Ignoring flip-flops, Reuters asserted McCain "faced a revolt among some conservatives unhappy with his past stances on immigration, tax cuts"
SUMMARY: Reuters' John Whitesides wrote that Sen. John McCain "has faced a revolt among some conservatives unhappy with his past stances on immigration, tax cuts and campaign finance reform, although it has done little to slow his march to the nomination." But, in fact, on immigration and taxes, McCain reversed his positions to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party.
In a March 3 Reuters article, political correspondent John Whitesides wrote that Sen. John McCain "has faced a revolt among some conservatives unhappy with his past stances on immigration, tax cuts and campaign finance reform, although it has done little to slow his march to the nomination." But, in fact, on at least two of the issues Whitesides cited -- immigration and taxes -- McCain reversed his positions to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party. While McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, he now supports making the tax cuts permanent, while misrepresenting his stated reason for previously opposing them. And on immigration, McCain now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. Indeed, during CNN's January 30 Republican presidential debate, McCain asserted that he "would not" support his own comprehensive immigration proposal that included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.
As Media Matters for America has noted, numerous news articles have uncritically reported McCain's past positions on issues such as immigration and taxes without noting that he has since taken opposite positions. In contrast to Reuters, The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller, in a March 3 article, noted that McCain has made a "striking turnaround ... on the Bush tax cuts, which he voted against twice but now wants to make permanent," and has "moved from his original position on immigration." Bumiller also noted that "McCain went so far at a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in January to say that if his original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, he would not vote for it."
From the March 3 Reuters article:
In the Republican race, McCain leads Huckabee 61 percent to 28 percent in Ohio and 53 percent to 33 percent in Texas. The other remaining Republican candidate, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, had 6 percent in Texas and 5 percent in Ohio.
McCain leads handily in nearly every voter category and in all regions of both states. He even leads in Ohio among those who call themselves very conservative, although Huckabee leads in that category in Texas.
McCain has faced a revolt among some conservatives unhappy with his past stances on immigration, tax cuts and campaign finance reform, although it has done little to slow his march to the nomination.
The rolling poll was conducted Friday through Sunday. It surveyed 761 likely Democratic voters in Ohio with a margin of error of 3.6 percentage points, and 748 in Texas with a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.
The poll of 675 likely Republican voters in Ohio had a margin of error of 3.9 percentage points. The survey of 628 voters in Texas had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
What is so misinformative about this article? The fact is many conservatives are unhappy with his earler stances on immigration and taxes and that is why they don't trust him now.......he has "come around" on these issues, but is it for real, or just to placate his base?
There is no ignoring his flip flops, "unhappy with his past stances" is obviously an indication that his current stances are not the same.
It's the "although it has done little to slow his march to the nomination," part. It continues the"maverick" theme, as if he somehow stood up and held his ground and is winning the nom because of that, rather than caved and flipped his stance for political expediency.
But you knew that.
It is implying that he is march steady on to the nom depsite the "revolt", when, in fact he got the nom because he caved to that very revolt.
The revolt actually did little to stop his march to the nom because he bowed to it. That's a pretty important piece of info, no?
You honestly can't see that?
I have no clue what you're reading into this or what is the misinformation you need to see. It says that the conservative base is unhappy with his past stances on these issues, implying that his current stances have now changed, thus no ignoring of his flip flop - and as a result of his base's unhappiness, it has still not slowed his march to the nomination.
There is nothing false, or misleading, or misinformative about any of that. It is absolutely true. The fact that you don't like any of it, is really irrelevant.
"It says that the conservative base is unhappy with his past stances on these issues, implying that his current stances have now changed, thus no ignoring of his flip flop - and as a result of his base's unhappiness, it has still not slowed his march to the nomination."
-Tommy
I don't think that is the case. There is no indication in the article that his stance has changed. It just says the issues conservatives "revolted" against were past stances. There is absolutely no way the article is implying anything other than it's a past stance.
Tommy, the problem here is that folks want to hear or read "flip-flopper", nothing short of that will satisfy them, even if it's obvious when one says "past" it doesn't mean "present" ;-)
No, it implies that the differences didn't much matter in his march to the White House. In fact, he changed his stances because of those differences, not "faced down a revolt" despite the differences. There's a marked distinction between the two. One plays up his maverick image, someone who "faces revolts" and the other is a flip flopper.
MMFA, as usual, is on the ball here.
You're right, I don't think this is a complete disregard of McCain's flip-flops either.
Still, I think it's noteworthy that the "flip-flop" label just doesn't seem to part of the "liberal media" vernacular anymore, yet they're still in awe of McCain's "straight talk". But I suppose "noteworthy" is best left up to a unrestrained blog to expose it, in lieu of an organization that's shackled to a mission statement.
Oh come on, the tone is completely different than if they wanted to highlight the flip flops, whcih are the reason the revolt had no effect on his march to the nom. He "marched to the nomination despite a revolt" is a far different than "he caved for political expediency".
I totally see why this is here.
Ignorance seems to be the point. Possible conflict with the GOP base. Later they can say he came arround to the proper position to disarm the distress.
I'm thinking more and more that I don't want a democratic candidate to be annoited till the convention. Its more confusing to the noise machine if they can't settle on one target. Johns campaign as hard as he strokes the media is still going to have uncomfortable questions to answer. So as well as two possible usurpers to target, they also have to defend John. This may expose them as unprincipaled hucksters to more people.
You've got to admire McCain as a politician even if you don't agree with his stances.
He successfully co-opted the conservative base by these flip-flops and will win the nomination because of it. I suspect it will become an issue whenever Hillary or Obama meet head on with McCain. Will it do any good? My guess is the base has no where else to go so will rally round the nominee.
AA,
If the "base" rallies around McCain, they are nothing if not hypocritical. Any nuance given by Kerry was seen as "flip-flopping" which made him "untrustworthy" according to some of my conservative friends. These same people voted for "W" saying we needed change in Washington in 2000. When I asked if they were worried about W's lack of any foreign policy experience, they told me it would be good to have a fresh perspective in the White House. They told me that Clinton put troops in harm's way unnecessarily (Kosovo, Somalia) and wanted a more humble foreign policy.
Fast forward to 2008: the same people don't mind a "flip-flopper," think that Obama's inexperience is a deal-breaker and think we should attack Iran.
Does this mean the base puts party over country? These are the same people who were very comfortable in law school with me while their brothers in ideals were in Iraq fighting a war we may never leave.
I am afraid I don't understand the "base" of the Republican party.
Fried,
As we all know, the "base" of any candidate consists of a wide array of people with varying political views. My feeling is your fellow lawyers may be part of the base but their views on back then versus now are not the reasons "the base" of conservatives will end up supporting McCain.
However, based on the anecdotes you provided, if you believe them to be hypocritical, I understand your conclusion.
Mr. McCain’s advisers say that he has evolved rather than switched positions
LOL
I get it. Democrats flip flop, Republicans EVOLVE.
Pearlene,
I think Kerry's foot-in-mouth before it was foot-out-mouth will forever label him as Mr. Flip-Flop.
Hillary came close on the illegal immigrant driver's license fiasco during that one debate.
We see candidates change positions all the time for political expediency. It is when they take both sides in the same breath they earn the not-so-coveted flip-flopper sobriquet.
AA,
No one has flipped positions more than John McCain since 2000 unless you count George W. Bush.
Rove and the Republicans outmarketed the Dems in appealing to Americans who live in fear.
It is when they take both sides in the same breath they earn the not-so-coveted flip-flopper sobriquet.
Sorry AA but I can't help but LOL.
Here is an actual flip flop:
Republican debate in Simi Valley, when McCain was asked whether he’d vote for the immigration-reform legislation he introduced in 2006. He responded that the bill won’t come to the floor of the Senate. Of course, that wasn’t the question.
It's called a flip flop when you're a Democratic and you EVOLVE when you're a Republican. Can't help but think Republicans are the only ones who see things that way.
I predict that, by August, most of the Troglodytes will fully support McCain, just like the zombies they are. "Values Voters".... what a load of crap.
Nerzog,
I do believe you are mixing up your insults. I do not believe the "value's voters" had too much of a problem with McCain. I realize they probably liked Huckabee better, but the political reality is that they have no place to go once McCain wins the nomination.
Since we are left with only one Republican and one Democrat, your argument could easily be leveled against all the Hillary supporters who will vote for Obama once he gains the nomination.
AA,
"I do believe you are mixing up your insults. I do not believe the "value's voters" had too much of a problem with McCain. I realize they probably liked Huckabee better, but the political reality is that they have no place to go once McCain wins the nomination. "
I think you are half-right and half-wrong. Some prominent "values voters" HATE McCain:
Dobson: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/dobson_blasts_mccain.php
Pat Robertson:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/08/video-pat-robertson-fears-mccain-with-his-hand-on-the-red-button/
Some site called "Life News" says it pretty well:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3699.html
I found those very quickly.
I think the "half-right" part is that they will vote for him anyway and try to rally around abortion, gay marriage, etc. which, I think, they would never outlaw even if they could for rallying reasons.
You make some good points. My guess is that most 'values' voters are not as rigid as Dobson, (I haven't read your Robertson link, but I assume he takes a similar stand,) but maybe they are? I think they'll support McCain because of his stand on abortion over the Democrats.
Maybe I am only projecting my own feelings. I am not a fan of McCain at all, but at this point, plan on voting for him in the general election, in part, because of his stand on abortion.
As an aside, I have been toying with the idea of voting for Hillary in tomorrow's Ohio primary just to do my part to keep her in the race. I probably won't, as I can't stand her, but I do enjoy watching Obama and Hillary spar. :-) The reality is, I do not think Hillary at this point can win the nomination. Maybe I'll toss my protest vote toward Huckabee?
AA,
I understand your Hillary temptation, but I assume you wouldn't want a Dem voter doing the same thing to the Republicans if the situation was reversed ;).
I can see what voters who put abortion as issue #1 would have a really, really difficult time in 2008. With McCain going back and forth as many times as he has, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting for him. While I am pro-choice, I think the best way to limit abortions is through education on other birth control methods. If McCain is going to be an abstience-only guy, I would think that abortions would increase because young people wouldn't have all available information regarding birth control.
To clarify my own stance, I would not want a partner of mine to have an abortion, but, if she wanted one, I would consent because I don't have to carry the fetus. I wouldn't want my standards put on a woman's body in any case.
I know some think that abortion is murder, but to me, life begins at birth. Its a tricky question though and I can see both sides, but I think, as long as abortion is legal, the best way to prevent it is through sexual education.
Fried,
We are in agreement that education is at least one of keys to preventing unwanted pregnancies. We may differ on what should be included in that education. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that pregnancy education would suffer under McCain?
You may choose not to answer this, but I am curious as to how you came to your conclusion that life begins at birth. Is it based on science? Religion? Or is it simply a legalistic approach for allowing a mother to have her unborn infant killed while still inside her? Are you in favor of partial birth abortion?
I haven't heard any prominent Liberals say that they would bolt the party if the wrong person wins the nomination. I have heard some rank & file Democrats say that, but not the talk show hosts or political leaders.
I do agree with you that both parties will fall in line behind their respective nominees. Whichever party does the better job of solidifying will probably win, though I fully expect the Republicans to cheat again.
They have found their wedge issue... this will bring the knuckledraggers out of their caves next November. It will take a Democratic landslide to keep them from stealing the White House... again.