CBS characterized "attack" as "unusual position" for McCain -- but it's not, even as he has denounced negative campaigning
SUMMARY: Reporting on Republican presidential candidates' final days of campaigning before the Florida primary, Kelly Cobiella of CBS and John Berman of ABC both noted that John McCain criticized Mitt Romney for attacking opponents who "are moving up and succeeding." Neither, however, reported that McCain has been airing attack ads against Romney even while denouncing negative campaigning.
On the January 29 edition of the CBS Evening News, correspondent Kelly Cobiella reported that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) "spent the final days of this race" in the Florida primaries "in an unusual position for the straight talker -- on the attack." In fact, McCain has been launching attacks against Republican rival Mitt Romney since December 2007 -- even while denouncing negative campaigning. Moreover, the evidence Cobiella cited of McCain's being "on the attack" was his criticism of Romney for launching, in McCain's words, "attack ads against me in New Hampshire and in South Carolina." Cobiella went on to report that "McCain says that Romney attacks whichever candidate he sees moving up and succeeding." At no point, however, did Cobiella report that McCain has also been airing attack ads against Romney.
During the same evening's broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, in a report about the Florida primaries being held that day, ABC news correspondent John Berman reported that "[w]ith so much on the line here, the leading candidates were getting in their last licks, up until the last minutes." Berman then aired a video clip of Romney attacking McCain and noted, "Mitt Romney implying John McCain is weak on the economy and John McCain implying Mitt Romney is weak on character." He then aired a clip of McCain saying: "It's only been Governor Romney who decides to attack opponents when he thinks that they are moving up and succeeding." At no point did Berman report that McCain was also airing ads that attacked Romney.
On December 28, the McCain campaign announced the release of its TV ad "Consider," which uses a quote from a Concord Monitor editorial that stated, "If a candidate is a phony ... we'll know it. Mitt Romney is such a candidate." Time magazine senior political analyst Mark Halperin reported on his Time.com blog The Page that the ad was the "first negative ad by any candidate besides Romney." In a December 28 post on ABC News' blog Political Radar, Matt Stuart reported that Romney responded to the ad, saying: "It's an attack ad. It attacks me personally. It's nasty. It's mean spirited. Frankly, it tells you more about Sen. McCain than it does about me that he would run an ad like that."
McCain has also criticized Romney in Web ads: "Experience," released January 1; "Foreign Policy Alert," released January 2; "Leadership," released January 4; "Mittsurfing," released January 24; and "A Tale of Two Mitts," released January 28. In the two most recent ads, McCain attacks Romney for allegedly "chang[ing] positions" on issues ranging from his position on "the Bush tax cuts," abortion rights, Second Amendment rights, and even "[o]n being a Republican."
Additionally, the Nashua Telegraph reported on December 18 that McCain "launched an attack -- a direct mail campaign labeling New Hampshire primary front-runner Mitt Romney as a serial flip-flopper that 'voters can't trust.' " The Telegraph added that the "mailing is believed to be the first, campaign-paid flier in New Hampshire by any candidate critical of former Massachusetts Gov. Romney, who holds onto a solid lead in GOP primary polls here."
From the January 29 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: Now, Kelly Cobiella with the McCain campaign. And, Kelly, the senator got momentum after winning South Carolina. Now, Florida, though, may be his biggest test to date.
COBIELLA: It really is, Katie, and this is the nation's first closed primary, which means voters have to pick a candidate within their own party. So, for John McCain, it offers not only the chance to claim the title of Republican front-runner, but to prove he can win without the help of independents.
[begin video clip]
COBIELLA: John McCain banked on the backing of military veterans and Cuban-Americans like Alfredo Perez to lift him to the top in Florida.
ALFREDO PEREZ (voter): My choice is basically McCain. To me, he sounds like the most authentic of them all.
COBIELLA: Exit polls show a strong turnout among both groups. Twenty-eight percent of Republican voters were veterans, 13 percent were Hispanic, double the turnout from 2000. Even with last-minute endorsements from a popular governor and Cuban-American senator, McCain couldn't break away from his rival, Mitt Romney. So he spent the final days of this race in an unusual position for the straight talker -- on the attack.
McCAIN: He's spent millions of dollars in attack ads against Governor Huckabee in Iowa. He spent millions of dollars in attack ads against me in New Hampshire and in South Carolina. I mean, that's just the way he campaigns, so we have to respond.
[end video clip]
COBIELLA: And McCain says that Romney attacks whichever candidate he sees moving up and succeeding. Katie.
COURIC: All right, Kelly Cobiella. Kelly, thank you.
From the January 29 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Good evening. Another Tuesday, another critical primary: This time, it's Florida, critical this time for Republicans. Polls throughout the week have indicated it would be won by either John McCain or Mitt Romney, and they have certainly focused their fire on one another. But the outcome is also critical for Rudy Giuliani, who staked the fortunes of his entire campaign on Florida. John Berman is in St. Petersburg tonight -- John.
BERMAN: Charlie, Florida is the biggest state to vote yet. It has the most delegates at stake yet, and it's probably the best predictor yet of who goes on and who goes home.
[begin video clip]
BERMAN: With so much on the line here, the leading candidates were getting in their last licks, up until the last minute.
ROMNEY: One of the candidates out there running for president said that the economy is not his strong suit. Well, it's my strong suit.
BERMAN: Mitt Romney implying John McCain is weak on the economy and John McCain implying Mitt Romney is weak on character.
McCAIN: It's only been Governor Romney who decides to attack opponents when he thinks that they are moving up and succeeding.
BERMAN: There is a lot of empty space at Mitt Romney's one campaign rally today, but the campaign staff is hoping that all the money they spent on ads and organization will get turnout where it counts -- at the polls.
ANNOUNCER [TV ad]: Mitt Romney, business legend --
BERMAN: Just like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, Mitt Romney spent more money on ads here than his opponents combined. How big is Florida?
ROMNEY: I think there'll probably be two that come out of Florida with the momentum they need to go on and run a campaign on February 5th.
BERMAN: Romney hit on the key reasons Florida is so crucial. First, it may winnow the field. Rudy Giuliani bet his entire campaign on a victory here. With polls showing him a distant third, this might be his last pitch.
GIULIANI: Do not listen to the polls. Look at what happened in New Hampshire. In New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was supposed to lose by seven or eight points.
BERMAN: The other reason Florida is so big? Super Tuesday is just one week away. Republicans vote in 21 states at once. No candidate has enough money to advertise everywhere. No candidate has enough time to travel everywhere, but a win in Florida gives them momentum.
I'd rather have anyone but McCain. And I've yet to talk to any Conservative that wants him either.
The media wants him. Screw the media.
What is an "ATTACK"?
In politics, we have the MSM to define attacks for us, and it CHANGES depending on who's being discussed.
Basically, there are ISSUES, then there are PERSONALITIES. Strict ISSUES discussions were OK, but criticizing or pointing out negative aspects of another candidate's PERSONALITY (i.e. behavior) have been considered "attacks".
But it's not basic. A long time ago, the GOP decided "CHARACTER" was an ISSUE (and it "MATTERS"), and therefore all aspects of a candidate's most personal and private life became "fair game" as an issue discussion on the issue of "character".
Ah, but then there's the grey area of discussing one's opponent's position on an ISSUE. Is it OK, or is it an "attack"? Depends. If Obama's record on the Iraq War his examined and highlighted, the MSM has decided this is an ATTACK. Even worse, it's a RACIST attack. This is TRUE to the MSM even if the citation of the record is factually correct.
On the other hand, if McCain criticizes HIS opponents in a personal way (calling them "phony", for example), this cannot be considered "an attack". Why? Because McCain claims he abhors attack politics, and so he doesn't do it. The MSM sees this as a reasonable explanation, and so will not call McCain on his record. His "attacks" are redefined as "valid issues discussions".
See the pattern? Hillary ATTACKS, and McCain does NOT attack. Mean person, nice person. Bad versus good. EVIL versus the decent and moral. It's the narrative, and it WILL be adhered to by the MSM.
You might be confused, but DON'T be. Just wait for the MSM to tell you what is an unfair attack, and what is a fair issues discussion. And don't worry if the definition varies depending on if it's Clinton or McCain being discussed .... just know that the MSM has your best interests at heart, and so they'll frame things so you understand exactly who are the bad guys and who you SHOULD be voting for.
Resistance is futile. You WILL be assimilated.
Tex, your misrepresenting things a bit. If an individual candidate touts his moral character as an advantage, then by all means people should go at him. But that should be judged on an individual by individual basis, instead of lumping all the GOP together. I'd be hesitant to conclude that they're all newt gingriches . ..
More importantly, HC "attacks" were worse than McCains, and worse than you made them out to be. As two examples, in support of why Obama is unqualified to be president, her troops cite his experimental drug use as a teenager (what teenager hasn't?) and his cohorting with a "slumlord." Both are aptly characterized as irrelevant "attacks," having nothing to do with his position on the issues. (I don't buy the "racial" element either, for the clintons' certainly are not bigots, but that's just an old leftwing trick now coming home to roost.)
Moreover, the media has in fact criticized MccAin over the last two weeks for unfairly 'attacking" romney's position on Iraq. It's been widely covered. And that aside, McCain used romney's own words, albeit arguably out of context, to attack him on a relevant issue in the campaign, and not what he did as a teenager . . .
THOMP:
Thanks for your reasonable response. I do take exception to a couple of your evaluations, however.
You say, "HC "attacks" were worse than McCains, and worse than you made them out to be. As two examples, in support of why Obama is unqualified to be president, her troops cite his experimental drug use as a teenager (what teenager hasn't?)..."
RESPONSE: I agree the "drug references" were out of line and irrelevant, AND SO DID HILLARY. The staffer who made the comment was fired. And it's not as if the attack was an ambush, as the information was found in Obama's own book ... arguably making his drug history "fair game". Regardless, Hillary condemned the attack. All that said, she cannot be held responsible for what other supporters might say everywhere and at all times (i.e. her "troops").
You continue; "... and his cohorting with a "slumlord."
RESPONSE: This issue is not only TRUE, but was a direct response to a similar "attack" launched by Obama himself, citing Hillary working for Wal Mart. In legal terms, this is called "opening the door." Further, Obama's relationship to this guy MAY INDEED be an issue, depending on how deep that relationship went. The "PRESS" is only just now investigating the history of Obama's dealings with this man. As far as an "attack" is concerned, if it exists, it involves BOTH parties and becomes "a wash", blame-wise. There is no doubt Obama "started it".
You conclude, "Both are aptly characterized as irrelevant "attacks," having nothing to do with his position on the issues. (I don't buy the "racial" element either, for the clintons' certainly are not bigots, but that's just an old leftwing trick now coming home to roost."
RESPONSE: I partially disagree, for the reasons given above. And I'm glad you "don't buy" the "racial" element.
Sue, McCain has out & out lied about Romney on a number of issues. And the media just keeps gushing over him & calling him Maverick. The guy says he's not up to speed on the economy, but when asked about this he lies about having ever said that. When his words are read back to him he laughs that lunatic chuckle & the media just lets him get away with it. McCain calls Romney a flip-flopper & he's flip-floped more than any other candidate on either side. And the media fails to highlight this.
I wouldn't vote for this guy for dog-catcher.
I wouldn't vote for this guy for dog-catcher.
I wouldn't vote for Romney for dog catcheer, because he'd tie all the dogs to the top of the dog catcher wagon. Like he did to his family dog for a trip from Massachusetts to Canada....
QUESTION:
When is a "flip flopper" instead a "maverick"?
ANSWER:
When you want the flip flopper to WIN.
So, is MMFA "out to get" Romney here (and here, and here, and here, and here)?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712210002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712130004
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712160001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712110002
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712090003
Thomp,
The article is just pointing out that McCain does advertise just as nasty as anyone else does, but the media gives him a pass. His targets are irrelevant.
Thomp,
If you think that Romney is getting different treatment from MMFA, point out the articles where the media is giving him a free pass and post them or send them to MMFA.
Thomp,
Have there been stories on here about Limbaugh et al trashing Huckabee? Have there been any stories on here about conservative pundits trashing any conservative?
THOMP:
Whether Romney or McCain, it's a CONTINUATION of Bush's Iraq War.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but 70% of America wants that war ENDED.
The choice is clear: DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Will end the war.
REPUBLICAN PARTY: War everlasting.
Now, tell me WHY you think it is that McCain will beat ANY Democrat? Have you noticed, for example, that TWICE as many Democrats are showing up at the primaries as Republicans?
It's great to be optimistic that WAR will continue forever, but to take that optimism to believing Republicans have a good chance? That's getting delusional.