CNN's Situation Room again aired McCain's attacks on Clinton over earmark without noting his missed vote to remove it
SUMMARY: CNN correspondent Carol Costello aired a video clip of Sen. John McCain criticizing an earmark requested by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton in which McCain says: "Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum." However, Costello did not mention that McCain skipped the vote on removing the earmark, as other CNN reporters have also failed to do.
On the February 22 edition of The Situation Room, during CNN correspondent Carol Costello's report on age and the presidential race, CNN aired a video clip of Sen. John McCain ridiculing an earmark requested by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton in which he says: "Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time." McCain was referring to a $1 million request for a museum at the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, located "at the site of the original 1969 Woodstock Festival" in New York. However, as CNN reporters have done on multiple occasions, Costello did not report that McCain skipped the vote on removing the earmark.
McCain co-sponsored a Republican amendment to remove the funding for the museum, but was one of six senators to miss the vote to "table" -- or kill -- the amendment. The motion to table the amendment failed by a vote of 52-42, and the Senate subsequently passed the amendment by unanimous consent. McCain's campaign website states that McCain had a town hall meeting scheduled in Greenville, South Carolina, at noon on October 18, 2007, the same day as the 3:37 p.m. ET motion to table.
The Washington Post reported that McCain has missed more votes that any other senator except Tim Johnson (D-SD), who spent months recuperating following a brain hemorrhage. In an article headlined "McCain Racks Up Missed Senate Votes," the Associated Press quoted McCain as saying: "I've missed a lot of votes, and there's no doubt about it."
From the February 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
ROBERT DALLEK (presidential historian): There is a generational divide here that is going to mean something in this election. And whether McCain is running against Clinton or Obama, I think you're quite right -- that's going to be one of the interesting divides that we'll see in the campaign.
McCAIN: Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock concert museum. Now, my friends, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.
[laughter]
McCAIN: I was tied up at the time. But the fact is --
COSTELLO: And Barack Obama is piling on, distancing himself from aging boomers in his book Audacity of Hope. He writes Of Bill Clinton's time in office, "I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation -- a tale ... hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago." And post-Baby Boomers are buying in. He scores best among young voters; Clinton among older folks.















I'm gonna smoke a J before I go. And when I imagine Jimi Hendrix playing The Star Spangled Banner I'll be sure to place my hand over my heart so no one accuses me of being unpatriotic. Peace... ;>)
LOSTLOGIC: I think earmarks are a part of the political process that few people really think about – myself included - not so much the earmarks themselves, but the process used to achieve the end. Nothing adds to a politician's legacy (and ego) more than a plaque on the wall or sign at the start of a bridge – and of all the real work they have to do, nothing is more obvious to constituates than the visible physical changes to their environment that can be credited to a local politician. For these reasons, I don’t see earmarks going away any time soon.
The problem with earmarks is determining just who “deserves” them, as the results usually benefit a small segment of the electorate in the state or district they are funded. I don’t really have an answer or opinion other than to suggest a stronger say in the matter from the local voters rather than lobbyists or as corporate favors. So, I tend to agree with you in wanting more local control, except for projects that obviously benefit the whole nation, or at least more than just the local economy. It would be unfair to not at least subsidize such projects. There are definitely many projects that deserve federal funding and support.