While moderating GOP debate, Des Moines Register editor cited McCain's "maverick" reputation
SUMMARY: Echoing the media's common characterization of Sen. John McCain as "principled" and "honest" -- and ignoring the various instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment -- Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn, moderator of the recent Republican debate, asked McCain: "Your reputation as a maverick has put you at odds with your own party leadership from time to time. Give us an example of a time you wished you had compromised to get something done instead of holding firm on your ideals."
During the December 12 Republican presidential debate, moderator and Des Moines Register editor Carolyn Washburn asked Sen. John McCain (AZ): "Senator McCain, your reputation as a maverick has put you at odds with your own party leadership from time to time. Give us an example of a time you wished you had compromised to get something done instead of holding firm on your ideals." Washburn's question echoed media figures' frequent description of McCain as a "maverick," despite the various instances in which McCain has fallen in line with the Bush administration or the Republican Party establishment on issues large and small.
Washburn also echoed the media's common characterization of McCain as "principled" and "honest," regardless of his contradictory statements and equivocations on a variety of issues, such as the Iraq war, Christian conservatives, tax cuts for the wealthy, the Confederate flag, and abortion rights, as Media Matters for America has documented. For instance:
- In his November 26 column, Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt claimed that McCain is the only presidential candidate with "principles" that he "holds strongly enough to take an electoral hit," specifically citing McCain's positions on the Iraq war, immigration, and "curbing the influence of money in politics."
- Shortly after the 2006 midterm elections, New York Times columnist David Brooks stated: "The main reason Republicans think they lost is because all they cared about was hanging onto power. They had no attachment to principles. And McCain's not an 'I'm all for power' guy. He does have a core." In a November 13 column, Brooks wrote:
He won't tell you everything, but there will never be a moment as the hours stretch by when you feel that he is spinning you, lying to himself or insulting your intelligence.
Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don't do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths.
[...]
There have been occasions when McCain compromised his principles for political gain, but he was so bad at it that it always backfired. More often, he is driven by an ancient sense of honor, which is different from fame and consists of the desire to be worthy of the esteem of posterity.
- In his September 19, 2006, column, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote that McCain has greater "stature" than Democratic presidential hopefuls "because he embodies a quality for which the country yearns: integrity." Specifically, Cohen wrote that with McCain, "[t]he man and his message are one and the same" when it comes to restoring "the people's loss of faith in government."
From the Des Moines Register's December 12 Republican presidential debate:
WASHBURN: Senator McCain, your reputation as a "maverick" has put you at odds with your own party leadership from time to time. Give us an example of a time you wished you had compromised to get something done instead of holding firm on your ideals.
McCAIN: I cannot think of a time, and I hope that I could never think of a time, because I came to Washington because I had a set of principles and ideals. But at the same time, I have this -- more legislative achievements that anybody on this, on this stage by far. I have joined together across the aisle on a number of pieces of legislation, many of them very important. I'm proud of my legislative record, of conserving my ideals and my conservative principles and getting things done in Washington, and I'm proud of that, and I will continue to hold to those ideals, but I will reach across the aisle to the Democrats who I have worked with who know me, and we know we can work together for the good of this country.
Expect McCain's obituary to read : He was a maverick.
This is ingrained now. It's very doubtful this perception will ever change. Best to just ignore it as McCain is probably not going to be the Republican nominee anyway.
He served his country, let him have the title. Who does it hurt?
"You have the REPUTATION for being a virgin, but we all know there are famous proven instances where you have had sex with quite a few people. Quite a few, time and again, and very high profile people at that. Do you believe you still deserve the reputation of being a virgin?"
Same thing.
[The Rightwing narrative has him framed as a maverick, and so it is now the lie that has been repeated often enough that it is the "truth." He will die with his undeserved, unsustainable, PROVEN FALSE frame that the rightwing has bestowed on him.]
Yes he will, I'm not arguing that he deserves it, simply stating that it will be in his obit. I suppose others throughout history also went to their graves with praise or defamation they didn't deserve.
My point Tex was that it's ingrained, & while this may infuriate some, there ain't a hell of a lot that can be done to change that "reputation". You can carp & moan over it, but it won't go away. Life isn't always fair.
I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Now IF the guy was a frontrunner I could see being up in arms over it. But he's about as likely to get the Republican nomination as Kucinich is of getting the Democratic nod.
Bigger fish to fry Tex....
I'd be more concerned about Hillary smearing Obama if I were you....
JETER:
First off, Hillary did not "smear" Obama. That is yet another rightwing talking point, an attempt to derail Hillary's candidacy because the rightwing fear her the most.
Hillary "smeared" Obama just like McCain is a "maverick."
Which brings me to MY point: I would agree with you that there is nothing to be done about "ingrained" political notions and undeserved labelling AS LONG AS OUR MEDIA REFUSES TO DO ITS JOB and continues only parroting rightwing talking points and narratives.
If we had a REAL media, that did analysis of such things as McCain's "perception" and how it compares to his actual performance, the perception would collapse as swiftly as Larry Craig's chances of reelection.
In my prediction, I am assuming that the MEDIA will continue their "stenographers for the GOP" role for some time to come.
If they ever REFORM and remember what it means to be reporters and journalists, then these false invented IMAGES will fall by the wayside.
Did you know Bush is a rancher, actually has a ranch and clears brush in his spare time? He must be a genuine cowboy, a hero of the American west, a straight-shooting, plain spoken honest knight on horseback (... uh, scratch that last one. He's AFRAID of horses.)
Yes, there are MANY MANY false images that have been accepted as TRUE, thanks to a GOP willing to create an alternate universe in which THEY are good and all others are BAD ... and a MEDIA that is only too happy to repeat those falsehoods ad nauseum.
Hillary didn't smear Obama? So insinuating that Obama sold drugs is a compliment?
It was her campaign, she is reponsible. Glad the guy resigned and Hillary apologized.
Thank you Tommy. I just read Tex's comment & nearly fell off my chair.
Tex is in deep denial.
Hey whoever wrote this article:
Carolyn Washburn is more progressive than you are. The Des Moines Register is a notoriously progressive newspaper.
The question says "reputation" as a maverick. That is his reputation, like it or not. She also says he deviates from the party leadership "from time to time."
She does not say he is a maverick or that he doesn't toe the line much of the time. Please explain why you are now attacking progressives like Carolyn Washburn.
It just breaks my heart to see this blog attack progressive leaders.
They are not attacking her, they're going after the entire media notion that this is his reputation...largely because the media made it so.
I agree with Jeter, he's got that reputation, and there's not much that can be done about it.
On a final note, MMfA doesn't "attack" people, if by attack, you mean provide a baseless claim and try to spin it to suit a particular ideology, thereby needlessly defrauding the popular conscious.
Yes I would agree that Media Matters often provides a baseless claim and spins it to a particular ideology.
Nothing funnier than a troll attempting to be cute. So now Progressives can't disagree with a Progressive without it being an "attack?"
Jeter- "Of course he's not a Maverick, but let's call him one anyway, what's the harm?" Um, the guy is running for President. He shouldn't be handed praise that he doesn't deserve by media types. That's hard for you to understand? Not surprised, actually.
Maybe journalists shouldn't just run with the idea that a guy has a "reputation" for being a Maverick (created by the Media, BTW.) Maybe journalists should examine McCain's RECORD to determine whether or not he actually DESERVES that reputation.
For instance, the media might ask "does a guy who spent the first eleven months of 2007 licking Bush up and down over his Iraq War Policy deserve to be called a 'Maverick?'" Or how about "we've been calling John McCain a 'Maverick' a long time- maybe we should examine what the hell we MEAN by that, and use specifics in doing so."
Or best of all, the media could stop assigning labels to candidates, and just focus on providing coverage of their campaigns. Maybe the viewers could be allowed to decide for themselves who the Maverick is, who the person with the cackle is, who the person with the warm laugh is, who the person who looks like a President is, etc. etc.. Just a thought.
"Of course he's not a Maverick, but let's call him one anyway, what's the harm?"
Is that what I wrote jjamele?? I only ask because you put quotations around it. Perhaps next time you might explain that you are paraphrasing or attempting to summarize what you think I was saying.
Um, the guy is running for President. He shouldn't be handed praise that he doesn't deserve by media types. That's hard for you to understand? Not surprised, actually
Where was this lady handing him praise? She simply mentioned he had a REPUTATION as a Maverick when asking him a question. Not that he was a Maverick. See the difference?
Now he does have that reputation, earned or not, that the media anointed him with, & as I explained it's ingrained & will likely be in his obit. Now if you wanna beat your head against the wall over it, be my guest. I figure the guy has less than a 10% chance of getting the Republican nomination, so I'm not gonna get myself too worked up over it. He's an American hero, a long time Senator, & yeah some think of him as a maverick. Big whoopie.
Is that too hard for you to comprehend? Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
But I do want to thank you JJamele, it's folks like yourself that remind me of why some Liberals deserve to be called Moonbats.
Your time could be better spent wondering why Hillary's crew is smearing Obama...and how those dirty tricks might cost the Dems the White House. See JJ, there are just more important things for you to quibble & quiver over...
Yes, Jeter, that's pretty much EXACTLY what you said- yes he's been given the label of "Maverick," there's no point in disputing it because the Media won't budge, so let's just stop and go along." Stop trying to be cute. And read your own post, you apparently didn't the first time.
Aw JJ don't get your panties in a twist. Next time don't use quotations, unless you're actually quoting someone verbatim...is that so hard? And BTW, you kinda took a few liberties there allegedly summarizing my words the first time around.
At least THIS time you got closer to summarizing more accurately. Again if his obit reads he was a maverick, are you gonna have a hissy fit? Will it change history?
The man is not going to be President. Seriously dude take an antacid & calm down.
Oh and BTW, don't tell me what to think is important. I can decide that for myself. You want to focus on Hillary and Obama, you go right ahead. You want to tell me what's important? Kiss off.
Whoa there fella, I know you think the media bestowing the reputation as a maverick on McCain is way more than important than the Hillary Smear Machine attacking Obama because God forbid you accept that a Democrat might resort to dirty tricks & smearing, but hey you can dwell on whatever you'd like. Please no one is trying to stop you.
Tell ya what, we'll put you in charge of the Stop The Media From Referring To McCain As A Maverick Committee, while the rest of us concentrate on more important stuff. Howzat?
Again, really, kiss my you-know-what. The last thing I need is some ignorant, slobbering troll telling me what to focus on. You want to shrug and roll your eyes when the media refers to McCain as a Maverick? Go ahead, what do I care? Don't tell me to do the same, or point me to more "important" issues.
And don't tell me what I "know."
Oh and BTW, "panties in a twist?" Is that the best you can do, really? Is that what you say to everyone who disagrees with you?
Here's an idea, if you can take suggestions as well as dishing them out: If you think MM is wasting it's time on topics like this, don't add to the waste by posting. If you think that there are more important issues out there MM should be focusing on, start your own freaking blog and focus on those issues. Stop acting as if G-d died and left you in charge, please.
JJ rolls out the old TROLL charge. Wow, now that's original ::eye roll::
Is that the best you can do? Actually judging from your intellect I guess it is.
Hey I offered to put you in charge of the Stop The Media From Referring To McCain As A Maverick Committee, what more do you want?
Ungrateful little twerp aren't you?
BTW I am in charge, sorry you didn't get the memo.
Hehehe....
Anytime you want to start concentrating on that "more important stuff" will be fine with me.
MMFA is such a sham organization.
Anyone who watched the WHOLE debate knows that the moderator was the biggest sham moderator of the whole cycle. She was an abject liberal.
No MMFA prempt the myth that she was part of Conservative misinformatoin because McCain was called a maverick.
Newsflash: Amnesty, McCain/ Feingold, and Global Warming hysteria make you a maverick.
Newsflash, You are a moron who never has a single thing to contribute here except STUPIDITY
Solon;
Your adroit name caling is so endearing.
The Des Moines Register is a rabidly liberal news outlet. To try and paint anything they put out as having a conservative slant is laughable.
Poor MMFA. Their alternate reality seems to be closing in on them.
Once again ...McCain is not a "maverick".
He's a whore. I respect his service to our country ... but not his unprincipled pandering to the worst elements among us.
From "Bomb, bomb, Iran" to making fun of Chelsea Clinton to his role in the Keating 5 scandal ... this guy is not presidential timber. Period.
Exactly right. McCain "earned" the "Maverick" label by inviting the press on to the "Straight Talk Express" in 2000. His sucking up to the media is still paying dividends today, and never mind that he tossed his vaunted "principles" overboard years ago in service of his Presidential Ambitions.
McCain has been a consistent supporter of George Bush in pretty much everything Bush has done or tried to do for seven years. He strays on a few issues, so he's a "Maverick?"
That tells me more about the GOP's expectation of lockstep loyalty than it does about McCain.
He ain't a maverick, and he really no longer has that reputation among conservatives or progressives. The only people who still say that are his own supporters. McCain is a spineless jelly-fish. He caved in on all of his "maverick" credentials and is now nothing more than a shameless panderer. Why do you think he can't even get conservatives to support him anymore? Back in 2000, even if they didn't like him, they could at least respect him. Now? They still don't like him, and the realize he's nothing more than a waffle-man. A spineless, gutless, cowardly politician. Sadly, the man who suffered as a POW, and proudly stood up, even against members of his party IS GONE. We know it, they know it. McCain 2000 should have been president. (He had my vote! AndI sue as hell didn't vote for W.!)) McCain 2007 should retire from politics.