On Hannity & Colmes, Conway falsely suggested McCain has been consistent on voting for war funding
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: On Hannity & Colmes, Kellyanne Conway falsely suggested that Sen. John McCain has been consistent in voting for funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Purporting to contrast McCain with Sen. John Kerry, Conway asserted: "John McCain never voted against and then voted for, and then voted against and for." In fact, in March 2007, McCain himself voted against an emergency spending bill that would have funded both wars.
On the May 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Republican strategist and pollster Kellyanne Conway purported to contrast Sen. John McCain with Sen. John Kerry, asserting, "John McCain never voted against and then voted for, and then voted against and for," a reference to a comment Kerry made during his 2004 presidential campaign about votes he took on war spending legislation. But contrary to Conway's suggestion that McCain has been consistent in voting for funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Media Matters for America has noted repeatedly when media have uncritically reported McCain's attacks on Democratic candidates for voting against Iraq war spending bills, on March 29, 2007, McCain himself voted against an emergency spending bill that would have funded those wars.
Conway went on to assert that "[Sen.] Barack Obama has a 'John Kerry' problem. He has the 'conceit of the elite' problem." She added: "He seems like somebody who you could picture windsurfing. ... This is a guy who went to Iowa and said, 'I love Whole Foods,' and ... there's no Whole Foods in Iowa. He said he loves arugula salad. He went to Philly and wanted the cheese -- Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak." In fact, Obama did not say, "I love Whole Foods," nor did he claim that he loves arugula salad or request Swiss cheese on his Philly cheesesteak.
From the May 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
ALAN COLMES (co-host): I want to point out to you, Kellyanne, that a March 2000 Pew survey showed that 51 percent of McCain voters would not vote for George W. Bush. There was a great divide in the Republican Party at that point, and look what happened. Look who became the next president of the United States.
CONWAY: Yes, but John McCain is not John Kerry. See? We have --
COLMES: Well, John Kerry's not running this year.
CONWAY: We have a plausible nominee. And John McCain never voted against and then voted for, and then voted against and for.
COLMES: No, John McCain has flip-flopped on immigration --
CONWAY: But here's the problem for John --
COLMES: He's flip-flopped on a number of things.
CONWAY: But Barack Obama has a John Kerry --
COLMES: Hannity's going like this --
CONWAY: But honestly --
COLMES: -- like he doesn't want to hear it, but that's what --
CONWAY: Alan, in seriousness -- if you guys want to get serious about winning this presidential election, which you won't do, Barack Obama has a "John Kerry" problem. He has the "conceit of the elite" problem. He seems like somebody who you could picture windsurfing.
DOUG SCHOEN (Democratic pollster): Well, you know what?
CONWAY: This is a guy who went to Iowa and said, "I love Whole Foods" --
COLMES: Yeah.
CONWAY: -- and there's no Whole Foods in Iowa. He said he loves arugula salad. He went to Philly and wanted the cheese -- Swiss cheese on his cheesesteak.
COLMES: Look, I -- last I checked, Kellyanne --
CONWAY: OK.
COLMES: -- John Kerry's not running this year. And John Kerry got more votes --
CONWAY: No, but Barack Obama's the --
COLMES: -- than any other candidate ever running except for George W. Bush, by the way.
Flat-out dishonesty by MM here, IMO.
MM doesn't tell you McCain voted against those bills because they had timetables for withdrawal attached. The bill was vetoed by the President: "5/2/2007: Failed of passage in House over veto" (source).
Not cool, MM. Not cool at all.
Flat-out dishonesty by MM here, IMO.
MM doesn't tell you McCain voted against those bills because they had timetables for withdrawal attached. The bill was vetoed by the President: "5/2/2007: Failed of passage in House over veto" (source).
Not cool, MM. Not cool at all.
This must be National Slither-Out-From-Inder-Your-Rock Week. First Kellyanne Conway slithered out, and now Shoes...... :-)
Flat out hypocrasy on your part: Of course there may have been REASONS he voted against the bills. Just as there we reason that Kerry, Gore (or anyone else) might vote for one bill but not another, even if most of their content is the same. It's a complicated process, but you right-wingers think everything is black and white and anyone who talks of nuance (read: fine print / details) is branded a FLIP-FLOPPER.
WHICH IS UTTERLY RIDICULOUS: BUT YOU GUYS STARTED THAT BS!!!
So if you don't want your guy's "INCONSISTANCY" played up, stop trying to make it seem as though "CONSISTANCY" (whether it makes sense or not) is somehow INHERENTLY GOOD in and of itself.
This is not even a good try by mmfa. No one can seriously claim that McCain would ever be "against" funding for the troops. McCain voting against any bill that contains funding for the troops will find it had some attachment like a withdrawal timetable...some tax bill...or some other issue that he would not support.
mmfa is no watchdog...they're just like all the other websites that twist the issues for political gain...nothing more...nothing less.
I'll partially agree. It is being less than honest by anyone to trumpet a politician's stance on an issue by his vote...when the bill contained many issues other than the issue of "funding the troops"
This is a distinction that many pundits and politicians on the right are not able to understand.
king,
That's a big 10-4...but don't lay it all at the feet of republicans. This type of deceit is practiced by many on both sides of the aisle.
Whether one is for or against the war...funding of the troops is not part of the equation. If our troops are in harms way...they must be funded...politics aside.
No, this does lie completely at the feet of the Republicans. They have constantly and consistently characterized any failure to vote yes on yet another blank check for Bush's war as being against the troops. The entire attack about Kerry's so-called flipflop was because he changed his vote when the funding bill went from having a plan to pay for the expenditure to not having one at all. Since the Iraq War began Republicans have been running attack ads against various Democrats characterizing their opponents as not supporting the troops or being soft on defense because they voted against funding bills based on what they did or did not contain.
Both parties have used and abused the voting records of their opponents in negative and misleading fashions for a very long time. That's why so many more successful Presidential candidates have been governor's rather than congressmen in recent political history. But the tactic of using war funding votes to paint their opponents as traitors and unAmerican is fully owned by the GoP.
CONWAY: Alan, in seriousness -- if you guys want to get serious about winning this presidential election, which you won't do, Barack Obama has a "John Kerry" problem. He has the "conceit of the elite" problem. He seems like somebody who you could picture windsurfing.
I love it... the old "quick, change the subject" defense.
Not only that, but she also threw in 3 falsehoods in a single breath...Arugula (which is grown in Iowa for all of you that didn't know), the whole foods thing and the cheese-steak thing (that was Kerry.)
It's really getting pathetic. I can't believe people still believe what these "pundits" say.
I liked the story about John Kerry and Wendy's better anyway...
Barack Obama IS elitist. He doesn't keep any lobbyists on his staff, because he thinks he's better than Sidney McCain WarHero III. Also, if he supported the troops, then why would he be running against a VIETNAM VETERAN?
Huh, Barack? You think you're better than me? Well, if you think you're so hot, why don't you run for...
Oh.
"This bill [1591] will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap. We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."
-Your friendly neighborhood terrorist, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
-Your friendly neighborhood terrorist, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Sounds more like a concoction from Glenn Hussein Jericho.
So you'll believe the terrorists when it suits your interests? But Bin Laden telling us that he attacked us on 9/11 precisely because of our foreign policy toward the Middle East gets dismissed by the right-wing? (And don't tell me it hasn't. I've had many an argument about this, it usually ending in "well, you can't trust what he says anyway")
Oh, and are you suggesting we shape our policies based on the speeches of Al-Qaeda members? Then the terrorists have won my friend...