About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Politico/WJLA forum hosts claimed McCain has "regularly" "stood up" to Republican Party

February 12, 2008 5:46 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: During interviews with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Politico's John F. Harris and ABC 7's Leon Harris each claimed that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) has "regularly" "stood up" to the Republican Party. But McCain has altered his positions on significant issues, such as taxes and immigration, to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party, and has been one of the most constant and forceful proponents of the Iraq war and its continuation.

24 Comments

During Politico WJLA/ABC 7 interviews with Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama (IL) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), which aired in the Washington, D.C., area on February 11, Politico editor-in-chief John F. Harris and ABC 7 anchor Leon Harris each asserted that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (AZ) has "regularly" "stood up" to the Republican Party, while asking Obama and Clinton to cite examples in which they have done the same in the Democratic Party. Neither moderator offered any evidence of McCain's purported standing up to the Republican Party. Indeed, McCain has altered his positions on significant issues, such as taxes and immigration, to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party, and has been one of the most constant and forceful proponents of the Iraq war and its continuation -- hardly a position at odds with his party.

From the Politico's transcript of the February 11 Politico/WJLA interview with Obama:

JOHN HARRIS: Senator, you were ranked recently by National Journal as having the most liberal voting record as having the most liberal voting record [sic] in 2007. That prompts a question from Politico reader Don Mousch (sp.?) or [sic] Norwell (sp.), Mass. He wants to know what they [sic] liberal record should give us confidence that you can reach across the aisle and get things done in Washington.

OBAMA: Well, first of all, not to grouse against the National Journal, but let me give you an example of why I was rated the most liberal was because I wanted an office of public integrity that stood outside of the Senate, and outside of Congress, to make sure that you've got an impartial eye on ethics problems inside of Congress. Now, I didn't know that it was a liberal or Democratic issue. I thought that was a good government issue that a lot of Republicans would like to see. So that's the problem with some of these ratings --- how they score things. It uses categories that I think don't make sense to a lot of Americans.

LEON HARRIS: Well, are you proud of that designation? To be known as the most liberal voting senator?

OBAMA: I don't think you heard what I just said, which is that the designations don't make sense

JOHN HARRIS: Michael Dukakis said, "Yes, I'm proud to be a liberal." Bill Clinton said, "No we can't cast ourselves as liberals." Are you comfortable with the liberal label?

OBAMA: This is what I would call old politics. This is the stuff we're trying to get rid of. Because the problem is, when we start breaking down into conservative and liberal, and we've got a bunch of set predispositions, whether it's on gun control, or its' [sic] on health care, any attempt to do health care is socialized medicine. Any discuss [sic] about taxes ends up being, are you raising them or lowering them, as the opposed to the question I ask -- are we raising them for high income individuals that can afford it, and lowering them for lower income people who really need help. Those old categories don't work, and they're preventing us from solving them problems.

JOHN HARRIS: Senator, we've got a question that goes right to that. The likely Republican nominee, Sen. McCain, has regularly stood up against his own party and has some real scars that he's wearing because of it, when he thought it was in the national interest to do so. Name some issues where you've been willing to stand up against your party, and also take those scars?

OBAMA: Well, look, we've talked about education. We actually had a roundtable here about what we need to do with the schools. I've consistently said, we need to support charter schools. I think it is important to experiment, by looking at how we can reward excellence in the classroom.

From the Politico's transcript of the February 11 Politico/WJLA interview with Clinton:

LEON HARRIS: Let me ask you a question about the l-word: liberal. Now, as you well know, according to National Journal, your opponent, Senator Obama, was ranked as having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Is he too liberal?

CLINTON: You know, Leon, the Republicans will probably try to make that case, but I'm not going to. I mean, you know, I'm not going to characterize my opponent in that way, because that's a Republican talking point. That's what they always try to do.

You know, I believe that you have to defend the positions you take. I'm very comfortable defending my positions; he will have to defend his positions.

LEON HARRIS: All right, we'll lay off of him for a while, because there's someone else out there who also is going to be on your radar screen, and that's Senator John McCain.

Over the years, watching him in the Senate, he has regularly and taken positions that have been not popular with his party. He has stood up to his party on issues and matters that he thought was important for the rest of the country.

Can you tell us an example of when you stood up against your party in the interests of something that was more important for the nation?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, luckily, I agree with my party more than Senator McCain agrees with his party. You know, I think that the Democratic Party, ever since '93, has been a much more focused party on getting results for people.

And so, time and time again, I've helped shape the policy, I've helped advocate for the policy, I've helped defense the policy, and I feel very comfortable where I am in the Democratic Party.

You know, I want to get more Democrats elected, so I don't take on my party just for the sake of taking it on. I often try to mold my party and move it so we can agree.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 12, 2008 5:59 pm ET)
         
      Carpal tunnel from repeating yourself over, and over, and over, and over again, MMfA? Clearly the press, the general public, and a lot of Republicans themselves are not buying your insinuation that McCain tows the party line too much to be called a "Maverick." If MMfA was writing a post on this article by MMfA, it would write: "MMfA again disputes "maverick" label by McCain; fails to mention the various times he voted against Republican legislation."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by RINO Hunter (February 12, 2008 6:11 pm ET)
         
      That probably was an innacurate comment. "Stabbed the Republican Party in the back" is probably more like it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 12, 2008 6:28 pm ET)
           

        RH,

        He has come around to the Religious Right, immigration, taxes, Iraq, voted for all of their judges, capitulated on torture, campaign finance reform was done without him.

        When did he stab the Republicans in the back?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RINO Hunter (February 12, 2008 6:39 pm ET)
             
          On all of the issues I mentioned. He has been conservative on some issues, but whenever he has the chance he deviates from the Republican Party simply to get positive coverage from the media.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 12, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
               

            RH,

            Are you suggesting that there needs to be one party platform and no deviation in the Republican party on all issues?

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by RINO Hunter (February 12, 2008 6:52 pm ET)
                 
              No, you can deviate on one or two issues, but it's better if you don't deviate on a large number of issues like McCain has. I'm just saying that his views on these issues might cause a lot of conservatives to stay home or maybe even vote for the Democrats. The main principle of the Republican Party is that it has always stood for limited government and individual freedom, and McCain breaks from that tradition on issues like mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, campaign finance reform, taxes, etc.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 12, 2008 7:16 pm ET)
                   

                "The main principle of the Republican Party is that it has always stood for limited government and individual freedom,"

                If that's the case, not even Bush's SC choices can justify your votes for him.  Bush has grown the government, as you have admitted, exponentially.  With his FISA secrecy he has also limited individual freedom.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (February 12, 2008 8:20 pm ET)
                     
                  You're right, he has. He's not much better than McCain. But I simply won't vote for anybody who supports abortion rights; so I won't vote for a Democrat. To me the role of the government is to protect our freedom and protect us from harm, and I think that applies to the unborn as well. I think that's entirely consistent with libertarian/conservative principles, and it's a principle I won't waver on.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by friedbergboy1422 (February 12, 2008 10:56 pm ET)
                       

                    RH,

                    It depends on when one considers life to begin.  If life begins later, abortion prevention is huge government.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (February 13, 2008 1:06 am ET)
                         
                      Abortion was mostly illegal until 1972, and we certainly didn't have a big government back then. So I don't really buy your argument.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 13, 2008 11:55 am ET)
                           

                        So, the government mandating forced childbirth is not necessarily an example of "Big Government" by itself, but it could be if the rest of the government was big? You're a piece of work, RINO.

                        By your reasoning here, would you be willing to accept every program in place before 1972, since none of them could possibly be connected with Big Government? 

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by RINO Hunter (February 13, 2008 4:26 pm ET)
                             
                          Forced childbirth? Kind of like how the government forced these women to get pregnant in the first place? Unbelievable. How about a little personal responsibility. People know what happens when you have sex. If you can't afford to have a child, then don't have sex or at least use birth control. It's that simple.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 13, 2008 5:50 pm ET)
                               

                            Yes, forced childbirth. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming we could skip past the "keep it in your pants, Johhny" and "keep your legs together , Missy" nonsense, and go directly to the reality part of the topic. That's the part where... Women and girls are going to get pregnant.

                            Obviously, when this happens, you want the Nanny State to step in and force these Jezebels to reproduce. You're a hypocrite and a Cafeteria Conservative, picking and choosing when you want the government to step in and control others lives, while pretending to want complete freedom from that same government. To quote your own post.. "Unbelievable'

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by RINO Hunter (February 13, 2008 6:52 pm ET)
                                 
                              And you're simply pro abortion rather than "pro choice" since you want choice on the abortion issue but nothing else. It's ok for a woman to murder her unborn baby but not for her to own a gun. How is it possibly for you to think this backwards?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 14, 2008 1:24 am ET)
                                   

                                'And you're simply pro abortion rather than "pro choice"'

                                No, I'm pro-choice. I'd rather nobody ever had to have an abortion, but I don't believe the government should be involved in the decision.

                                 "...since you want choice on the abortion issue but nothing else."

                                Using lies you pull outta your arse is just waving the white flag of surrender.Unless you have some evidence that I don't want people to have a choice in any other personal issue.

                                 "It's ok for a woman to murder her unborn baby..."

                                An unborn baby is like an unwritten book.Just an idea. Murder is a crime legally applied to human beings. If you're a real hard-core vegetarian, then it can include hamburgers, and if you're anti-abortion, you can apply it to a fetus, but those are just  extremist opinions manifested in politically correct language abuse. 

                                 "...but not for her to own a gun."

                                I own a few guns. I don't know where you'd get the idea that I would restrict women from having that right. Are you on drugs? 

                                 "How is it possibly for you to think this backwards?"

                                Is reality and the truth really that backwards to you? sad.

                                Wow. Five distinct statements from you, and every one a swing and a miss.You're not very good at this. 

                                Report Abuse
                            • Author by RINO Hunter (February 13, 2008 6:52 pm ET)
                                 
                              Meant "possible"
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 14, 2008 1:25 am ET)
                                   
                                I don't think anybody noticed that mistake. It was sort of dwarfed.
                                Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (February 12, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
         
      To be fair, McCain has regularly stood up to the Republican Party. Then he sits down...and then he stands up again. Then he sits down again...  ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 12, 2008 11:37 pm ET)
           

        I forget who said it, Lincoln maybe? "A man never stands so tall as when he repeatedly bends over."

        heehee.. nah, I just made that up, sorry Abe.

        Report Abuse