About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wall Street Journal, CNN's Cafferty latest to apply "straight talk" label to McCain despite his growing list of falsehoods

February 22, 2008 3:44 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal article by Jonathan Kaufman stated that Sen. John McCain's "war record and straight-talking approach could make him appealing to many working-class men," an assertion repeated by Jack Cafferty on The Situation Room. Kaufman and Cafferty join a long list of media outlets that have adopted McCain's self-characterization as a "straight-talker," despite repeated falsehoods by McCain, as well as his stark inconsistencies on numerous issues, including the Iraq war, immigration, and tax cuts.

21 Comments

In a February 19 article by Jonathan Kaufman, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. John McCain's "war record and straight-talking approach could make him appealing to many working-class men." CNN commentator Jack Cafferty repeated the claim while paraphrasing the Journal article during the February 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, stating: "[B]lue-collar white males could be the key group of swing voters, either backing the Democrats' nominee or putting their support behind John McCain, whose war record and straight talk could appeal to a lot of them." Kaufman and Cafferty join a long list of media figures who have adopted McCain's self-characterization as a "straight-talker," despite repeated falsehoods by McCain, as well as his stark inconsistencies on numerous issues, including the Iraq war, immigration, and tax cuts.

In the last month alone, Media Matters for America has documented the following examples of false assertions by McCain about his own record and statements, and those of other Democratic and Republican presidential candidates:

  • McCain claimed that he called for the resignation of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, while McCain expressed "no confidence" in Rumsfeld in 2004, the Associated Press reported at the time that McCain "said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld's resignation." Further, when Fox News host Shepard Smith specifically asked McCain, "Does Donald Rumsfeld need to step down?" on November 8, 2006 -- hours before President Bush announced Rumsfeld's resignation -- McCain responded that it was "a decision to be made by the president." After The Washington Post uncritically reported McCain's claim that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, a subsequent Post article noted that "McCain's false account has been unwittingly incorporated into the narrative he is selling by some news organizations, including The Washington Post." The article also stated, "A McCain spokesman acknowledged this week that that was not correct. 'He did not call for his resignation,' said the campaign's Brian Rogers. 'He always said that's the president's prerogative.' "
  • McCain has repeatedly asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." In fact, in an August 1, 2007, foreign policy speech, Obama stated: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and [Pakistani] President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will." Contrary to McCain's assertion, Obama did not say he would take action against Pakistan -- he made any action against "high-value terrorist targets" inside Pakistan conditional -- and he did not specify what the action would be. Nor did he say that "Pakistan" itself would be the target of any action.
  • McCain stated that "Senator Obama had, according to the National Journal, the most liberal senator in the Senate. I have a very high ranking on the conservative side." In fact, according to the National Journal report that ranked Obama the "most liberal senator," McCain "did not vote frequently enough in 2007 to draw a composite score."
  • McCain pointed to a purported comparison between "the Democrats who want to raise your taxes, or me, I want to lower your taxes. Whether it will be a health care system run by the federal government, or whether families in America will make their choices about health care." McCain's claims about the Democrats' plans on taxes and health care are false. Neither Obama nor Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has proposed "a health care system run by the federal government," and both have called for "choice[]" in health care. Additionally, both Clinton and Obama have proposed tax cuts for the poor and the middle class.
  • McCain claimed in an interview that aired February 5 that his rival in the Republican presidential race at the time, Mitt Romney, "disparage[d] the service and courage of an American hero" with his statement that former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) is "probably the last person I would have wanted to have write a letter for me." In fact, Romney made no comments disparaging Dole's military "service and courage." Rather, Romney stated: "I think there are a lot of folks that tend to think that maybe John McCain's race is a bit like Bob Dole's race -- that it's the guy who's the next in line; he's the inevitable choice and we'll give it to him, and then, it won't work. I think that the right course for a winning campaign against someone like Barack Obama is going to have to be somebody who can speak with energy and passion about the future of America, not another senator who can say, 'Well, here's what I did on bill H. 1234. Here's what I did on my committee assignment.' "
  • McCain has repeatedly asserted on the campaign trail that he originally voted against the Bush tax cuts because they were not paired with spending cuts -- a claim that the media have repeated. But in the floor statement McCain made during the May 2001 Senate debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) conference committee report, in which he explained why he was not voting for the final bill, McCain did not mention the absence of offsetting spending cuts. In that statement -- which is available on his Senate website -- 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."
  • Having told The Wall Street Journal in late 2005 that he knows "a lot less about economics" than "military and foreign policy issues," McCain then suggested he had not said this when confronted with the quote in a debate question about that discussion: "I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics." McCain later acknowledged to NBC's Tim Russert, "Now I know where you got that quote from."

From the February 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

CAFFERTY: The Wall Street Journal reports, when it comes to the Democratic race, "some of these white men are finding it difficult to identify" with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In interviews with the Journal, some of them said that because Obama is black, they will cross over and vote Republican. And others say the country is not ready for a woman president yet. One Ohio political strategist points out that a lot of blue-collar men over 40, Hillary Clinton is -- quote -- "a poster child for everything about the women's movement they don't like, their wives going back to work, their daughters rebelling, the rise of women in the workplace."

So, stay tuned for the general election, where blue-collar white males could be the key group of swing voters, either backing the Democrats' nominee or putting their support behind John McCain, whose war record and straight talk could appeal to a lot of them.

Here's the question: Is the importance of white male voters being overlooked in this election cycle? You can go to CNN.com/caffertyfile. Post a comment on my blog.

From the February 19 Wall Street Journal:

Blue-collar men could also emerge as an important swing constituency in November -- either backing the Democrats' eventual nominee, or shifting to some degree toward Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, whose war record and straight-talking approach could make him appealing to many working-class men.

Marc Dann, Ohio's Democratic attorney general, frets about the reluctance of some of these blue-collar Democrats to embrace either of his party's candidates. "I worry about [the appeal of] McCain," says Mr. Dann, who lives in Youngstown. "It's not like watching an episode of Archie Bunker -- but there are real issues" that white male voters here have with Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by nerzog (February 22, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
         
      Not to worry... the Angry White Male vote will go to Gramps McCan't. Who else are they gonna vote for?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 22, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
           
        I definitely believe there will be a generational divide, in terms of white's voting for Obama in the general. But I think he'll be able to garner lots of support among younger white males, among moderates and even moderate republicans
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (February 22, 2008 4:11 pm ET)
             
          If pre-9/11 McCain was running, he'd get most of those votes.  Too bad that McCain died a looooong time ago.  The robot they replaced him with is facing a landslide loss to future President Obama.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 22, 2008 4:16 pm ET)
               

            Your prediction seems to be the present sentiment, but it's still too early. Only 6 months ago so many people were convinced that it would be rudy v. hillary in the general. The majority sentiment is reliable to the extent that it's so often incorrect.  So I wouldn't count mccain out yet.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by foghornleghorn (February 23, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
                 

              No, that was Fox's dream match up.  Fear most the time with Mr. 9/11 Ghouliani and hatred the rest of the time toward Hillary.

              One nice side-effect of an Obama nomination would fewer appearance by Dick Morris.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 22, 2008 4:14 pm ET)
             
          Assuming that Obama is the nominee, it will be interesting to see how the demographics break out. For example, will Obama carry some of the Southern states, due to an energized black voter base? Will some of the white Democrats in blue states turn squeamish and vote for Gramps?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by lostlogic (February 22, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
               

            Do you think the % of population that is AA will be large enough to have that effect.  I only ask because I was talking to someone about this and while I think it is a key demographic in any democratic primary in a general the % of the overall electorate may be too small to have that type of over riding effect.  I think if the other vote is depressed and Obama continues to attract a large turn out maybe the overall percentage can be mitigated.  I think it is an interesting concept and it will be interesting from that perspective to see how these so called voting demographics do play out in a general.  A primary is so different because the demos are skewed.  Alot chnages when you put the two together in a general and all the demos we became familiar with and could predict seem to change. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (February 22, 2008 4:35 pm ET)
                 
              Probably true. However, I think some of the Southern states may have a large enough black population to swing those states if the White Evangelical vote doesn't turn out heavily this time. As usual, turnout will be the key.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 22, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
           
        Nerz, white people (with the exception of a few wackos) do not self-identify as white in terms of voting blocs.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (February 22, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
             
          That's true, but the media bobbleheads certainly do. I realize that "angry white male" is not an official demographic, but they are generally characterized as the Troglodyte GOP Base.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (February 22, 2008 3:58 pm ET)
         

      How do you know that when speaking of McCain's "war record", that they aren't referring to his years as a prisoner of war?  It isn't necessarily about the Iraq war. 

      As for the straight talking approach, yeah I know, thread after thread shows his talk isn't always "straight", but it's the buzzword that describes McCain and it probably will be forever.  To endlessly pick that apart is repetitive, it's gone from meaning something 8 years ago, to an irrelevant catchphrase that nobody worries about, except this website, apparently.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dbeden4153 (February 22, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
           
        It's funny, because it's McCain's 2000 campaign that began the narrative of him as a "straight-talker."  It is a possibility that with such an absolute, without nuance, his 2000 campaign could ultimately doom his 2008 campaign.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (February 22, 2008 4:06 pm ET)
           

        "an irrelevant catchphrase that nobody worries about"

        And yet, there are still media outlets resuscitating the 8-year-old pitch and asserting that it's more than just a slogan, it's an integral part of McCain's appeal.

        You can't both be right, can you? 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (February 22, 2008 4:10 pm ET)
             

          I meant that nobody worries about it having some impact on voters who will rush to the polls and vote for this straight talker.  Some things just become part of the lexicon and over time they are rendered to the cute little slogan bin.  This is fast becoming that.

          I know if one of those happens to shine any positive light on any Republican then that is cause for heart palpitations for some of you, however. 

          Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (February 22, 2008 3:59 pm ET)
         

      February 19th and 20th??  Feh!  Old news! 

      Who cares what Cafferty and the WSJ has to say? 

      No one watches Jack! 

      No one reads the WSJ!

      Everybody already knows! 

      Hillary started MMFA!

      This must be slow day! 

      </sarc>

      Did I miss any? 

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (February 22, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
           

        Only your overprotectiveness where this website's sensibilities are concerned.......why don't you contact them and have all opposing comments that you find so mean flagged and deleted.

        You'd breathe alot easier.

        ;) 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (February 22, 2008 4:11 pm ET)
             
          You're every bit as protective of those who believe that MMFA has to reason to exist.  So let's make a deal.  Why don't you contact MMFA and have all the comments directed at opposing comments that you find so mean flagged and deleted?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dexteritas0071418 (February 22, 2008 4:11 pm ET)
               
            Pete you missed "why is this here?"
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (February 22, 2008 4:12 pm ET)
               
            *no* reason, I meant.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by tommy (February 22, 2008 4:19 pm ET)
               

            Please show me where I have ever questioned the legitimacy of why this website exists?  I have commented on the relevance of many of the threads, but when MMFA does expose real misinformation, I have commented in agreement many times and have appreciated their efforts.

            Yet many times when I do question a topic's validity here,  you are personally offended and take me to task for doing so. 

            I like the different viewpoints expressed here, they are informative and interesting.  If you only want parroting rubberstamping, then I suggest again, tell the moderators how you feel. 

            Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (February 22, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
         
      Of course, while the Overpaid Media Bobbleheads are hyperventilating about what to call the presidential candidates, or who dissed whom, or who plagiarized what, they will probably ignore this story:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/karl-rove-60-minutes-expo_n_87925.html

      The implications of this story are huge. Will anyone investigate it? Don't hold your breath.
      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.