About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media continue to ignore McCain's skipped vote while highlighting his attacks on Clinton

November 15, 2007 12:43 pm ET

SUMMARY: Several media outlets have reported on the latest ad released by Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton over her support for an earmark funding a Woodstock Festival museum, but these outlets have not noted that McCain skipped the vote on removing the earmark.

16 Comments

On November 11, Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign released a third campaign advertisement that attacks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) support for a $1 million earmark for a museum at the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, located "at the site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival" in New York. Following the ad's release, several media outlets -- including the New York Observer, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, and the Associated Press -- mentioned the ad without reporting that McCain had skipped the vote on removing the earmark.

McCain has highlighted Clinton's support for the earmark in three different campaign advertisements. His most recent ad features an announcer stating, "A million dollars for a Woodstock Museum -- in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton." The announcer goes on to say: "Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man. John McCain." In addition, McCain's campaign website features an interactive trivia game, called "The John and Hillary Show," which pits McCain against Clinton. The first question asked of users: "Which candidate proposed to spend $1 million of taxpayer money on a concert museum for Woodstock?" The second question also refers to Clinton's support for the Woodstock museum: "Which candidate held Sen. Clinton accountable for attempting to waste taxpayer dollars on a museum for the 'cultural and pharmaceutical event?' " The correct answer is "McCain."

As Media Matters for America noted, McCain co-sponsored a Republican amendment to remove the funding for the museum, but was one of six senators to miss the vote to "table" -- or kill -- the amendment. The motion to table the amendment failed by a vote of 52-42, and the Senate subsequently passed the amendment by unanimous consent. McCain's campaign website states that McCain had a town hall meeting scheduled in Greenville, South Carolina, at noon on October 18, the same day as the 3:37 p.m. ET motion to table.

Yet numerous media outlets reported McCain's attacks on Clinton over the museum without noting that he did not show up for the October 18 vote:

  • On November 14, the Chicago Tribune editorial board published excerpts of its November 13 interview with McCain. The Tribune quoted McCain saying of "[p]ork-barrel spending": "I'd veto every bill [with pork-barrel earmarks]. I'd make the authors of them famous. I would ridicule them for what they are, whether it be a Woodstock concert museum or $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana." The excerpts gave no indication that the editorial board brought up McCain's missed vote on the "Woodstock concert museum."
  • In a November 13 New York Observer column headlined "The Real Star of the G.O.P. Primary: Hillary," Jennifer Rubin wrote that McCain's "use of Mrs. Clinton as a foil has delighted the conservative base. ... Mr. McCain's recent comeback, meanwhile, has been greatly aided by a debate moment in which he lampooned Mrs. Clinton's legislative earmark for a Woodstock museum. He parlayed his jibe into campaign ads and a wholesale indictment of the 1960's counterculture (which still drives conservatives to distraction)." Rubin made no mention of the fact that McCain skipped the vote on the amendment.
  • A November 12 Associated Press article on McCain's opposition to a third-party campaign ad that expresses support for McCain noted: "On Monday, the McCain campaign also released its own ad in New Hampshire, focused on spending issues. The 30-second spot, running in New Hampshire and Boston markets, cites millions of dollars of congressional earmarks on items such as a bridge in Alaska that led to a sparsely populated island, for a DNA study of bears and for a Woodstock Museum as examples of pork-barrel spending."
  • In Newsweek's November 19 cover story, headlined "1968: The Year That Changed Everything," Newsweek senior writer and political correspondent Jonathan Darman highlighted McCain's previous ad attacking Clinton for her support of the Woodstock amendment without noting that McCain missed the vote to kill the amendment. Darman wrote: "McCain uttered the best line of the 2008 presidential campaign last month in a Republican primary debate. 'A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum,' McCain announced. "Now, my friends, I wasn't there ... I was tied up at the time.' The Republican room erupted, not in laughter, but in applause. His campaign quickly took the debate clip and cut a television ad."

From the November 14 Chicago Tribune editorial:

John McCain, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, met with the Tribune editorial board Tuesday to discuss Iraq, Pakistan, immigration, politics ... and the future of U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald.

[...]

Pork-barrel spending

I'd veto every bill [with pork-barrel earmarks]. I'd make the authors of them famous. I would ridicule them for what they are, whether it be a Woodstock concert museum or $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. The tipping point in my view was the "bridge to nowhere." When I talked to our party faithful, every one of them said "no" on the bridge to nowhere. They said we're not going to go out and register voters, we're not going to go out and work for the election or re-election of Republican candidates because you're no different than those guys. Right now, Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of what Congress does.

From Rubin's November 13 New York Observer column:

His use of Mrs. Clinton as a foil has delighted the conservative base. It has also allowed him to argue that even if they disagree with some of his policy positions, they should not doubt his willingness to take on their most loathed foe.

Mr. McCain's recent comeback, meanwhile, has been greatly aided by a debate moment in which he lampooned Mrs. Clinton's legislative earmark for a Woodstock museum. He parlayed his jibe into campaign ads and a wholesale indictment of the 1960's counterculture (which still drives conservatives to distraction). Having fun at her expense has a serious purpose for Mr. McCain, establishing him on common ground -- and with a common enemy -- with conservative primary voters.

From the November 12 Associated Press article:

McCain was one of the authors of the 2002 law that eliminated unlimited contributions, or soft money, to political parties. In the aftermath of the law, political strategists shifted their attention to outside groups that could still obtain soft money and run ads on behalf of candidates.

The foundation's ad focuses on two issues that are central to McCain's campaign -- support for the U.S. military presence in Iraq and opposition to congressional spending on pet projects.

On Monday, the McCain campaign also released its own ad in New Hampshire, focusing on spending issues. The 30-second spot, running in New Hampshire and Boston markets, cites millions of dollars of congressional earmarks on items such as a bridge in Alaska that led to a sparsely populated island, for a DNA study of bears and for a Woodstock Museum as examples of pork-barrel spending.

The ad shows McCain walking at President Reagan's side, at work and on the campaign trail. "I'll stop wasteful spending by Congress," McCain says. "And restore Americans' trust in their government."

From Darman's November 19 Newsweek cover story:

John McCain is also the '60s. A former naval aviator who spent the latter part of the decade in a North Vietnamese POW camp, McCain uttered the best line of the 2008 presidential campaign last month in a Republican primary debate. "A few days ago, Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum," McCain announced. "Now, my friends, I wasn't there ... I was tied up at the time." The Republican room erupted, not in laughter, but in applause. His campaign quickly took the debate clip and cut a television ad.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 15, 2007 1:01 pm ET)
         

      As Media Matters for America noted, McCain co-sponsored a Republican [link to thomas.loc.gov] color="#0052a3">amendment to remove the funding for the museum, but was one of six senators to miss the [link to www.senate.gov] color="#0052a3">vote to "table" -- or kill -- the amendment. The motion to table the amendment failed by a vote of 52-42, and the Senate subsequently [link to frwebgate.access.gpo.gov] color="#0052a3">passed the amendment by unanimous consent. McCain's campaign website [link to www.johnmccain.com] color="#0052a3">states that McCain had a town hall meeting scheduled in Greenville, South Carolina, at noon on October 18, the same day as the 3:37 p.m. ET motion to table.

      Is that not good enough for MMfA? I'm sure the event was scheduled before the vote was.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by ChiCat (November 15, 2007 1:15 pm ET)
           

        That may be true, but it raises an important question: What is more important to John McCain, a campaign stop or doing the job he is currently employed by the citizens of Arizona to do?  It's hypcritical to lambast someone for supporting something and then blow your opportunity to vote against it.  Actions speak louder than words.  And, as is common, the media can't be bothered to mention someone's actions, all they report is "he said, she said" BS without any actual investigation.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 15, 2007 1:21 pm ET)
             

          I'm a little confused though...it seems as if McCain missed a vote to kill an amendment he supported, so if he was there, he would've just voted for the way the vote went anyway. I understand your point, but if McCain knew the table vote would fail regardless of whether he showed up to vote to fail it, wouldn't it make sense then to choose the town hall meeting?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (November 15, 2007 1:40 pm ET)
               

            It doesn't make sense to me, considering McCain is a senator representing the great state of Arizona and the town hall meeting was in South Carolina.

            Was he meeting with his constituents?  Or was he meeting with perspective voters in the presidential race?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 15, 2007 2:03 pm ET)
                 

              Pete, it might matter to some AZ constituents that he wasn't there to vote, I acknowledge that. If McCain was my senator and I liked him and wanted him to be president, my choice would be for him to work on that instead of attend a vote that his particular tally would not make-or-break.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (November 15, 2007 2:12 pm ET)
                   

                As far as I'm concerned, if you don't exercise your right to vote, you have no business protesting your elected government's actions.

                I'm holding McCain and any other politician who engages in such hypocritical nonsense to the same standard.  If he or any other member of Congress wants to gripe about legislation, they had better be participating, by actually legislating.  

                Report Abuse
                • Author by dexteritas0071418 (November 15, 2007 2:55 pm ET)
                     

                  He did legislate...he just didn't vote on it. He sponsored and promoted the amendment.

                  Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 15, 2007 1:36 pm ET)
           

        It's not a question of it being good enough for MMFA.  The real question is: is it good enough for you, assuming you are a registered American voter? 

        Are you satisfied with the media when they are shown to be ignoring facts that have a direct bearing on the issue at hand? 

        Is it OK for a senator who "has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending" to display those "guts" by opting not to exercise his duty to vote for it or against it and then use the same issue to bash an opponent in his own quest for higher office?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by justicetruthus8276 (November 15, 2007 1:37 pm ET)
         

      Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check Edition:

      So the liberal MSM stands accused of... well, simply telling the truth but not going further and making the point that MMFA thinks that they should make.

      shocking...

      Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (November 15, 2007 1:45 pm ET)
           

        JusticeTravesty,

        A fact that has direct bearing on the issue should be reported, period.  This is not just the standard MMFA expects from the media, it's the standard we should ALL expect on every issue, regardless of partisan leanings. 

        Report Abuse
    • Author by RoberttheP (November 15, 2007 1:41 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY!!!

      VOTE INDEPENDENT!! END THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!

      The media ignores anything McCain does that is negative because he has them in his pocket.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dunstvangeet (November 15, 2007 2:02 pm ET)
           

        If you really want to get rid of the two-party system, then we have to have a voting system that actually doesn't punish people who run on the same side by making it significantly more likely that their opponent will get elected.

        Two major reforms need to happen before we get rid of the 2-party system.  1. Some sort of multiple vote system.  The last presidental election where a third-party actually beat one of the two major parties was 1912, where Teddy Roosevelt on the Progressive Party ticket beat William Howard Taft on the Republican ticket.  However, the result of that was that Roosevelt and Taft really split their 60% base, which allowed Woodrow Wilson on the Democratic ticket to get elected with 41.8% of the vote.  Until we actually get a system where two candinates on the same side won't take away from eachother, then we will never have more than a two-party system.

        Now, for Republicans who don't support this, you should remember that Clinton only got elected with 43.0% of the vote.  Who knows, if there had been a instant-runoff system, GHWB might have won.

        And for Democrats who don't support this.  Remember, GWB was elected in Florida by a margin of 537 votes, in a state where Nader got 97,488.  It would have kept GWB out of the White House.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ChiCat (November 15, 2007 2:55 pm ET)
             

          You say 2 reforms, but only list one...

          As a big fan of Instant Run-off Voting, I'm truly curious what else you think needs to happen.  Abolish the Electoral College?

          Info on Instant Run-off voting for those curious:

           http://www.fairvote.org/irv/

          http://www.instantrunoff.com

          An interactive demo:

          http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/

          Report Abuse
          • Author by dunstvangeet (November 15, 2007 4:03 pm ET)
               

            Sorry, got caught up on Instant Runoff Voting, that I forgot the other reform.

            2. Fusion Voting - Allowing multiple parties to nominate the same person for the same position.

            Report Abuse
        • Author by doggone-ga (November 15, 2007 3:01 pm ET)
             

          I saw a report a few years ago about a study group that compared as many different kinds of election systems as they could think of.

          They concluded that the FAIREST system was a "rank the candidates" system..where you position ALL the candidates in the order you would like to see them.

          The position they are running for is awarded to the highest ranked candidate with a clear winning vote total - however that is set.  So if there is no clear winner at the #1 level, the selection drops to the #2 level, etc.

          The evaluation was that if the highest ranked candidate was, say, the #2 candidate more people would be satisfied with that candidate because more voters selected him as their "backup" than selected any other candidate as their first choice.

          It's an interesting concept, but I don't actually know if it's ever been tried anywhere.

           

          Report Abuse
    • Author by GlennJericho (November 15, 2007 3:03 pm ET)
         

      MMFA would be making a valid point here IF McCain actually had a chance of winning the Republican nomination.  Quite frankly, his chances are worse than Ron Paul's.  It's basically like failing to report the Green party's candidate's absences.  Who cares?

      Now if the media fails to report on Giuliani's or Romney's faults/errors/mistakes, we have a problem.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The Associated Press
    450 W. 33rd St.
    New York, NY 10001

    Main Number
    +1-212-621-1500
  • Newsweek
    Newsweek
    Newsweek
    251 W. 57th St.
    New York, NY 10019

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace