On Morning Joe, Harwood again referred to McCain as a "maverick" who "voted against Bush's tax cuts"
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, John Harwood described Sen. John McCain as a "maverick" without noting any of the numerous actions McCain has taken that undermine that characterization. Harwood later asserted that McCain "voted against Bush's tax cuts" without noting that McCain reversed his position on the tax cuts and now calls for making them permanent, or that he has since offered a different explanation about why he voted against them than he gave at the time.
On the May 13 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood stated: "And in this election, who rose to the top? But -- not the establishment candidates, not the off-the-rack Republican, Mitt Romney, or the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. It's John McCain, maverick, at odds with Bush on some things." Harwood later asserted that McCain "voted against Bush's tax cuts" without noting that McCain reversed his position on the tax cuts and now calls for making them permanent, or that he has since offered a different explanation about why he voted against them than he gave at the time.
Harwood has previously referred to McCain's "maverick brand," as Media Matters for America has documented. Indeed, on the action that Harwood again cited as a mark of McCain's independence -- that he voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 -- McCain now supports their permanent extension. Moreover, McCain said in a May 26, 2001, floor statement that he opposed the bill providing the tax cuts because "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." Yet McCain has since claimed that he originally voted against the tax cuts because they were not paired with spending cuts. During his most recent Morning Joe appearance, Harwood again failed to mention that McCain opposed the tax cuts at the time for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.
From the May 13 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: But you say that the "Washington gridlock may be broken after the general election by reviving the long-dormant political center." Explain.
HARWOOD: We have seen the two parties become increasingly polarized over time. We've got a liberal party and a conservative party. Their bases of support are consistent, they divide the country in consistent ways, we've sent the same electoral map for the last several years. And in this election, who rose to the top? But -- not the establishment candidates, not the off-the-rack Republican, Mitt Romney --
BRZEZINSKI: Right.
HARWOOD: -- or the establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton. It's John McCain, maverick, at odds with Bush on some things --
BRZEZINSKI: From death, by the way. I mean, at one point, his campaign was dead, it appeared.
HARWOOD: Flat on his back.
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
HARWOOD: Like down there. [points to floor]
BRZEZINSKI: Down there.
HARWOOD: Right. The one who voted against Bush's tax cuts, the one who's running on capping carbon emissions, as he talked about in his speech yesterday. That's not what you're used to seeing.
Does MMFA have a record for exactly what day Mr Mcaing cast that particular vote ?I have become very wary of the veracity of these pundits and their truthfullness.
It was in May of 2001:
American taxpayers will receive refund checks of up to $600 this year as part of the ten-year, $1.35 trillion compromise tax cut plan just approved by Congress and now awaiting President Bush's signature. Bush has stated he will sign the bill after Congress returns from the Memorial Day recess on June 5.
Meeting in a rare weekend, pre-holiday session, Congress on Saturday gave its final approval to the deepest tax cuts since 1981. The compromise bill reduces all income tax rates by three percentage points by 2006.
The compromise bill was approve on Saturday by votes of 240-154 in the House and 58-33 in the Senate.
In the House, the bill won the votes of 211 Republicans, 28 Democrats and one independent. One independent and 153 Democrats voted against it.
In the Senate, 12 Democrats voted for the bill, as did 45 Republicans and newly independent Sen. Jeffords of Vermont. Republican Senators McCain of Arizona and Chaffee of Rhode Island joined 31 Democrats in voting against the bill. Source: http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa052701a.htm
A republican candidate whose publicly trying to distence himself from an unpopular president, while his staff conferrences almost daily with the White House. Having the media carrying your water even as they sometimes have to admit that he's wrong. Honerable even as actions indicate questionable ethics.
Now appartently a protector of the envirenment, who has no credibilty as a historic protector of said envirenment.
Why am I supposed to be unused to seeing this? The same reality disconnect the GOP's being running for 30 years plus.
Exzcept for the 28% ( or whatever the zombie population is by then) who have really enjoyed the past 8 years.
Oh yeah, and the Charlie Brown impersonators who are going to try to kick that football once again, because they're pretty sure this is a new, Maverick Lucy Van Pelt.
I live in New Orleans, the deep, deep south, and I don't hear such vile and stupid ideas.
I'm temporarily living in Metairie (if you want to call it living) until my house in New Orleans is rebuilt and I hear some of that kind of talk. Sadly, racism still abounds in some parts.
HARWOOD: We have seen the two parties become increasingly polarized over time. We've got a liberal party and a conservative party.
This is a theme which I have noticed lately. The definition of "liberal" as defined by the republican far right, merely means that opposition to far right policies is "liberal" The middle ground, what used to be called moderate is completely missing.
The other thing that is amazing is that the conservatives get carte blanche by identifying themselves as conservatives, when in fact their policies and ideas are reactionary in nature
Bush Political Rototiller Machine?
I think John McCain took that piece of equipment off of Bush's hands...got a good price on it, too. ;>)
Well Sands, I would say conservatism means to keep things the way they are and perhaps make changes very gradually. Reactionary thinking is trying to go back to a previous time. So maybe appointing supreme court Justices who wish to break precedent(Roe Vs. Wade) is one example.
Tax policy which favors the very rich at the expense of the middle class is another.
International policies such as the bush doctrine and occupation of Iraq also qualify.
The freedom of Information act has been a target of this administration since it transferred control to a less independent body.
The concern for wildlife and the environment is a another area where the Bush Administration seems to be going backwards.