Brewer uncritically reported that Reagan "says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support"
SUMMARY: After noting former first lady Nancy Reagan's endorsement of Sen. John McCain, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer uncritically reported, "Mrs. Reagan says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support but says it's clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee." However, Reagan endorsed George W. Bush well before the convention in 2000.
On the March 25 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Contessa Brewer noted former first lady Nancy Reagan's endorsement of Sen. John McCain and uncritically reported, "Mrs. Reagan says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support but says it's clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee." Brewer added, "The highly coveted and symbolic endorsement is a significant boon for John McCain's campaign today." However, Reagan endorsed Texas Gov. George W. Bush well before the convention in 2000.
A May 17, 2000, CNN.com article reported Reagan's endorsement of Bush, which was announced that same day "in a written statement issued by the Bush campaign," according to the article. That year's Republican National Convention was held July 31 through August 3 in Philadelphia.
A March 25 statement from the McCain campaign quoted Reagan as saying, "Although it has been my custom to wait until after the Republican National Convention to announce my support of a candidate, it is clear that the Party has chosen its nominee. So it is with great pleasure that I endorse Senator John McCain for President of the United States."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the March 25 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: A campaign alert right now -- Nancy Reagan's endorsing Senator John McCain for president. Mrs. Reagan says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support but says it's clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee. The highly coveted and symbolic endorsement is a significant boon for John McCain's campaign today.
Agreed...and it's also a really dishonest attempt by mmfa.
-- However, Reagan endorsed George W. Bush well before the convention in 2000. -- mmfa
Of course she did...but the race was over when she made her endorsement. The only candidates left at that time were Bush and Keyes...and Keyes was little more than a blip on the election radar. In fact, McCain had already endorsed Bush when she made her statement.
March 9, 2000 -- "I am no longer an active candidate for my party's nomination," McCain said. "A majority of Republican voters made clear that their preference for president is Governor Bush.
May 9, 2000 -- Former Republican presidential opponents John McCain and George W. Bush emerged all smiles from their long-anticipated meeting on Tuesday, as the Arizona senator not only endorsed Bush, but pledged to "enthusiastically" campaign for his once bitter rival.
May 17, 2000 -- "I am proud to endorse George W. Bush for president." -- Nancy Reagan
This thread is nothing more than silly partisan hackery by mmfa...and more evidence as to why their traffic count has plummeted.
And you missed the point...
This thread is not about Reagan...and where did you get the numbers about MMfA's counts again? If posts are any indication, and the number of posters any indication, MMfA is growing my friend.
-- Mrs. Reagan says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support but says it's clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee. --
The exact same thing she did in 2000...announcing her endorsement after the nomination was secured...mmfa knew this was a ridiculous issue...and now you know it.
You must be a newbie...a couple of years ago the threads would routinely generate 100+ comments...a rarity now. Proof...go to alexa.com and see the crash.
And we have a winner in the unintentionally proving the point competition!!!!
Nancy's endorsement of McCain is exactly the same as her 2000 endorsement of Bush. So why report any angle that tries to paint it as different or special? Could it be an attempt at giving McCain that special Reagan approval the Republicans drool over so much? She didn't endorse him until he was the last man standing. That's not the blessing of the mythical Reagan legacy, it's default. Presenting it as anything but that definitely serves as conservative propaganda.
"This thread is nothing more than silly partisan hackery by mmfa...and more evidence as to why their traffic count has plummeted."
And you, as you have proved so often, are still a clueless troll. As pointed out below, you've actually provided evidence to support MM's point, that Reagan typically has not waited til after the convention.
So thanks for being a supporter of this site, dummy.
Apparently there should have been special reports yesterday on this lie. After all all we here about is how Hillary Clinton lied about her trip to Bosnia, why not bring poor old Nancy Reagan into the game.
This item is only peripherally about Nancy Reagan.
I personally think its just another example of sloppy journalism. I mean, I don't think the MSM cares anymore, they just write down what people tell them, then report it.
What we do agree on is that this MMFA item about Brewer is ony marginally important as it pertains to conservative misinformation. Although it's a decent instructional on the way the 24/7 news channels mail in their reports, I'm still done with it. It just isn't that important to argue over.
I would be a little more satisfied with MMFA if they were able to cite more than one instance where Reagan endorsed before the convention.
I mean, holy cow, she said "typically," and we only have two instances as evidence that her "typical" endorsement is not typical after all?
Would MMFA be satisfied if the former first lady was called on her "lie"? Rip her a new one for being so factually inaccurate in her recollections of the specific timing of her past endorsements.....geesh.
I can't speak for MMFA, but I would be satisfied if the report ended with "although it was well before the convention in 2000 when she endorsed GWB."
It's called checking facts and reporting them, and hardly equals "ripping her a new one," as you put it. There is something in between not checking at all what people say and vilifying them. You can bet if a senior democrat like Jimmy Carter made the same statement, it would be examined for its truthfulness.
I saw Mrs. Reagan with Gramps on the news yesterday. He looked like he was going to the prom with his cousin.
At least we'll have something to leave to our grandchildren.
The fact that they weren't makes one wonder what else they're missing.
If it's a matter of the press showing deference to her because of age or status it's just another example of them being too close to their sources to do their jobs correctly.
Apparently you think it's more appropriate to refer to McCain as "the old geezer" rather than "gramps."
Fine.
The senator from Arizona and presumptive Republican presidential nominee will heretofore be referred to as "the old geezer" with your blessing.
Are you condoning age discriminatory slurs against people because of their age?
(Perhaps you should go back and link to posts where I have used those cute little names, I mean, if you have nothing better to do......I don't deny it at all, but it gives you a busywork project, now go, go ahead. Is that condescending enough for you?)
Well, considering the content of your post was me, specifically, while ignoring the age discriminatory slurs I was speaking of, you don't need to condone it by saying so, your post clearly did.
So the next time you rail against someone here for race or sex discrimination, remind yourself of how age discrimination slurs needn't bother to be addressed by you, I would say you shouldn't lecture anyone about hypocrisy, poodle.
Tommy, it appears old Bra is in the lecturing mood today, or just here to stir up trouble. I was getting the same lectures in another thread. I have decided to ignore it from now and and post on the issues. if old Bra has issues that is old Bras problem.
I see your point on the Age discrimination issue, but its all fun here , McCain is running to be president of the US , not the senior center in Tempe.
That is the difference.
Of course you are just being held accountable for your own words. Just like Tommy is.
You two can hold all the pity parties you like, but such whining isn't going to sway too many people.
I know some people who became grandparents in their thirties. I became a grandfather in my forties. Even now I don't consider myself old.
I don't understand your reasoning.
I'm probably closer to McCain's age than I am to most of the posters here. There are many people a lot older than McCain who I don't consider old.
I didn't consider William F. Buckley old. Whenever I saw him on TV he was usually the most animated one on screen. I didn't agree with him, but I understood him. I can't say the same for Senator McCain.
And I'll still call him "Gramps" when I feel like it.
You're making assumptions. I don't have to say anything about "gramps" to point out that you're a hypocrite. I'm not addressing that at all.
My father was fired in an act of age discrimination, so it's not something I condone. Also notice I didn't call you any names, but you felt compelled to lash out at me. Whatever makes you feel superior, I guess.
Your anectodal familial reference is supposed to impress me into thinking you couldn't possibly be condoning age discrimination? Oh, my third cousin calls me poodle and it isn't condescending in the least.
Your turn.
You're actually supposed to understand I didn't condoning anything because I didn't comment on it. WK explained himself, and I wasn't responding to him anyway. That would be the normal thought process. I'm just correcting your ridiculous assumption and using some personal information to bolster it.
I'll leave the condoning to people who use phrases like "old geezer". Seriously, I really don't think it's a major deal, either term is much less derogatory and mean-spirited than "b*tch" or anything racial. With age discrimination it's more a matter of action or advocating fewer rights and privileges for the elderly without taking individual capabilities into account. So "gramps" or a similar term by itself isn't really "discrimination" as far as I see.
Are you condoning age discriminatory slurs against people because of their age?
If it was truly age discrimination, what other reason could there be?
You really don't think before you post, do you?
Tommy
You know the rules, they are pretty clear. Tolerance is demanded by liberals, it is not praticed by liberals. Thats why they can use age, race, gender...anything they like as an attack item. It is only wrong when it is used against them.
And by "reminder", I think you mean "fantasy that helps to support your martyrdom/ victim status".
Poor Tommy & POV. Held to so much higher standards, as all the Mean ol' moonbats ride roughshod over them with their hate horses.Har! You guys are precious!
Nobody knows martyrdom and victim mindsets better than the Utopians who promote said mass mania in the pursuit, and purchase of votes.
It is necessary to keep cultivating such despair, as people eventually grow up, realizing that THEY are the main determinant as to where they arrive in this life. At that point they are no longer easy pigeons.
We're talking about the guy who got a grin out of being asked "how do we stop the bitch", referring to HRC, after all.
According to my sources McCain doesn't give a damn what you call him as long as you contribute a few bucks to his campaign.
" According to my sources McCain doesn't give a damn what you call him as long as you contribute a few bucks to his campaign."
That's going on my wall.
I so love the game of defining liberals by the most extreme examples that the wingnut brigade can find. Can we remember this conversation the next time either of you two complain about a liberal lumping all conservatives together?
This is just a model of how the noise machine operates: Trick the opposition into spending so much time denouncing the fringes of their fellows that they can't get out their message.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to throw a fit everytime anyone says something offensive on this site and I bet I can find offensive statements that went by without Tommy or POV saying anything either. That does not mean I or they approve. Of course if I did spend all that effort in policing potentially offensive speech that would just give the ammunition for the dreaded "PC" label anyway.
That's how the game goes, whatever you do they will attack for it, but they won't ever really find anything of real substance to discuss.
BREWER: Mrs. Reagan says she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support but says it's clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee.
This seems to imply that in recent years the Republicans didn't choose a nominee until the convention. Wasn't it in 1976 when that last occurred?
How are they doing that? Are they spell-checking your posts?
I kid!
The only news in this item, IMO, is that Nancy Reagan is alive. I thought she passed away about 10 years ago.
The point is that this is another example of the media helping John McCain.
I think it's a bigger deal when they said 'the highly coveted and symbolic endorsement is a signifigant boon for John McCain".
We expected her to endorse Hillary? Give me a break.
Lately the media has been constantly trashing Obama and Hillary while they are worshipping McCain.
This isn't about Nancy.
Sorry Tommy but I disagree.
When he is for the Iraq surge he is a man of principle, not looking at the polls.
Ditto for his laisez faire approach to economics, he is pictured as a man who doesn't waver.
Ok, you have one example where he is positively portrayed, which isn't unfair since he was an advocate for higher troop levels from the beginning. The other example is pure nonsense, the press have hammered McCain for his comments on not being an expert on the economy.
Ok, you have one example where he is positively portrayed
Werner's post contained two examples.
Can't any of the wingnuts here engage their brains before they engage their typing fingers?
McCain's forays into the the Democratic party not helpful?
What are you talking about? If McCain wins its because Hillary supporters won't back Obama. And if Hillary pulls it off, Obama's supporters will be angry.
The point is that McCain is being presented as a moderate. maverick. independent.
As for that one story that certainly died a quick death.
And the Times is just one outlet and while not liberal is not as far too the right as most of the media.
You almost sound like a Republican crazy to me, because you are distorting reality or maybe you believe the falsehoods you're pedaling.
It is an objective fact that the media has gone negative on Obama and been positive about McCain. If you deny it its like denying the sky is blue. Non stop on the Wright episode. Saying Obama's speech may be intellectual but politically it's stupid. McCain is a seasoned warrior. Obama is a deer caught in the headlights. And Hillary is determined to do whatever it takes to win.
Okay, I take it back.
The media has continued to be kind to Obama, especially Fox News. They approved of Pastor Wright's sermons or at least presented the story in a fair minded way.
The media has consistently reminded people that McCain is going to continue just about all of Bush's policies, despite the protests of Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
I haven't done a survey based on approved methodology so I can't say what I see with my own eyes because I'm biased.
It's a very large needle.
A larger than the New York Times which was cited by Dextiratis as an example of an outfit that gave McCain a problem.
And it's been a game of the media following the leader, Fox News "reports" and the rest of the media becomes an echo chamber.
It's not so much that McCain is getting a lot of "positive" coverage.... it's that they're giving daily anal exams to Clinton and Obama, and he's not getting the same treatment.
Yep. All these "little" things add up. The way it's reported here, it's clearly meant to rouse the Republicans who are not behind McCain, by stating that their beloved First Lady of their hero President is doing something extraordinary by endorsing McCain, thus saying that they too should get behind McCain.
A good journalist doesn't report press releases verbatim without verifying their veracity.
This just helps give the "movement conservatives" one more excuse to ignore their so-called "principles" and carry water for the GOP...... as usual.
I agree that, again, the media reporter(s) were not being rigorous, but the subject matter is .. well, what can I say? The wife of a President whose policies I deeply disliked, who's contribution to the nation was "Just Say No to Drugs", and who believes in astrology endorses McCain.
Much less offensive than accepting the support of Parsley and Hagee, tho.
Yeah... this piece is kind of weak. I usually take the trash out (for example) but sometimes my wife does. Doesn't make the statement a lie.