Wash. Times ignores McCain's flip-flops on immigration, taxes
SUMMARY: The Washington Times reported that conservatives "have clashed" with Sen. John McCain "on issues such as his support for strict limits on campaign finance, his teaming with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ... on immigration and his votes against President Bush's two major tax-cut packages." However, the article did not mention that McCain now says he would not support his own immigration bill if it came to a vote on the Senate floor, or that he now supports extending Bush's tax cuts.
In a May 21 Washington Times article on federal judgeships as an issue in the 2008 presidential election, reporter Ralph Z. Hallow wrote: "Conservatives said the issue is so powerful that it could be worth looking past what they see as Mr. [John] McCain's other flaws. They have clashed with the senator on issues such as his support for strict limits on campaign finance, his teaming with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, on immigration and his votes against President Bush's two major tax-cut packages." The article did not mention, however, that McCain now says he would no longer support the so-called "McCain-Kennedy" immigration bill if it came to a vote on the Senate floor, or note that McCain has also reversed his position on "President Bush's two major tax-cut packages" -- he now supports their permanent extension when he originally opposed them.
The Times itself has previously reported on McCain's efforts to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party by changing his positions on taxes and immigration. In an October 31, 2007, article headlined "McCain caters to GOP voters," the Times' Stephen Dinan reported: "Sen. John McCain has quietly been piling up flip-flops, including ditching his long-held support for the Law of the Sea convention and telling bloggers he now opposes the DREAM Act to legalize illegal alien students. ... Republican primary voters tilt to the right, and the sea treaty is another example of Mr. McCain veering to try to align himself with them, recanting positions along the way on immigration, tax cuts and campaign-finance reform."
From the May 21 Washington Times article:
Federal judgeships have become the ultimate recurring political battle. The Senate yesterday confirmed the second appeals court nominee of the year, a far lower rate than Republicans had anticipated and underscoring the political stakes involved. Even with Republicans in control from 2003 through 2006 they had a difficult time getting appeals court nominees passed in the face of Democratic filibusters.
Conservatives said the issue is so powerful that it could be worth looking past what they see as Mr. McCain's other flaws. They have clashed with the senator on issues such as his support for strict limits on campaign finance, his teaming with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, on immigration and his votes against President Bush's two major tax-cut packages.
Yeah, WAT? maybe they figured out that MMFA has the right (the opposite of wrong) to post things, and whining about it is just whining.
Naaah, can't be that.
John McCain flip-flopping on issues is NOT news.
True - gramps Mccain's flip-flopping is not news. But the media's constant looking the other way as he flip-flops IS news.
But the media's constant looking the other way as he flip-flops IS news.
That's such a common occurence that it's not news anymore... ;>)
True. I find it interesting too that his followers seem to know this and admire him all the more for it. I wonder why McCain gets a pass on this while Hillary is considered "shameless" for much less.
Appointing (or nominating actually) Federal Judges is a really important, but overlooked presidential campaign issue (an important but often overlooked power of the President)... that's what the Rev. Moon Newsletter's article that MMFA cites, that's what it was actually about, according to the above: "In a May 21 Washington Times article on federal judgeships as an issue in the 2008 presidential election"
That doesn't make me curious to read it though... it's an important thing to discuss, and research even, but I'm about as interested in hearing Rev. Moon's opinion on that National Policy issue, as I am of hearing his opinion about McCain's "clash" with "conservatives", or Moon's opinion on McCain's "support for strict limits on campaign finance" (for which John McCain has the innovative idea of having lobbyists placed on his staff, in lieu of direct contributions), or Moon's opinion on McCain's "teaming with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy"...
I'm about as interested in hearing Rev. Moon's opinion on the "anti-conservative" John McCain, as I am in hearing his opinion on the anti-Christ.
(Rev. Moon changed his name from Mun Yong Myong to Son-myong, because he said Yong, which in Korean means dragon, might be interpreted by Christians as referring to the serpent, devil, or the anti-Christ... he says that's why he changed his name, and not because he was arrested under his former name in Korea, for counterfeiting currency during the Korean War.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev._Moon
We get one of these threads almost daily...
Maybe MMFA should take out ads in every major newspaper, on tv, in magazines, on the internet, & even billboards that read:
Media ignores McCain's flip-flops on immigration, taxes
Just trying to be helpful O:-)
I would prefer the ad to say...
McCAIN IS A FRAUD! ;>)
McCAIN IS A FRAUD! ;>)
Calling Gramps McCain a fraud is an insult to all the frauds in the world. :-)
"We get one of these threads almost daily..."
Maybe, just maybe, it's because a media organization ignores the issue almost daily.
Marblehead?
You just had to take a cheap shot Bush, didn't you? ;>)
Pete,
I wasn't complaining. If the media would do their job, MMFA wouldn't have to repeat these 2 flip-flops.
I thought it was obvious that my suggestion was meant to be humorous...
The media has been ignoring candidates' flip flops lately.
Take Obama's flip flop on meeting the leader of Iran, for example. As you know, he was asked if he would meet separately with Iran's leader without preconditions, and he said yes.
Now he changes the story and tells the New York Times the following:
In responding, Mr. Obama drew a distinction between having his administration begin negotiations with Iran “without preconditions” and getting directly involved himself. He has said Iran would have to meet certain benchmarks before he would get personally involved.
Only the tiny little Daily Howler reported this flip-flop.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051908.shtml
Seeker of Truth,
I think you scared everyone off by posting Obama's flip-flop :-O
They are probably off trying think about a good come back...
But even if they return, they'll just tell ya that only CONSERVATIVE flip-flops are newsworthy here because MMFA is...
Oh go read their mission statement ;-)
Yeah, it scared me so much that I fled in fear to the gym to spend my lunch hour on the treadmill.
Good grief.
Well good to hear you're getting some exercise there Pete. They say it also helps our brain power. Treadmill eh? I prefer the elliptical myself. Just bought one few months ago. I use it before work.
Now where are all your comrades? Maybe they did get scared off??? ;-)
So what say you about Obama's flippity floppity ;-)
Me? I'll give it a shrug. MOST politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths when they're not talking out of their asses.
I'd say he's clarified the issue since then. If someone wants to make a large thing of it, hey knock yourself out. I'd doubt if they had much interest in voting for Obama pior to being aware of it. Pushing it as a flip flop can easily open the floor to Yohnnie's changing positions on this that and that other thing.
Don't taze me bro.
The Daily Howler attacks the media for giving a pass on McCain on a regular basis; so if you suggest the site is protecting McCain, yu are very wrong.