CNN's Costello reported that McCain "would" support AZ ban on same-sex marriage, but not that he did in 2006 -- and it lost
SUMMARY: CNN's Carol Costello said that Sen. John McCain "told reporters ... he would support a [same-sex marriage] ban in his own state of Arizona in November," without noting that McCain previously supported such a ban in Arizona that was rejected by the state's voters in 2006.
On the May 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, correspondent Carol Costello said that Sen. John McCain "told reporters on his bus today that he would support a California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, and he would support a ban in his own state of Arizona in November." However, Costello did not note that McCain previously supported "a ban in his own state of Arizona" that was rejected by Arizona voters in 2006. The Arizona Republic reported in a May 16 article that "[i]n 2006, Arizona voters became the first in the nation to reject a constitutional ban on gay marriage. That measure also would have banned domestic partnerships and stopped government entities from providing benefits to unmarried partners, gay or straight, a provision that many observers believe led to its defeat." According to the Republic, "The referendum being pushed to the ballot this year doesn't include the domestic-partner piece."
Additionally, Costello said that McCain "would not support a federal constitutional amendment," but did not note that McCain reportedly will not try to strip from the GOP platform the call for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The Washington Times reported on April 2 that "McCain associates told The Washington Times that his operatives are not going to work behind the scenes to eliminate the party's calls for constitutional bans on abortion and homosexual marriage before the GOP convention in September."
From the May 16 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
COSTELLO: But if the same-sex marriage issue were to fire up social conservatives in close states like Florida, it's certainly possible that this issue could make all the difference again.
You just never know.
John McCain, by the way, told reporters on his bus today that he would support a California ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, and he would support a ban in his own state of Arizona in November. But he would not support a federal constitutional amendment. He said it's a state issue -- back to you, Wolf.
WOLF BLITZER (host): All right, Carol, thanks.
McCain is flipping and flopping at the same time on the issue. He's against a federal amendment but for state amendments.
" now that John McCain has taken flip-flopping to another level "
You mean one where he isn't flip-flopping? Well, that is certainly a level of flip-flopping that Kerry never attained. Headlining flip-flops usually are followed with actual flip-flops. Let's try to keep it within those simple parameters.
Jeez, Philib...
I thought John McCain opposed Bush's tax cuts...
I thought John McCain was lobbyists' worst nightmare...
I thought John McCain believed Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberton were "agents of intolerance"...
I thought John McCain had George Bush pegged for his dishonesty, beginning with the 2000 Presidential primaries...
I thought John McCain was against our goverment's use of torture...
I thought John McCain favored campaign finance reform...
McCain is a fraud and no matter how much you attempt to divert attention from that fact McCain's record is plainly one of political opportunism. There is no core position McCain will not change to pander for votes.
"Screw the headline... McCain's record is that of a flip-flopping fraud. You're simply trying to divert attention from that fact."
No, I'm trying to stay on topic. This article is about ONE issue of supposed flip-flopping. You make up a half dozen other issues, then say this non-issue isn't important. Are you saying that mmfa doesn't have the knowledge to discern right from wrong?
Liberals on this site care about hypocrisy, or haven't you discerned that yet? It's hypocritical for the media to have highlighted supposed flip-flops by Kerry and ignore those by McCain.
Liberals were not bothered by a thoughtful change of opinion like what Kerry did. Liberals care, as anyone should, about hypocritical changing of an opinion to fit a political agenda. Liberals are bothered by the hypocrisy that is demonstrated by complaints about Kerry's flip-flopping compared to non-complaints about the same behavior from McCain.
"Liberals on this site care about hypocrisy, or haven't you discerned that yet?"
I thinik you're very misstaken. I've pointed out liberal hypocrisy time and time again, yet none of you seem to care. Here's one issue of major hypocrisy from liberals: how do you stand on the issue of cruelty to animals? How does your stance on cruelty to animals equate to your stance on treatment of unborn humans? It seems quite hypocritical to demand humane treatment to animals yet demand the right to kill unborn humans for whatever reason.
"Liberals were not bothered by a thoughtful change of opinion like what Kerry did."
That's funny. What "thoughtful change of opinion" has Kerry expressed and McCain hasn't? If that's what you call flip-flopping, then McCain does it the same as Kerry. So, why all the complaints about McCain having a "thoughtful change of opinion"? Does that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
He's against a federal amendment but for state amendments.
FYI: (States rights issue)
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Maybe you can help him that......that has been your entire life
You should talk, POV. You're one of the biggest losers I've ever seen.
Nice of MMFA to note that McCain didn't flip-flop on this one.
I believe this is cause for celebration...
The first issue that McCain has taken only one side on!
(besides deference to Bush, of course)
Additionally, Costello said that McCain "would not support a federal constitutional amendment," but did not note that McCain reportedly will not try to strip from the GOP platform the call for a federal constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The Washington Times reported on April 2 that "McCain associates told The Washington Times that his operatives are not going to work behind the scenes to eliminate the party's calls for constitutional bans on abortion and homosexual marriage before the GOP convention in September."
McCain isn't flip-flopping. It looks like he simply wants to have it both ways here. No Democrat would be allowed to get away with this much nuance.
What is the beef here with Costello's reporting? Just because McCain supported such an amendment in his own state and it lost? Is MMFA implying that McCain is out of touch with voters or something?
We all know how much McCain is loathed around here, but what is the purpose of this thread? WITH?
Considering he has the same position on it as he did two years ago, and darnit anyway, if he had only flip-flopped!!.......drats!
The answer to your question? - nothing.
If the subject of the story was another attempt by the state of Arizona to pass a ban on Gay marriage you would be correct.
The topic of the story is McCain, now a candidate for POTUS, and his position on the subject, not the indidual states.
What's the big deal about this particular omission?
He supported it before.
He's supporting it now.
So big whoop-de-do.
MMFA can find enough about McCain without bringing up something lame like this.
Tommy, since Arizona is represented by two Republicans Senators who supported the state ban on same sex marriage, noting that Arizona was the first state to soundly defeat an issue that is part of the Republican platform IS important.
A reporters job is to report the facts.
Carol could have also reported that due McCain's support for campaign finance reform and gun control and his opposition to a federal ban on gay marriage conservatives in McCain's own district #11 lead a revolt against McCain.
Haney introduced a resolution in District 11 to censure McCain for "dereliction of his duties and responsibilities as a representative of the citizens of Arizona." After the resolution coasted through the district, it was introduced before the GOP committee of Maricopa County, Arizona's largest, encompassing Phoenix and Scottsdale (once home to Barry Goldwater).
At the time McCain was reinventing himself as a stanch conservative by appearing at Falwell's Liberty University and the Discovery Institute.
Haney's resolution passed by a nearly unanimous vote. "No one in the party structure would dare say anything about McCain and the grassroots was enraged, so I voiced their concerns," Haney said. "And McCain and the party establishment came down on me hard. They said, 'You're going to destroy his chances in the presidential campaign.'"
No wanting anything to interrupt his makeover he tried to remove state committeemen Rob Haney. Needless to say McCain didn't defeat Haney. As a result of that and many other things McCain supported and refused to support Haney says:
"The guy has no core, his only principle is winning the presidency. He likes to call his campaign the 'straight talk express.' Well, down here we call it the 'forked tongue express.'"
"This just shows that McCain is mentally unstable and out of control and vindictive," Haney told me. "If he is determined to go through that much trouble to attack a district committee chairman, what does that say about his ability to handle real political problems?"
Wow, Costello missed a lot.
Tommy, did you forget to add the 'sarcasm' tag?
Pearl
Thanks for the lesson on what you think a reporter should do. Now maybe you can be the first to point out the lie in the story....or whatever you busy bodies do.
whatever you busy bodies do.
POV, this busy body has time to tell you to bite me. :->
Why don't you go to the playground and pick on someone your own (mental) age.
The people who are POV's mental age are still fetuses......
POV, this busy body has time to tell you to bite me. :->
One of your best responses ever, Pearlene. :-)
"noting that Arizona was the first state to soundly defeat an issue that is part of the Republican platform IS important."
The fact that domestic partnership was part of that last bill doesn't matter, does it? The fact that all un-married couples would have lost rights with the last bill doesn't matter does it. All unmarried couples would have lost benefits with the last bill.
Did you miss that part, or were you just trying to convey further misinformation by insinuating that 'gay marriage' rights were what caused the last bill to fail?
Nobody would anser this question the last time I was able to ask it, but 'why are gays seeking the word "married" when all they desire are equal rights'? What is their ultimate goal by demanding "marriage" abilities?
'why are gays seeking the word "married" when all they desire are equal rights'?
This is the million dollar question Phil, and few want to publically acknowledge the answer. It is because the word "marriage" connotates a socially acceptable relationship. What do you think when someone says they are "married", when they say they are in a "domestic partnership"? The majority of society understands that gay's should have equal rights, which is why they are for domestic partnership arrangements, however that same majority does not want the gay relationship normalized. The US is still a predominantly Christian nation, and in Christianity, homosexuality is a sin. Being for domestic partnerships and against gay marriage is a way to love the sinner and hate the sin.
You make an excellent point. Divorce is sin - and unfortunately society has not only normalized it but made it a big business.
"...why are gays seeking the word "married" when all they desire are equal rights?"
To my knowledge organized religion does not own copyrights to the word "marriage". Why should you have the right to determine the meaning and usage of the word?
It is because the word "marriage" connotates a socially acceptable relationship.
I did not imply marriage was a religous term or concept. However the majority perceives marriage as a religous bond befer a socail one, a perception that will not be easily changed.
Just as it was socially acceptable to demean and enslave people of color, right? Sometimes you right-wing pantywaists need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Get over yourselves and your 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" mentality...you know, that mentality that only existed on televison programs, where you had an obediant wife who stayed home all day, 2.6 kids, a car in the garage and such...
But you forget, life really wasn't like that back then - and you regressive twits will never be able to go back to a lifestyle that never truly existed.
"Just as it was socially acceptable to demean and enslave people of color, right?"
I recently saw Eddie Izzard live, and he mentioned the treatment of slavery in the Bible as a key reason he doesn't put a lot of stock in it (a point I've made myself many times). Slavery isn't forbidden in the Bible, but instead it tells us how to treat our slaves. And if the Bible is the work of the Lord, then obviously He didn't have a big problem with enslaving our fellow humans as long as we treated them a certain way.
Yet today, slavery is almost universally denounced as immoral. Are so many Christians really expressing disagreement with God's word? Or is it just that the morals of the Bible are based on the social standards of its time? Just as the attitude about slavery has turned from positive to negative, views about homosexuality are turning the other way.
"Slavery isn't forbidden in the Bible, but instead it tells us how to treat our slaves. "
We get Biblical iterpretations from a liberal. Oh, yeah, that ought to be good! Are you saying that ethical/moral treatment of workers is demanded for in the Bible? Why are you comparing the African slave trade to Biblical statements? I hardly see the comparison.
But, I don't see you complain about murdering unborn babies. I'm sure there is something in the Bible about murdering humans. Are you 'picking and choosing' which part of the Bible YOU are willing to follow, or just the ones Christians should be following??
"We get Biblical iterpretations from a liberal. Oh, yeah, that ought to be good! Are you saying that ethical/moral treatment of workers is demanded for in the Bible? Why are you comparing the African slave trade to Biblical statements? I hardly see the comparison."
"Workers" are different from "slaves". I didn't make that comparison, I'm not sure how it's relevant to my point. Slavery isn't denounced in the Bible, yet we consider it immoral today, because morality is based on societal standards and not biblical ones.
"But, I don't see you complain about murdering unborn babies. I'm sure there is something in the Bible about murdering humans. Are you 'picking and choosing' which part of the Bible YOU are willing to follow, or just the ones Christians should be following??"
I don't follow the Bible at all, my morals are based on humanism instead of faith. That should have been clear, since I'm discrediting the Bible based on its treatment of slavery. We've been over the issue of abortion before, it's something that should be avoided as much as possible but shouldn't be illegal and isn't "murder" anyway.
"I don't follow the Bible at all, my morals are based on humanism instead of faith. That should have been clear, since I'm discrediting the Bible based on its treatment of slavery."
Yes, I can tell you do NOT follow the Bible. Why don't you ask someone who does what the original language translation that we got "slave" from is. But, since you're not interested in knowing the truth, you probably won't bother.
Is it humanistic to harm a defensless human being? Is it humanistic to harm a defensless animal? Why do you treat animals better than human beings? Is THAT your "humanism" showing through? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
Embryos and fetuses aren't people. They have no rights independent of the will of the potential parents. Once a child is born then they have rights because their welfare is promised through the act of birth. If you think that there shouldn't be abortions because you consider a fetus to be equal to a grown adult, then that's your opinion, and has no objective bearing on the character of liberals.
As for the Biblical view of slavery, even if it does say "workers" (and I don't know what you're basing the "translation error" argument on), why doesn't it just say that slavery is immoral as well? God thought it was important to talk about mixing fabrics, but enslaving humans doesn't get a mention at all?
What do you mean it is called mis-info? Where is the mis-info in the report?
There isn't any POV.
McCain supported this ban before. And just because CNN failed to mention he supported it before, some here have their shorts in a twist.
If one were honest, they'd admit it adds up to nothing. Certainly not mis-information. And nobody is lying.
Bottom line: It's an omission that means diddly squat except to the nit pickers.
Incorrect. The first-ever statewide rejection of banning gay marriage matters and it should have been reported here.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2008/05/arizona-gay-mar.html
Yes - in November 2008 there may be a new ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in Arizona. McCain is saying that if it is on the ballot he will vote for it. He does not support it as a federal issue however because he believes it is a state matter.
What would including the outcome of the 2006 state od AZ add to this story?
Reporting that Arizona voted against the ban in 2006 (first state ever to do so) would add to CNN's report on a future vote for the ban in Arizona as a simple matter of precedence.
Arizona's 2006 bill not only would have banned gay marriage but would also have banned equal rights for all domestic partnerships. The new initiative bans gay marriage but leaves domestic partnerships in place. To simply state that AZ defeated a gay marriage proposal without delving into the specifics of the bill would have been real misinformation - perhaps the kind MM likes. As none of that was the topic here it had no place in the story.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
Of course Dems, you are dead on. But to argue it with those who refuse to see it is pointless. Liberals tend to argue from emotion, and when that emotion gets in the way, as with this issue, then to look at this thread objectively and realize exactly why it's here is never gonna happen.
Governor, Agree to disgree.
Governor, Agree to disgree.
Don't tell me what to do.
I can tell you just about anything
No you can't.
Correct reporting would have been "McCain did support a ban on same sex marriage in his home state of Arizona in 2006, but it was voted down by the people."
The misinformation is not just about McCain, but hiding the fact that Arizona voters support same-sex marriage. We can't have people thinking their fellow citizens think it is all right.
"Time has always usually brought more people to a forward-thinking live-and-let-live mentality."
You mean like how people used to thing killing unborn humans was wrong? And, now they think it is a right given to them by God? If that's the kind of "forward-thinking live-and-let-live mentality" you want, then I'll take a pass on that kind of hypocrisy!
If she had done her job properly the context of her reporting would certainly have changed and so would the meaning.
In her report the meaning conveyed was that Arizona had not decided on banning same-sex marriage. It had. McCain supported the ban and it lost.
That would have been a complete report.
"Meh, changes nothing"
And just exactly WHAT is it SUPPOSED to "change"? She lied by ommission and that furthers the agenda which MMFA is dedicated to exposing. They exposed it nicely. If it's too subtle for YOU to grasp that's hardly MMFA's fault.
"Ok, so I will ask you, just what is this "subtle" conservative misinformative agenda that Costello is furthering here in this report with regards to McCain, specifically?"
Read it again, and keep reading it until you get it. I didn't say the agenda was subtle...I said the lie by ommission was subtle. Lying by ommission is one of the hardest lies for black-and-white thinkers to grasp. Sound familiar?
"You can't do it any more than anyone else could, ok."
No surprises there. Fortunately you're not the only one reading these posts and it's obvious that there are a LOT of people out there who DO get it. Black-and-white thinking is a sad thing. Which keeps getting proven here.
Sorry, Doggone. You failed to force Tommy to understand something. He wins. ;0)
I hope you rightys come up with something better than the brick-headed playing dumb offense pretty soon. If that's all you're putting in your playbook, it's going to make for pretty dull discussions between now and November.
Although it is mildly entertaining to watch the chest-thumping victory dances of those who think they've proven something doesn't exist by their inability to understand it.
Hahaha! That is a classic. You rock, Colonel. I hope you write professionally. I have seen many authors in print for major publications that aren't anywhere as gifted as you.
: )
The only reason this is here is because MMFA wants to show McCain as not only being anti-gay, but out of touch with his own state's voters. It has nothing to do with misinformation or furthering of any conservative agenda.
You can talk all you want about discrediting some vote, which is absurd, but the WITH is obvious.
I think it forwards the conservative agenda by failing to show McCain's willingness to defy of the will of the people in a state, especially when you factor in Costello characterization of McCain's position that it's a state issue and the fact that McCain is running for president.
The conservative agenda, based upon the events of recent years, appears to include overriding the will of the states to decide for themselves. For example, the Bush Administration has gone after Oregon's medicinal marijuana and assisted suicide laws, both of which were enacted by a vote of the people.
The prospect of another administration using the courts to deny the rights of states to make their own laws is an issue that the people of each state need to consider.
What I'm saying is that it IS an election issue.
The people of Arizona spoke, but McCain doesn't care, he still wants it outlawed in his state. He's a senator and he's running for president. He's in a position of leadership and influence, who is vying for even more influence.
The people need to take this into account, and the people depend on the media to inform them of things like this.
Nice argument. So convincing. Especially your assertions. Take that, stupid liberals!
; )
Yes, but what you're failing to acknowledge is that the people of Arizona have already voted down a law banning same-sex marriage. Even though the people of Arizona (who have put McCain in the Senate for how long?) voted it down, McCain wants to support a ban. Since he cannot get it passed in his state, as a state's right issue, he wants a Federal ban. Nice.
What ever happened to you so called "states' rights" proponents? What, if it doesn't work on the state level, you call on the Feds? Rightwingers are such crybabies. "WAAAAHHHH, we aren't getting our way on the state level, even though that's what we believe in, so we're calling Uncle John to solve it".
The use of "would support a ban" implies that no such ban has been tried before and that the citizens of Arizona have not expressed their opinion.
At least they got a say. Here in Massachusetts the Gay lobby has fought to keep it on the ballot so we the people can't vote on it... because they know they would lose.
That should read:
keep it off the ballot
"so we the people can't vote on it... because they know they would lose"
So...you would support the tyranny of the majority over a minority. Something our Constitution is emphatically designed to prevent. Even "we the people" can't vote away the rights of someone else. Which is what a marriage ban is meant to do.
Open_mind,
You misunderstood my point, or perhaps I wasn't very clear.
The subject here revolves around a vote by Arizona citizens. I was simply saying, hey at least they got to vote. Something we here in Massachusetts have not been allowed to do. Call it a matter of principle. Same-Sex marriage here in Massachusetts was the result of a State Supreme Court ruling.
BTW, how I'd vote might surprise ya ;-)
I'm sorry for being presumptuous, Jeter.
Because, Jeter, this is a (state) Constitutional issue, needing a court's direction, preferably a (state) Supreme Court. For hundreds of years, people wanted to own other people, and as dispicable as it is, it took how long for people to realize that it's not right to own other people? Oh, the Bible tells me it's ok...
Well, the Bible is wrong.
The courts are there to support the tyranny of the majority against those who are discriminated against. They determine equality. It's not equal to allow some folks to marry and to deny it to many others. That's an equality issue.
As for a morality issue, I would say that straight folks really don't have a moral right to tell gays whether or not we can marry, especially since you straight folks don't take it as seriously as you should. Look at your divorce rates and then tell me that your institution is so sacred. Look around you in your beloved state (I happen to love Massachusettes, even before gay marriage) and tell me that gay marriage has torn apart the fabric of your society. You'd be lying if you said it has.
Look around you in your beloved state (I happen to love Massachusettes, even before gay marriage) and tell me that gay marriage has torn apart the fabric of your society. You'd be lying if you said it has.
Did I say that?
Read my above reply to Open_Mind.
Never said that you did, I said "If you'd (you would)..." and I'm speaking to more than just you, Jeter. I should have made that clear. You're a more fair-minded conservative than some of the jagoffs that post here.
The overall point that I was making was that there are people who scream and yell that same-sex marriage is an afront to the institution of marriage. Not once have any of these folks given a viable example of how it's an afront to marriage - other than some stupid "God thinks it's wrong", which is pretty presumptuous, considering that NONE of us know what God thinks. Yet after they scream about it being an afront to marriage, they turn around and divorce (among other things). If you (not you specifically, Jeter) are someone who has been divorced five times, have had extra-marital affairs and the like, I seriously doubt you hold the institution of marriage in as high regard as you state you do (again, not you specifically, Jeter). But then again, Conservatives are good at being hypocrites.
"Correct reporting would have been "McCain did support a ban on same sex marriage in his home state of Arizona in 2006, but it was voted down by the people." The misinformation is not just about McCain, but hiding the fact that Arizona voters support same-sex marriage."
Correct reporting would have mentioned that same-sex marriage wasn't what was being rejected by that bill. Much like the misinformation you promote by portraying that Arizona voters support same-sex marriage, when in fact Arizona voters support equal benefits, not loss of benefits which would have happened should that bill pass. Run your cause without all the added "pork" and see how far it makes it with the Arizona voters.
MMfa would like a little background. You seem to want futher nuance on the issue. Like maybe real detailed info.
Sounds good to me!
Tommy
I agree, I do not get the point of this other than MMFA really hates McCain which we all get . McCain ate strawberries yesterday , CNN Costello failed to mention that and also what time McCain took a Sh*t.
It is silly.
And one could argue that it shows McCain's Mavericky side again, considering he is at odds with California's governor on this one.
But somehow I doubt that is MMFA's intention.
He is also at odds with voting public of Arizona.
More evidence of him being the maverick that MMFA like to poke holes in....what is more "mavericky" than disagreeing with your own voters? And he explains that nicely by saying it is a state's rights issue. He is not pushing his own states votes on another state, perfectly consistent with conservatism and federalism.
Ok, it seems silly to have to repeat it, since it's right in front of your face, but here it is again:
Well, like I said before, I prefer to let the actions of conservative leaders define conservatism for me. I do not let radio show hosts, bloggers, forum posters or wikipedia define it for me. If this is not a good way to get it defined, what is?
"what is more "mavericky" than disagreeing with your own voters?"--tommy
That was a good one, tommy! I think that is the best spin I have seen in a long time. (I know that sounds snarky, but I really do think that was pretty funny).
: )
Either Costello was just parroting McCain or deliberately chose to exclude the information.
On the one hand it could just be inept reporting on the other deliberate dis- or misinformation.
"I agree, I do not get the point of this other than MMFA really hates McCain which we all get "
It's really a shame this has to be repeated so many times. But EVENTUALLY you MIGHT *GET* it: this is not about McCain. It's about how the media REPORTED IT. It was reported by a lie by ommission.
"There was no lie in this report. "
Ok, you're half-way there. Now go the rest of the way. The lie was in what was NOT in the report.
It was in the dis-service to the American people that "all" the information be presented.
When will media get it? We want the information, all of it, if it is there, not an agenda of just telling us a piece of the information so that our minds cannot see the "entirety" of what the real information is.
I know I am not saying this very well, but, information is the only way we can make our minds up on a vote. If we don't have ALL the information we vote blind.
The first sentence is a bit obscure, but I'm not one to complain about that.
Thank you for dropping in Lorelei. :-)
Dog,
I don't believe the Constitution was mentioned, or the Bill of Rights (correct me if I am wrong). Would it not be as logical to argue that the absence of these two documents (or any other you chose) also constitutes misinformation? If that is the case, then everything is misinformation in one way or another because every article or interview can be construed as missing some information.
Another PPTKA (Please Pass the Kool Aid) article by MMFA.
"Would it not be as logical to argue that the absence of these two documents (or any other you chose) also constitutes misinformation?"
Nope. What was left out was germane to the report about MCCAIN. Those documents would be germane to a report about the SUBJECT. This report was not directly about gay marriage...it was about McCain's attitude towards gay marriage. It lied by implication...as has been stated in several other posts...that IF his state had such a vote for a ban he would support that ban. It failed to include the relevent information that his state ALREADY had such a vote.
That is important information that was left out. Why is that so hard to understand?
Dog,
My point is that I do not believe it is misinformation. You can argue incomplete, but even without the information about Arizona, McCain explained his position and it has not changed.
The added information does not change at all McCain's position or our understanding of it.
Bob,
The reason this is here, in my view, is not because it furthers any conservative agenda, nor because it is misinformative at all, but precisely because Costello's report does not further the anti-McCain agenda.
It can't be demonstrated here as a McCain flip-flop, which would have been MMFA's preference, but at the very least had Costello included the Arizona info it may show him being out of touch with voters, I guess, and any little morsel that puts McCain in a negative light, no matter how dim, is always preferred here. Anti-McCain advocacy at work, however weak, pushing the narrative a teensy bit, that is why this is here.
MMFA has a valid point. It is not one of their better ones, but it is valid. MMFA's point would provide the reader additional relevant information.
The analogy to what McCain ate yesterday is not relevant at all and pretty vapid on its face.
Presenting the universal WITH defense; use it liberally:
1) internet paper is really cheap
2) nothing in MMFA's article was incorrect, misleading, or out of context
He said it's a state issue -- back to you, Wolf.
Yeah, it's a state issue, and I just spun McCain's pledge to go against the interest of his home state as a strong suit, so back to you, Wolf.
W.I.T.H ?
I guess I;m missing the misinformation. McCain did support the ban - says he would again'? Is the fact that voters disagreed with him misinformation?
Media Matters is once again advancing an agenda as opposed to disclosing misinformation.
More of your appeasement phlosophy in action DS. You'll let them get away with not giving a comprehensive overview or enough background to allow johnQ to make intelligent choices.
A more extreme example would be the "military Analyist" story. Keeping the public uninformed is classic. What they don't know can't hurt thems.
You're ok with that, thank you for playing.
Buh by.
It was in the dis-service to the American people that "all" the information be presented, not some of the information.
When will media get it? We want the information, all of it, if it is there, not an agenda of just telling us a piece of the information so that our minds cannot see the "entirety" of what the real information is.
I know I am not saying this very well, but, information is the only way we can make our minds up on a vote. If we don't have ALL the information we vote blind.