliner was Ken Pollack, author of "The Threatening Storm, The Case for Invading Iraq." The mainstream media should be sorting out the big money people and informing us about their motivations because "they don't give that money just because they want good government." (Bob Dole)
It didn't just start in 2002. Why did the Clinton administration have such bad intelligence about Iraq? Who was cooking the intelligence in the Clinton administration? There must have been counterparts to Feith and Wolfowitz in the Clinton Administration.
How did these Democrats think they could get away with it? Being "bipartisan" meant no one was supposed to question it, like no one is supposed to question the inadequacies of the 9/11 Commission Report because its "bipartisan." Hundreds of thousands of dead and the Democrats thought everyone would follow their "bipartisan" rule.
Andra,
I don't doubt your analysis at all. Just not familiar with this Saban deal. I guess I have some reading cut out for me :-) My skepticism is definitely bipartisan.
Is Tapper reinforcing the claim that Bungle and the Repugnants are genuine pure-bred demons, or merely that Dem candidates are faux? Perhaps it is his thesis that when seeking a political position, only registered demons need apply?