AP noted McCain's sponsorship of comprehensive immigration bill, but not that he wouldn't vote for it now
SUMMARY: The AP reported that "Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a 2006 bill, sponsored by Republican candidate John McCain, that offered illegal immigrants legal status on conditions such as learning English." But the AP did not note that McCain has reversed his position on comprehensive immigration legislation and said in January that he would no longer support his own bill.
In an April 29 article, the Associated Press reported: "Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a 2006 bill, sponsored by Republican candidate John McCain, that offered illegal immigrants legal status on conditions such as learning English." AP writer Sophia Tareen did not note, however, that McCain said on January 30 that he would no longer vote for his own bill, having abandoned his support for comprehensive immigration legislation during his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. 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.
McCain has also reversed his position on the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, which would have allowed "illegal immigrants under age 30 to remain in the United States and gain legal status if they attend college or join the military." Clinton and Obama both voted in favor of the DREAM Act, and both support the DREAM Act's enactment.
From the April 29 AP article:
Immigration activists and civil rights leaders are gearing up for rallies and marches in cities across the nation, hoping to revive the stagnant immigration debate in time for the presidential election.
Activists predict turnout for the more than 200 events planned Thursday from Seattle to Miami will be far less than in years past. But they say efforts demanding comprehensive immigration legislation -- including pathways to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. -- have extended beyond the streets.
[...]
Immigration reform hasn't resonated with voters in primary elections who overwhelmingly list the economy as their top concern. Immigration legislation has stalled and been defeated in the Senate. Presidential candidates have not extensively addressed the contentious issue.
"Folks are staying away from the immigration debate, it's a touchy subject," said Luis Gutierrez, executive director of Chicago-based Latinos Progresando. "Some don't want to talk about it, unless it's 'build a fence."
Democratic presidential rivals Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton supported a 2006 bill, sponsored by Republican candidate John McCain, that offered illegal immigrants legal status on conditions such as learning English. All three also have supported a border fence.
Community leaders say fear of raids and mistrust of authorities also might lead to lower turnouts Thursday.
McCain flip-flopped here, but it was a good flip-flop, IMO.
Not mentioning that he would not vote for this bill now doesn't help him with folks [and there were many] who found this bill lacking.
So in this particular case I'm not sure why MMFA would care that his reversal on this issue was omitted.
I'm with you jeter. Why would mmfa want to highlight the fact that McCain has changed course on illegal aliens?
After the peasants stormed the bastille over McCain's immigration stance...and threatened him with his head...he wisely corrected his stance on the issue.
This report should be on newsbusters or some republican site...bemoaning liberal misinformation about McCain being linked with Obama and Clinton.
Why would mmfa want to highlight the fact that McCain has changed course on illegal aliens.
Not mentioning that he was previously a leader in the other direction, by default, hurts the Dem candidates. If they were to have brought this up, it would have further publicized (reinforced) that he's flip-flopped---which goes to his character. And importantly it is germane to the article and a journalistic faux pas to omit it, IMO.
The GOP runs as the real Americans. But real Americans have good character. So mentioning it would have created cognitive dissonance in the potential GOP electorate.
Eddy...lets not over-analyze this. The headline says it all:
-- AP Noted McCain sponsorship of comprehensive immigration bill, but not that he wouldn't vote for it now --
This would be a very appropriate headline for a conservative publication...mad as hell that someone reported the story and still linked him with Obama/Clinton's policy for illegal aliens.
This is just a case of mmfa being too cute by half and getting tangled up in their word-smithing agenda.
I think mmfa is largely unaware and unconcerned about the apparently huge rift McCain's candidacy has created among many ultra conservatives.
I see your point.
McCains original stance was roundly booed by most conservatives...not just the ultra conservatives.
Open-Mind, I'll tell you this...McCain better be very careful in his campaign if he expects to energize the republican party base because many of the natives are restless.
At this point...as a conservative voter...McCain is not very attractive and I can see myself sitting this one out...sure I'll vote but it might be a throw-away write in vote.
At this point...as a conservative voter...McCain is not very attractive and I can see myself sitting this one out...sure I'll vote but it might be a throw-away write in vote.
My thoughts exactly Wes. Right now my plans are to write in the name of my favorite Conservative talk show host--Howie Carr WRKO/Boston.
My mistake, Wes. I didn't mean to marginalize you. My take was mostly from what I have read on what I consider to be ultra conservative websites.
I don't know if it helps, but although I really do like Obama, I am leaning towards McCain. I am a single issue "pro grid-lock" voter. I don't like one party rule - which is likely if Obama wins IMO.
I didn't take it that way...no offense was taken.
It is kinda ironic that a liberal-leaning voter (I hope that's fair) who likes Obama is considering a vote for McCain...and a conservative is on the fence. Throw Clinton into the mix and it's no wonder the pollsters and pundits are struggling to make sense of the race.
This election is easy to handicap. Do you want Gramps to continue the failed policies of Bush/Cheney, or maybe try something new. Gas $4/gallon; foreclosures on every corner; people selling their valuables to pay for food; endless war sucking the last $$ out of the country and into the hands of war profiteers while the innocent die - yeah, let's have some more of that.
Hey, maybe one party rule isn't so bad when the party in power actually CARES about the people it governs.
Imagine what Clinton could have accomplished if he wasn't investigated/demonized by the insane right-wingers who got their panties in a knot over a bj.
OPEN
Are you referring to all that Grid Lock we got going on now???
All you are talking about is switching names of Presidents, the end result will be the same, four more years
Bush is getting everything he wants right now, changing him with McTorture changes nothing
My mistake, Wes. I didn't mean to marginalize you.
Wesley is permanently marginalized.
MMFA’s audience intended audience is dissimilar to most partisan political sites. As a media watchdog, they are writing to those who are concerned about the media itself, as opposed to the race in and of itself. So even if any particular article plays neutrally in substance or even works against their candidates, they may correctly publish it if they feel that it shows off the “conservative” bias or the non liberal bias of the media.
As to the political calculus of whether AP helped or hurt the D’s or the R’s the more with this one particular article, I don’t have an opinion. You imply AP hurt McCain more. What was AP to do? ---not only sin by omission, but also out and out lie to favor your side? The salient matter is the pattern that MMFA has detected and is showing off day after day---this article is just one small part of their evidence.
“MMFA’s audience intended audience is dissimilar to most partisan political sites. As a media watchdog, they are writing to those who are concerned about the media itself, as opposed to the race in and of itself.”---Eddy3957
I could have been more explicit and written:
“MMFA’s audience intended audience is dissimilar to most other partisan political sites. As a media watchdog dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation, they are writing to those who are concerned about the media itself, as opposed to just the race in and of itself.”
“dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation” is taken directly from MMFA’s “Who We Are” page.
-- As a media watchdog, they are writing to those who are concerned about the media itself -- eddy
Eddy, that's the charade that mmfa is hiding behind. They are clearly a partisan liberal operation...but the "media watchdog label" is just the vehicle for them to support liberals and democrats in the elections...not to send media outlets to the principal's office to promote accurate reporting.
Is that a bad thing? Nope...but lets be honest about their motive.
Additionally, it never bothers me when the crappy job done by the media is pointed out...by mmfa or anyone else. Many in today's media are no friend to the voting public.
Wes, if they looked for liberal misinformation in the media we'd have to wait for another blond girl to disappear because it is wall to wall Wright right now?
We'd have nothing to post on
"[Media watchdog is] the charade that mmfa is hiding behind. They are clearly a partisan liberal operation."
the term "media watchdog" by itself does not have partisan connotations.
If MMFA is truly hiding behind a non-partisan label, as you assert, where is it? Show me where MMFA describes itself simply as a media watchdog, because I can't find it.
I can, however, find a mission statement that clearly lays out their partisan intentions and clearly describes the partisan nature of their work.
I don't see a declaration of "media watchdog", non-partisanship, or neutrality mentioned anywhere.
Anyone who views the front page of this site for the first time and reads a handful of headlines can easily surmise what's going on.
Anyone who reads Boehlert's and Foser's opinion pieces get an even clearer picture of MMFA's intent.
You and the rest of WITH Patrol continuously fall flat on your face with this tiresome argument.
McCain flip-flopped here, but it was a good flip-flop, IMO.
Not mentioning that he would not vote for this bill now doesn't help him with folks [and there were many] who found this bill lacking.
So in this particular case I'm not sure why MMFA would care that his reversal on this issue was omitted.
Simple, Jeter. Gramps McCain thought enough of the bill's merits to SPONSOR IT. The fact that he no longer supports a bill that HE HIMSELF SPONSORED shows that he's merely pandering for votes.
"comprehensive immigration reform" - but the bill was defeated.
McCain's position at this point is that before he can push for comprehensive reform we need to secure the border.
An objective person might just say that McCain actually learned something! Maybe more politicians should start listening to the people.
What's funny here is that not only MMFA highlighting something that (if they believed it) would help McCain with the base, but they're misleading you.
MMFA fails to point out that McCain has in no way dropped his support for "comprehensive" "reform". He just has a slightly different way to get the amnesty that he, Obama, and Hillary all support. And, it's not surprising that he'd downplay his own bill considering all the flaws it had and all the flak it received. Bills are a dime a dozen, and someone can drop support for a bill while still supporting the general concept.
MMFA really should stop trying to fool people like this.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712180003#20080207
From the above MMFA article:
A November 4 Associated Press article (retrieved from the Nexis news database) noted that McCain told reporters that he "understand[s] why you would call it a, quote, shift":
John McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants.
[.........................................................................................
........]
Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later.
"I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift," McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. "I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders."
Early in the year, McCain told Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina voters the country must take a comprehensive approach strengthening the borders as well as creating a temporary worker program and providing millions of illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn citizenship if they meet certain criteria.
Over the past few months, he has stressed border security first and said border-state governors should certify their borders are secure before making other needed immigration changes.
McCain said he listened to what the public was saying when the legislation failed and responded accordingly.
"I said, OK. We'll secure the borders, but after we secure the borders, we'll have a temporary worker program, we'll have to address the 12 million people here illegally, and I think the best way is the proposal that we had," McCain said.
Unfortunately, this item mangles the description of the DREAM Act to such a degree that readers who are unfamiliar with the Act would not understand how drastic of a flip-flop Senator McCain's statement of opposition represents.
The article makes it sound as though the DREAM Act would benefit any undocumented immigrant under 30 who attends college or serves in the military. In fact, only individuals who were 15 years old or younger when brought to the U.S., who were brought here more than 5 years before the bill becomes law, and who attended high school here would qualify for the version of the DREAM Act that McCain backed out on.
In other words, the DREAM Act it would solely apply to young people who have grown up in the U.S. as undocumented immigrant children. Under current law, these young people have no mechanism to legalize their status and become citizens. The DREAM Act would provide such a mechanism, but the process could not be completed unless they continue on to college or serve in the military.
All three presidential candidates co-sponsored this limited and common sense proposal this Congress as well as in past Congresses. Senators Clinton and Obama voted to allow it to come to a vote when it came up late last year. Senator McCain skipped out on the vote (he was there to cast a vote on a different subject less than an hour earlier), and told bloggers that he would have voted no.
And that stems from the far right still controlling the debate. We still have to refer to McCain as a brave and honorable American before we criticize him one bit, while Kerry was dragged through the mud specifically for his military service. I mean, the purple heart band-aids were about as blasphemous against the honors in the military as anything I've seen in a long while.
When the hard-right still controls the debate in this country, McCain's going to get a free-pass on a LOT of issues.
Besides not knowing where you got "hard" from, just take a look at the Mission Accomplished analysis for a good example. The fact that most journalism is now basically White House talking points with-out any analysis is a good indicator. For example, this story was originally used by most media outlets to parrot the White House line that our Veteran's were doing fine, relatively speaking. It was the conventional wisdom for weeks. No one bothered to look in to it, and these internal e-mails were eventually leaked to the press, causing the controversy.
Another example: Valerie Plame's outing as a CIA-Agent. Whoever did this, we should have their head on a platter. The issue still hasn't been resolved, and Libby was pardoned out-right with relatively little criticism.
The media no longer rule by truth, they are ruled by fear.
You said "hard" in your post, that is where I got it from.
Your examples hardly show control, which is the very descriptive word you used. An example here and there is not control.
Ahh sorry, I meant far when I said hard. I don't think hard is an appropriate adjective to describe it, IMO.
Tommy, it's just my opinion. But it's an opinion that a lot of people share, and some of who could probably explain it way better than I can.
Overall, the right controls the debate by being consistent, unified, organized, connected, equipped, and financed.
When a juicy tidbit on a prominent Democrat is revealed, the smear machine kicks in and issues an APB. The ripple effect takes hold as the message is repeated in unison over and over again on cable crap news, right-wing radio, Freeper sites, and Murdoch's print empire. The echo chamber gets louder and louder as the sheeple start to believe it, drowning out any attempt by a handful of disorganized and fragmented left-wing voices to inject truth, logic and reason.
While the left has made inroads via the netroots, they continue to drag their feet on becoming a unified voice. If the left remains splintered, it has no hope of wrestling any debate control from the right.
The premise is entirely false. McCain still continues to support amnesty for illegals. If a Democrat Congress passes an amnesty bill, McCain will enthusiastically sign it. He never said that he wouldn't support an amnesty bill. He said it will not come up. It will and he will amnesty all the illegals.
He will also fight a fence.