NY Times reported McCain's prior "differences" with Bush on tax cuts, but didn't note flip-flop
SUMMARY: The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that Sen. John McCain's "differences with the White House are well known," and added: "He did not vote for the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a sore point with groups like the conservative Club for Growth." However, Stolberg did not note that after opposing the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, McCain now supports making the tax cuts permanent -- a position Bush noted during his Sunday interview.
In a February 11 article on President Bush's February 10 interview on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) "differences with the White House are well known," and added: "He did not vote for the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a sore point with groups like the conservative Club for Growth." However, Stolberg did not note that after opposing the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, McCain now supports making the tax cuts permanent -- a position Bush noted during his Sunday interview.
In May 2001, McCain voted against the final version of Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax-cut package. In a floor statement explaining his opposition, McCain said that while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." In 2003, McCain voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut taxes on dividends and capital gains. In 2006, however, he voted for a bill extending the 2003 tax cuts. When asked during the April 2, 2006, broadcast of NBC's Meet the Press why he had changed his position, McCain replied: "I do not believe in tax increases. ... The tax cuts are now there and voting to revoke them would have been to -- not to extend them would have meant a tax increase." Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, reportedly said at the time: "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy that he's flopped."
A press release on McCain's campaign website asserts, "John McCain will make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent, keeping income tax rates at their current level."
On Fox News Sunday, Bush stated that McCain "has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative [...] but he is a conservative." Bush added that McCain "is tough fiscally. He believes the tax cuts ought to be permanent."
From the February 11 New York Times article:
Mr. Bush reserved his most extensive remarks for Mr. McCain. Conservatives are deeply mistrustful of the senator, whose advisers are hoping an embrace by Mr. Bush could help bring the divided party together.
Mr. McCain's differences with the White House are well known. He did not vote for the president's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, a sore point with groups like the conservative Club for Growth. And he disagreed with Mr. Bush on campaign finance reform and the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects. But Mr. Bush defended him.
"I know him well," Mr. Bush said. "I know his convictions. I know the principles that drive him. And no doubt in my mind he is a true conservative."
Conservative is code for "good" just as liberal is code for "bad". Since Bush came to town, black and white got a whole lot blacker and whiter.
Randy
Good point Fantagor
By controlling talk radio, the Cons were able to turn the word liberal into a dirty word. On talk radio, you have a license to smear and belittle your opposition. Through endless repetition, lies, half-truths, they were able to achieve their objective.
The Cons control 90% of talk radio.
Fried, I am not that familiar with C-PACers, so I am not the one to ask. But I believe they are too focused on the socially conservative issues. I am for individual freedoms first and foremost, while some of the more religious conservatives seem to want to minimize those freedoms. They want to impose their way of life on others and this compromises freedoms, in my opinion.
But I am no expert on their motivations or their political will.
1,480 precincts were used for the exit polls in 2004.
They were chosen very carefully to provide an accurate snapshot of the 2004 electorate. Precincts are selected very carefully, that's why exit polls are so accurate. The exit pollster--Warren Mitofsky--has years of polling experience. The exit polls were commissioned by a consortium of all the major news channels and the Associated Press.
In the 1480 precincts, the difference between the exit polls and the official count was 6.5 percent.
There are only two possibilities:
1) More Kerry voters than Bush voters took the exit polls. (This is extremely implausible--Steve Freeman points out why in his brilliant book, "Was the 2004 presidential election stolen? exit polls, election fraud, and the official count."
2) The official vote count was corrupted.
VoteTrustUSA is a good place to help out with election integrity.
Yeah MeFirst...
One of the paper trails they're developing now is a crappy little spool that is an add-on to their crappy voting machines. Apparently, it jams really easily (and is all but useless) and has been described as "cheap and worthless."
Corporate faith-based voting.
Too many of today's reporters are just plain lazy and very poorly trained. Sticking to their narrative, republicans never flip-flop; they "mature," "evolve" or "grow." The flip-flop label is reserved for Democrats solely. While not at the level of the Shuster item, these small items are indicative of the right wing biases far too prevalent in the MSM. These biases deserve to be challenged at every turn.
The flip-flop label is reserved for Democrats solely
Actually it was used by the media in describing Mitt Romney as well.
Let's face it IF the media likes a politician, they give them a free pass. Democrat or Republican.
You make a great point J, it's all the medias ego. It they get access and are treated nicely, that usually comes across in the media's reporting of a candidate. Look at the Clinton campaign, Chelsea, from what I understand, is off limits now to any interviews, and Hillary has never been the most accessible either, so the medias feelings get hurt and it shows in their coverage.
The party affiliation is irrelevant, despite the prevailiing wisdom here, it's all about a good story, a juicy story, and who is the darling of the moment.
You are correct. The media has stuck Romney with this label. But which media is the question:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54214
Randy
Liberal Media my ass.
Here's a question... will they carve out enough time from their wall-to-wall election coverage to broadcast the political show trial of the 9/11 "conspirators"?