Fox News' Doocy distorted Dean's comments about McCain
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.
SUMMARY: Fox News' Steve Doocy asserted that Sen. John McCain "has not really talked much about his time in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and what happened to him, and they are including some of that archival stuff in a [campaign] video. And now, Howard Dean says that that is 'blatant opportunism.' " In fact, Dean said: "John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years."
On the March 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy asserted that Sen. John McCain "has not really talked much about his time in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and what happened to him, and they are including some of that archival stuff in a [campaign] video. And now, [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean says that that is 'blatant opportunism.' " In addition, on the March 31 editions of Fox & Friends and Fox News' The Live Desk, hosts Martha MacCallum and Gretchen Carlson asserted that "people" are "sa[ying]" that Dean accused McCain of "blatant opportun[ism]" for referencing his military service as part of his presidential campaign. Neither MacCallum nor Carlson cited anyone in particular who was making this claim; on March 29, Republican National Committee chairman Robert Duncan issued a statement that falsely accused Dean of "stating that Senator McCain is a 'blatant opportunist' for discussing his record of military service with the American people." In fact, McCain repeatedly used his experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam during his 2000 presidential campaign, and Dean did not say that McCain's reference to his military record constituted "blatant opportunism."
In a March 28 statement, Dean said:
The American people have been waiting for a president who understands the challenges they face, not another out of touch Bush Republican who promises four more years of the same failed leadership. John McCain can try to reintroduce himself to the country, but he can't change the fact that he cast aside his principles to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with President Bush for the last seven years. While we honor McCain's military service, the fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years.
Yet on The Live Desk, after showing footage from a McCain campaign advertisement, MacCallum asserted that "some people have said -- Howard Dean says it's blatantly opportunistic for him to use this service as part of his campaign, I guess." Likewise, after reading a portion of Dean's criticism of McCain on Fox & Friends, Carlson asserted, "He [Dean] called him 'a blatant opportunist.' And so many people now, of course, saying, 'Well, he must be pointing to his military service,' and the fact that he believes John McCain is taking that over the top by talking about it?" Doocy went on to assert, "Mr. McCain has started a biography tour where he's getting people acquainted with his personal history. You know, he's -- during his public service, he has not really talked much about his time in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and what happened to him, and they are including some of that archival stuff in a video."
Notwithstanding Doocy's assertion that McCain "has not really talked much about his time in the Hanoi Hilton for five years," McCain's experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam played a prominent role in his 2000 campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and was used in his campaign advertisements and a stump speech that year, as Media Matters for America has documented.
From the March 31 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
MacCALLUM: And John McCain releasing a new ad titled "Character Forged by Family" on McCain's history of service to our nation. And today he was on the trail launching this week-long biography tour, is what they're calling it, hoping to cement in the public's mind his personal history and his family's connection to commitment -- that's his mother right there; she's about 95 I think, his mom -- and their service to the country -- and his daughter, and his wife, of course.
But now some are saying that McCain's focus on his service could show his life, career, and global outlook are informed by war and its consequences. That's been raised by a couple of people. So we'll talk about that and that that could highlight his unpopular position on the war in Iraq. So let's see what our panel has to say about this.
Griff [Jenkins, Fox News correspondent], let me start at that end of the desk right now. You know, when you look at this ad -- and we're going to play a bit of it in just a second -- you know, obviously, it highlights his greatest strength, which is his lifelong commitment, and his family's lifelong commitment, to service. Is there any downside in that, do you think?
JENKINS: Well, I think -- look, his story is a remarkable story, and he should tell it, but why right now? I mean, you have -- the oldest rule in politics is when your opponents are clubbing each other, let them do it and stay out of the way. This puts a lot of emphasis on war -- Vietnam War, of course, the centerpiece of this heroic four years in captivity, and everything else he's done. But for Obama -- independent young voters that you may want to woo -- they don't want Vietnam. They don't want this. And so I guess it doesn't hurt, but there is a downside to risking, actually, picking up some negatives and becoming a story you don't want to when you've got Obama and Hillary going at it left and right.
MacCALLUM: Do we have that ad ready to take a look at it? Well, let's take a look at that. They'll just roll while we're talking, how would that be? Here it comes.
AD NARRATOR [video clip]: His grandfather, an aviator. His father, a submariner. They were his first heroes, and earning their respect has been one of the lasting ambitions of his life. They gave their lives to their country and taught young John McCain lessons about honor, courage, duty, perseverance, and leadership.
MacCALLUM: All right. There's a part of the ad. You know, Joe [Watson, author and businessman], when you look at this, some people have said -- Howard Dean says it's blatantly opportunistic for him to use this service as part of his campaign, I guess.
From the March 31 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: All right, let's talk about Howard Dean for a moment, because sometimes when he speaks, controversy is attached to it, and this time he's talking about John McCain, of course -- the enemy on the other side. He says that McCain's military service, while we honor it, "The fact is Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy."
DOOCY: Wait a minute --
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-anchor): Is that [unintelligible]?
DOOCY: He called him what? He called him "a blatant opportunist"?
CARLSON: He called him "a blatant opportunist." And so many people now, of course, saying, "Well, he must be pointing to his military service," and the fact that he believes John McCain is taking that over the top by talking about it? Trust me, if you have any experience at all in this election campaign, you're talking about it --
DOOCY: Sure.
CARLSON: -- because the attack on the other side of the fence is that maybe those two candidates don't have as much experience, and if you look at the math, it doesn't take much to know that that's probably the case.
DOOCY: Absolutely right. And so what would cause him to do this? Well, Mr. McCain has started a biography tour where he's getting people acquainted with his personal history. You know, he's -- during his public service, he has not really talked much about his time in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and what happened to him, and they are including some of that archival stuff in a video. And now, Howard Dean says that that is blatant opportunism.
What's interesting -- and Brian brought this up a little while ago -- is, if somebody wants to take Howard Dean's words and then put them in an ad for John McCain, it would actually make perfect sense, because a couple of years ago when he was supporting John Kerry, Howard Dean said, "Who would you rather have in charge of the defense of the United States of America -- a group of people who never served a day overseas in their life, or a guy who served his country honorably and has three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star on the battlefields of Vietnam?" Of course, Hillary nor Barack have served their country. When he was talking about the three Purple Hearts, certainly Mr. --
CARLSON and DOOCY: -- McCain --
DOOCY: -- has outdone John Kerry. He wound up with a Silver Star, a Legion of Merit, two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart and a Distinguished Flying Cross.
FOX "News" and Rush have made millions and millions telling lies about the Clinton's. Without them, they got nothing.
"......Americans want a real leader who offers real solutions, not a blatant opportunist who doesn't understand the economy and is promising to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years"
Yes Mr. Dean - but now that you have eliminated all the current candidates for president to whom are we to turn?
The choice is obvious.
Progressives throughout our history have championed a more humane society that ensured decent working conditions, fought corporate abuse and corruption, provided support for the elderly and unemployed, protected our natural resources and expanded democratic opportunities for all citizens.
Conservatives have been on the wrong side of these issues for time immemorial.
My regret is that we liberals didn't work harder to put an end to the senseless conservative slaughter of the common good.
Roundhouse - in the words of the great statesman Winston Churchill,
"If you are not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you are not a conservative at fourty, you have no brain".
That is not menat as a personal insult but a realization that liberalism while filled with heartfelt good intentions fails miserably in application. It just takes some experience and maturity to realize it.
Conservative policy has left us all more vulnerable. From the deregulated housing disaster to the lies and half truths about Iraq. It's the psychotic go it alone mentality of conservatism that has been a disaster for Main St USA.
And don't even go there about how conservatism is the rational man's outlook. It's bs. The conservative movement was founded on persuading people with a gut level, emotional sales job.
Read the conman's playbook:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010713152425/www.freecongress.org/centers/conservatism/traditionalist.htm
I believe America stands for equality. According to our founding fathers the man who has prospered is fundamentally no better a human being than the man who struggles to survive, yet conservatives believe in this market fundamentalist vision of an America only for those who can afford it.
You guys are screwball, man. Y'all have proven you're unfit to work on behalf of most Americans.
Please re-read my post. Based on conservative principles is wht I said - Nowhere did I use the word "exclusively".
See my post below for further explanation.
The basic conservative principle is minimal government intervention in the lives of the citizens. See my followup to ACHRISP below on the differences in "Promoting" and "Providing" the General Welfare of the United States.
Liberalism requires the government to interceed in the lives of the citizens in order to acheive equal outcome. Liberalism is based on the economic theory "from those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need". You don't need "Hypothetical" liberal societies to look to for failure - there are many throughout history.
Utter crap, Dems, for at least the last twenty years. Goldwater was the principal exponent of that version of "government-off-my-back" conservatism, and among the far right there is no name more execrated this side of Bill Clinton (or Hillary). The new "conservatism" is actually a sort of right-statism; that is, the use of federal power to enforce, not the traditional statist vision of the so-called Left, but a vision of a society ordered around moral principles of the "Christian" right. The Schiavo case was a perfect exemplar; the traditional Goldwater conservative would have wanted the courts to stay the sheol out of the Schiavo couple's business, while in reality the "conservatives" (with the collusion of a large number of gutless Democrats) did everything they could to bring down the might of the federal government to, as they would put it, "save poor Terri." Some of us used to lampoon it "getting the government off our backs and into our bedrooms." Goldwater himself, in his last famous utterance, simply said that Jerry Falwell needed to be kicked in the a**...
This dissonance between traditional conservatism and the new right-statism is at the heart of the philosophical rift in the Republican party. The idea of minimal government interference in private lives runs counter to the neocon (to use a more common term) idea of using government to make sure we're all right with Jesus...
That's how you define liberalism and conservatism. It's very nice of you to dress up conservatism in that cute little libertarian, individual liberty frock that the defenders of so-called "conservatism" like to do while putting liberalism in a scary communist dictator costume, but neither are completely accurate descriptions and are intellectually dishonest. As long as you insist that conservatism is this mythical perfect philosophy that has only successes to its name and that liberalism is to blame for all social and political failures then there is no basis for discussion or debate.
One would have to believe the basic premise of your challenge in order to answer it. I don't think this country was founded on or owes its success to conservative principles nor would I describe it as a conservative nation. As a nation our political philosophies have gone all over the place for 200 plus odd years and it is not accurate to describe at as either a strictly conservative or liberal nation. If one must stick to those two strict poles, at best we could be described as a moderate nation with swings in either direction.
Your premise is wrong, so your question can't be answered.
I showed you mine. Show me yours. Or are you just reeling off platitudes to get the last word?
Liberals like Martin Luther King fought against conservative segregationists to bring peace and justice to America. Liberals like Mother Jones beat back the conservative tide of worker exploitation to assure protection for working families. What conservative principles guiding the opposition to these liberal causes can you point to and claim are principles worth preserving?
You sellout Republicans are a hoot. You hold materialism and consumerism as the guiding light to your worldview.
You are wrong in assuming I am Republican, and you demonstrate you know even less about conservatism and history than I thought per my message below.
So if you're not a Republican, engage me as fellow liberal or at least as an intersting devil's advocate. Maybe you're a gutless independent? a moderate? Or worse a Libertarian?
I guess I really don't care how you identify since we're in the midst of a disagreement. You can be whatever you want, just bring some reasoning for claiming I'm ignorant of history and conservatism. How is my perspective flawed, smart guy?
Hey Round House - I thought I would point out to you that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Ammendment in 1964.
The original House version:
The Senate version:
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Please don't tart preaching about liberal democrats as the champions of race and unity. We'll have to start talking about Geraldine Ferraro and BO again.
Are you gonna tell me those states rights guys down South had anything other than a conservative mindset when they told LBJ to butt out of their business? That they didn't need no big gubmint tellin' them how to live? It's that, "no government is good government," John Burch type crap those ole boys were preachin'. So don't bother trying imply that liberals were segregationists, pig.
We can talk about Geraldine all you want. What you got to say about her?
But this is exactly as I thought. You're morally rudderless. You can't draw upon any values that guide your politics, so you trot out that skank chart of former Democrats.
Your efforts are as cheap, lame and as uninspiring an effort I've ever experienced in my two and a half years observing MMFA.
Since I reject your defintion of prosperity, it's pretty ridiculous for you to grant me grounds for anything.
My idea of wealth has less to do with material gain and conspicuous consumption; it's more to do with well-being.
How is our well-being as a nation these days? Where does our lifespan, infant mortality rates and general health of our citizens rank among the world's industrialized nations?
Top 5?
Not.
Top 10? 15? 20?
Ooohh. We're not in the top 20.
Pretty sad considering we're the most "prosperous" country in the world., eh?
Tainted meat on our plate and lead paint in our children's toys definitely decreases our well being, our wealth, our prosperity if you will. We can send warm regards to the market fundamentalists for enabling these threats to materialize in our homes.
Honestly, man. How can you adhere to such a debauched politics as conservatism?
....yet conservatives believe in this market fundamentalist vision of an America only for those who can afford it.
Roundhouse - by your words above you have demonstrated your lack of understanding of conservatism.
Please. That's idiotic.
What I said about market fundamentalism has a consistent internal logic based on the personal responsibility myth at the heart of conservatism. In short conservatives believe if you are not prosperous it means you are not disciplined. If you are not disciplined you cannot be moral. Therefore, you deserve your poverty.
Does that about nail it down for ya, sparky?
It is quite easy to do a comparison on the positive vs. the negative attributes of the "New Deal" and "The Great Society". You obviously have not done this but would rather parrot the talking point that they were "liberal failures". You really have no clue how you benefit each day from these programs do you?
What is brutally amazing to me is how the GOP has somehow convinced common middle class people that their brand of economic policy is more beneficial to them. It is an illusionary feat with no equal in my opinion. The fact that you can convince a man who makes 30,000 per year that it is in his best interest to use the government to assist a man who makes $500,000 per year is truly amazing. The fact that you have convinced so many hard working Americans that it is in their best interests to cower to huge corporations because if your good to them they will make sure some of their enormous wealth trickles your way is beyond me. The reality is that you guys can in no way justify how these huge oil companies are walking all over our backs for record profits in a time of war so you put up an illusion that liberal policies which have done more to help move this country forward than any conservative policies are failures. You convince people that even though the GOP is more interested in using government to enrich the already wealthy they are more like you because of God, guns, and gays. Folks like you who deny of the irrefutable evidence of successes with the "The New Deal" and "The Great Society" in favor of supporting an ideology which would rather use the power of government to enrich the wealthy instead of providing for the general welfare are a peculiar breed indeed.
That last sentence should read: Folks like you who deny the irrefutable success of "The New Deal" and the "The Great Society" do so in favor of supporting an ideology in which you would rather use the power of government to enrich the already wealthy instead of "providing for the general welfare" (as we were directed to do) are a peculiar breed indeed.
What is brutally amazing is your lack of understanding of the founding documents and the difference between the words "provide" and "promote" used in the US Constitution. The Preamble reads:
“WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Clause one of Section Eight says; “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”This clause describes the general powers of Congress to collect taxes for the purpose of paying debts and providing for defense and the “general welfare”. It bears the same relationship to the rest of Section Eight the Preamble bears to the rest of the Constitution. It sets forth the general objectives to be followed by the specific powers by which they are to be achieved. These powers, generally known as the “enumerated powers” identify those areas in which Congress is permitted to enact laws directly affecting the lives of common citizens, and are included in the general terms, “defense” and “general welfare”.General WelfareTo borrow Money on the credit of the United States;To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;To establish Post Offices and post Roads;To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;This is the extent to which the Congress is empowered to enact laws to “promote the general welfare” under the Constitution. Experience has shown that, other than these necessary matters, the general welfare is better served and our liberties are better secured when Congress refrains from enacting laws in other areas that affect our lives.Let me try to repost the small print once again hopefully with better luck.
Clause one of Section Eight says;
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”
This clause describes the general powers of Congress to collect taxes for the purpose of paying debts and providing for defense and the “general welfare”. It bears the same relationship to the rest of Section Eight the Preamble bears to the rest of the Constitution. It sets forth the general objectives to be followed by the specific powers by which they are to be achieved. These powers, generally known as the “enumerated powers” identify those areas in which Congress is permitted to enact laws directly affecting the lives of common citizens, and are included in the general terms, “defense” and “general welfare”.
General Welfare
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
This is the extent to which the Congress is empowered to enact laws to “promote the general welfare” under the Constitution. Experience has shown that, other than these necessary matters, the general welfare is better served and our liberties are better secured when Congress refrains from enacting laws in other areas that affect our lives.
That is not a list of "conservative" governing principles, it's a list of items that, from the perspective of the 18th century, one might imagine that government would need to have domain over.
Do you honestly believe that we should not have government agencies such as NASA, the FCC, the FDA, the FAA, OSHA, HUD, the Department of Education, the Office of Social Security or the SEC? Many of these agencies infringe upon the rights of some in order to promote the health and welfare of the general populace. Others in that list go very far outside the constitutional mandates of what government is and should do in order to make the country better. Sometimes these agencies fail in their missions, but that does not mean the missions weren't worthy.
Others in that list go very far outside the constitutional mandates of what government is and should do in order to make the country better.
As long as agencies "Promote" and not "Provide" for the general welfare few conservatives will argue against them unless they deal in issues with strong differing opinions. When government agencies get involved in personal lives in order to accomplish their mission conservatives will rally against them.
Sometimes these agencies fail in their missions, but that does not mean the missions weren't worthy.
Therein lies the biggest failure of liberalism - while it is based on good intentions rarely do the results achieve their stated goals. Liberalism puts aside self reliance and create a dependant class. Conservatism understands people need help form time to time at that is to be provided through charity.
When government agencies get involved in personal lives in order to accomplish their mission conservatives will rally against them.
Not always, Dems; reference my post about the Schiavo case above. To the "Christian" Right mind, involving the federal government in the private lives of citizens for the purpose of maintaining their moral vision of AMerica is perfectly acceptable. At the beginning of the last go-round of that affair, Peggy Noonan (not exactly a liberal, you know?) editorialized to Bush that getting the federal government involved in "saving poor Terri" was a (and I quote) "no-brainer" in that everyone of right mind wanted him to "save poor Terri." Turned out that she was wrong, not only with liberals, but with a number of conservatives who remembered Goldwater with something less than disgust. But of the "conservatives" who matter in the Repub party, nearly every one favored playing the federal-intervention card to the last call...
Therein lies the biggest failure of liberalism - while it is based on good intentions rarely do the results achieve their stated goals. Liberalism puts aside self reliance and create a dependant class. Conservatism understands people need help form time to time at that is to be provided through charity.
All your opinion. As long as we are doing this that way here's my take on that belief of yours. Liberalism can be abused by those who do not want to use the help it offers and choose to become a dependent class instead, because of that it needs to be tempered with some conservative ideas in order to create a working compromise. The welfare reforms of the 90s are a good example of this. Conservatism likes to hold up the abusers of liberal programs as typical examples and use them to call for the abolishing of those programs. A counter-example would be the decimation fof the student loan programs since the year 2000 or the joke called the Medicare prescription program. Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, it does not believe in a society that grows together, it believes in a society that stays exactly the same.
Conservatism is about maintaining the status quo, it does not believe in a society that grows together, it believes in a society that stays exactly the same.
If that were truly the case this country would not have grown into the dominating economic, military, and world leaders we now are.
Only if you accept the idea of this as a solid and strictly conservative nation. Our progress shows that we are not.
I am overstating the negatives of conservativism on purpose, are you beginning to understand what it's like to read word after word of false descriptions of your political philosophy yet?
"Solid and strictly" are your words - not mine. Conservatism is what it is - i didn't define it nor will you be able to redefine it.
NOT TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT BACK TO THE SUBJECT, BUT:
Did anybody notice that Dean (he of the measured word) said McCain PROMISED to be in Iraq for 100 years? Try as I might, I can't find that PROMISE being made by McCain anywhere. I'll go out on a limb and say that no candidate would think it's a good idea to promise that.
I thought Dean had been to school, where a person learns the meaning of words.