LA Times ignored McCain flip-flop on whether he believed Falwell was an "agent of intolerance"
SUMMARY: The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. John McCain "notably call[ed] Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell 'agents of intolerance' in the 2000 presidential campaign," without noting that McCain later said he no longer believed Falwell was an "agent of intolerance" and delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University in May 2006.
In a May 23 Los Angeles Times article reporting that Sen. John McCain "broke Thursday with two controversial televangelists whose endorsements he once trumpeted in a bid to win support from religious conservatives," staff writers Maeve Reston and Stuart Silverstein wrote of McCain, "He has had a rocky relationship with evangelical leaders, notably calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell 'agents of intolerance' in the 2000 presidential campaign." The article did not note, however, that, in April 2006, McCain said he no longer believed Falwell was an "agent of intolerance," and delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University a month later.
From the May 23 Los Angeles Times article:
At a late-afternoon rally in Stockton, McCain said he rejected the endorsement of John Hagee after learning of a recording in which the San Antonio pastor portrayed Adolf Hitler as being sent by God to force Jews "to come back to the land of Israel."
McCain said he had not been aware of the comments -- which were made in a sermon in the late 1990s and turned up recently on the Internet -- when Hagee endorsed him in February. "I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable," McCain said. The pastor's words, he added, "are just too much."
Later in the day, McCain told the Associated Press that he also repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent. "I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America," McCain said.
McCain, who is viewed with suspicion by many conservatives in the Republican Party, had actively sought endorsements from evangelicals. He has had a rocky relationship with evangelical leaders, notably calling Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" in the 2000 presidential campaign.
His experience with Hagee's endorsement, which drew even more criticism than Parsley's, recalled the controversy that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama confronted after incendiary sermons made by his former pastor became public. After the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. made similar comments in an appearance in Washington, Obama strenuously disavowed them and severed ties with his longtime mentor.
Flip-flop... flip-flop... flip-flop... The sound of John McCain walking to the microphone. ;>)
What other flip-flops are there by John McCain...if that's his real name. Wouldn't be surprised if he changed that, too. ;>)
I can't get to the next page either.
It's probably God punishing MMFA for supporting the socialist-gay-atheist agenda.
Hello? McFly?
No need to worry. McCain is not going to get Falwell's endorsement anyway. You might call it a dead issue.
MMFA's point is simply a very thinly disguised attempt at McCain bashing.
You might call it a dead issue.
LOL... What's gotten into you lately, AA...? ;>)
Honesty and integrity help, too... ;>)
Honesty and integrity help, too... ;>)
"But hate will not win elections. Issues will."
Hate seemed to work pretty good for the Swift Boat Liars.
Oh, yea, the Swift Boat ads didn't run in Ohio... ;>)
The Swifties told the truth... but that is simply a side issue to deflect the discussion.
(When Kerry decides to release his full military records then lets talk.)
Sue,
Can you prove any direct connection between Karl Rove and the Swifties that shows he had anything to do with them?
The Swifties told the truth
You have now entered the irrelevance zone with that comment. From here on out, you will be summarily disregarded as an idiot.
Fog,
I think you need to work on your debating skills.
http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/kerry_medals/truth.html
By saying the Swift Boaters told the truth does cast a shadow on your credibility. Why debate someone who believes in lies?
Fog,
Simply tossing out ad hominum attacks and listing websites is not debating. However it is common around here. :-)
AA wrote:
>>Simply tossing out ad hominum attacks and listing websites is not debating. However it is common around here. :-)
Good grief! What another knee-jerk reactionary opinion. You really still think that the Swift Boat crew told the truth, after it has been documented what liars they are? When you are presented with evidence, you simply dismiss it as a "website." Do you care to address any of the numerous falsehoods the swiftboaters got caught telling? Or do you care to address the fact that none of the contentions put forward by this group of liars has ever been proven? Or do you just want to throw out unsubstantiated claims, and then dismiss any evidence showing you are wrong as a "website?"
Funny,
One cannot debate a website. If one wants to debate certain points listed on a website that is another story. However I am not about to spend my time going through someone's linke to a website when they have the obligation to prove their contention here.
For example, I could say, take a look at their book, "Unfit for Command" as my rejoinder. Would you accept that? (I think not.)
Simply saying something is discredited, as you have done, does not necissarily make it so.
The SBVT is off topic and I've had many interesting discussions when it was on topic. I think it all boils down to Kerry's military records. As long as Kerry doesn't release the records to the general public, I feel there is at most, a stalemate regarding the Swifties claims. If one wants to claim the Swifties as liars, go ahead. If one wants to spend one's time listing their reasons her, go ahead. Simply proclaiming them as liars and thinking that is unquestionable is in error. There is lots of evidence and testimony to prove otherwise. However, until Kerry runs again, at this point, I consider it a moot subject.
However I am not about to spend my time going through someone's linke to a website when they have the obligation to prove their contention here.
The clarion call of the ignorant. Poor baby has to click his mouse and read a website. Too much work, I guess.
"Simply tossing out ad hominum attacks and listing websites is not debating."
But dismissing arguments you can't make genuine responses to by talking about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is debating. I see.
"But hate will not win elections. Issues will."..[Bob]
Hate seemed to work pretty good for the Swift Boat Liars. [Pete]
Pete, Kerry was a weak candidate. Blaming swiftboating for his loss is getting old.
Brab,
Do you know if there is any credible data on just which block of voters were swayed away from Kerry because of the swiftboating?
Unless there is, it remains only speculation that it made a difference.
I agree Bush was weak, but he was the incumbent, which does usually count for a few extra votes. And folks were still fearful about terrorism, & he played on that.
That's pretty weak. Kerry's military background was the key selling point, especially considering Bush's embarrassing TXANG history. So you undermine your own point. If Kerry was so weak, then obviously attacks on his strong suit are more likely to make a bigger difference, since there are fewer positive angles for potential voters to subsequently choose him on.
Which voters Brab?
Give me some hard data.
Obviously not Conservatives, they went to Bush. Dem/Libs went to Kerry, though some like my wife held her nose when she voted for him.
Kerry was a weak candidate & it had nothing to do with his military record.
If your saying Independents didn't vote for Kerry specifically because of the swiftboating, then there must be some polling data supporting that. If not, it's only speculation.
It's really a matter of common sense. What other strengths did Kerry have, really? Obviously attacking the key selling point (SBVT and "Rathergate" both playing to this) is going to be more damaging.
Honestly I'm not yet sure where I can find an archive of such poll data. I have found a couple of other things.
"Kudlow pointed out that because of the Swift Boat veterans, President Bush, who had been running neck and neck with Kerry for the lead, opened up "an absolutely incredible 58 percent to 42 percent lead over Kerry" in just two weeks in August 2004."
If they're quoting Larry Kudlow accurately (and I am wary of a site that calls Kerry and Edwards "socialists", of course), and Kudlow himself is telling the truth, that's a pretty significant shift and a remarkable coincidence with the timing of the ads.
I also found this interesting analysis of the effectiveness of the ads. It's sort of hard to imagine that the results have no application to actual voters.
We should just get over it, Brab, stop blaming the swifties for torpedoing Kerry's campaign. You know, just like the righties here are just kicking back and laying off the Dem strategy of undermining McCain with his pandering to the extremist right wing base. It will get us nowhere. Right?
I say screw 'em. Where was, no where is, all that humanity as Republicans equate Democrats to terrorists? When they call the Dem candidate a secret Muslim, where's the civility in that? Where's that compromise and bipartisanship as the radical minority of Republicans of the 110th Congress filibuster healthcare for all, living wages, Iraq withdrawal, medicare negotiations for lower cost prescription meds? Those pant load R's have filibustered the liberal agenda, an agenda a majority of Americans support, more than any congress in history and they tell us to play nice.
F**k those rotten bastards and f**k those idiots who still vote Republican. Thes McCain apologists can kiss my a**. They're just reaping what they have sown as far as I'm concerned.
Sue,
You are a veritible fountain of unsubstantiated and unproven smears today.
Please provide evidence of the vote tampering in Ohio.
I know you have no evidence. I live in Ohio and there was none. A few precincts had long lines but beyond that the vast majority of any of the problems on voting day were in counties that had Democratic party aparachiks in charge of the local voting. No major paper, no major media, or anybody else feels there was any vote tampering.
C'mon Sue. Lets get beyond unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. There's enough room for disagreement with actual events without resorting to stuff like this.
(I apolologize in advance for the annoying visuals in the text of the following)
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
"The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio, the critical battleground state that clinched Bush's victory in the electoral college. Officials there purged tens of thousands of eligible voters from the rolls, neglected to process registration cards generated by Democratic voter drives, shortchanged Democratic precincts when they allocated voting machines and illegally derailed a recount that could have given Kerry the presidency. A precinct in an evangelical church in Miami County recorded an impossibly high turnout of ninety-eight percent, while a polling place in inner-city Cleveland recorded an equally impossible turnout of only seven percent. In Warren County, GOP election officials even invented a nonexistent terrorist threat to bar the media from monitoring the official vote count.(11)
Any election, of course, will have anomalies. America's voting system is a messy patchwork of polling rules run mostly by county and city officials. ''We didn't have one election for president in 2004,'' says Robert Pastor, who directs the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University. ''We didn't have fifty elections. We actually had 13,000 elections run by 13,000 independent, quasi-sovereign counties and municipalities.''
But what is most anomalous about the irregularities in 2004 was their decidedly partisan bent: Almost without exception they hurt John Kerry and benefited George Bush. After carefully examining the evidence, I've become convinced that the president's party mounted a massive, coordinated campaign to subvert the will of the people in 2004. Across the country, Republican election officials and party stalwarts employed a wide range of illegal and unethical tactics to fix the election. A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004(12) -- more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.(13) (See Ohio's Missing Votes) In what may be the single most astounding fact from the election, one in every four Ohio citizens who registered to vote in 2004 showed up at the polls only to discover that they were not listed on the rolls, thanks to GOP efforts to stem the unprecedented flood of Democrats eager to cast ballots.(14) And that doesn’t even take into account the troubling evidence of outright fraud, which indicates that upwards of 80,000 votes for Kerry were counted instead for Bush. That alone is a swing of more than 160,000 votes -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House.(15)"
"You might call it a dead issue."
But the LA Times doesn't.
Bob,
Do you have any proof that it was Bush and Rove who smeared McCain back in 2000? While someone did it, could it not have been Democrat dirty tricksters?
Do you have any idea how many people were contacted in these 'push' polls? I've never heard of any figure given.
I found one professor who sent out an email baselessly suggesting McCain had illegitimate children.... but he was identified.
Fog,
Nice try. You must see that your quote proves nothing.
Yeah, guys, come on! If anyone is worthy of our respect around here, it's his holiness Jerry Falwell. Remind me to pay my respects to Fred Phelps when he passes, too.
At least he's somewhere nice & warm...
"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."
Last time I looked, Pat Robertson is still alive, and Grampy just gave a speech at his bogus law school. So, spare us your phony self-righteous indignation over poor Jerry Falwell.
"Ok MMFA, stick to people that are actually alive."
Be sure to send your decree to the LA Times as well.
Sue,
What specifically in your mind made him "not a nice person"? And what does that have to do at all with the thread?
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."
-Jerry Falwell
"God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. "
-Jerry Falwell
"Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America."
-Jerry Falwell
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being. "
-Jerry Falwell
"Textbooks are Soviet propaganda."
-Jerry Falwell
"The ACLU's got to take the blame on this" (Attacks on 9/11)
-Jerry Falwell
So what's your point?
You asked why he was not a nice person.
I offered several quotes showng that he was not nice.
You know exactly what I meant.
Your posts gives further proof to what I said the other day.
There is no one on the right that you will not support, no matter how venal the person.
There is no on on the left who you'll give the same benefit of the doubt.
You demand detailed evidence to prove each documented charge against the right, yet you attack those on the left with the flimsiest evidence.
Hi, WK. I think Barney Fife jumped the shark a while ago, Not that he was ever taken seriously, but you and some other generous and polite posters have given him way more slack than he ever deserved.
He seems to be reduced to a handful of greasy tactics;
Demanding proof for things that are common knowledge or common sense.
If no proof is provided,(usually because he's not worth the time) he thinks he has a point.
If proof is provided, he asks what the point is.
From likable dittohead idiot to worthless troll, whatever slack he had squeaked by with as a result of his phony politeness act is gone.IMO, he is in the same class as Copiousdissent and other GOP Zombies.
McCain is not technically dead, Tommy.Quit with the ageist smears.
Or are you saying that any guilt-by-association problem can be cleared up, in your judgement, by a little ..."accident"? Thin ice there.
McCain is not technically dead, Tommy
Colonel, John McCain used to be dead...but he flip-flopped on that, too. ;>)
Are you endorsing Rush Limbaugh's call for riots in Denver, AA?
I was thinking of the mythical Phoenix.
I could be wrong but I think Hillary has a surprise for all of us.
Hillary really screwed the pooch with that one.
Col, Your posts are always riddled with so much tongue in cheek that's it hard to know when to take you seriously or just chalk it to senselessness.
My guess is your post here is the latter.
To paraphrase W. C. Fields, Tommy drives a lot of us to drink.
And for that we'll all be eternally in his debt.
Don't be too hard on yourself, Tommy. I wouldn't call you senseless for not getting my point, it wasn't that clear.
I knew you weren't referring to McCain as irrelevant, but the dead man.Of course,it was an attempted distraction on your part, as they both are relevant to this thread.
The second part was about your implication that the guilt-by-association in a person's history (assuming it's relevant at all) is erased by the shaky associates demise.This sounded to me like the same sort of logic that tries to prohibit criticism of a president during wartime.Just as that would obviously influence the most nervous about criticism to start wars as quickly as possible, the idea that a person's past can be improved by the death of people he knew might make a lucrative market for hit men.
And, no, Sue/Bob/Jlyons, I haven't had a drink today, so you still sound as wacky as ever.At some point this 3 day weekend I plan to be drunk, and I may re-read your posts then.I hope to find some common ground at that point.
"Because the man is dead and it has no relevance."
Except to the Hagee story...
"They brought his up as a reference to the Hagee story"
The Times also didn't mention McCain made up and campaigned for Bush in 2004.
Romney now supports McCain.
Edwards now supports Obama.
I'm sure Obama will support Hillary when she wins the nomination. :-)
All these examples have about as much relevance to this thread as McCain making up with Falwell. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. People in the political arena who were once opposed now get along.
But AA, when your aim is to keep alive every link McCain ever had with some controversial person then this is expected. Falwell may be dead, but if he can swipe some votes from McCain from beyond the grave then resurrecting him is delicious ammunition.
Am I detecting genuine, heartfelt concern that you don't want to see the political left sink to the long-established methods of the right?
If that's the case, it's touching.
Yea, DEFINITELY too much to hope for... ;>)
And, FWIW, I'm proud and excited about voting for Barack Obama...and more than a little tired of the unfair bashing he's already taken from the right while flip-flopping John MCain skates.
One more time, if it's posted on MMFA , it's about the media coverage. Do you have evidence that the two reporters at the LA Times and their editor are not living?
Did Obama flip-flop for political expediency by denouncing his "uncle" wright, after singing his praises for a number of years? Does anyone really believe that Obama would have rebuked his crazy uncle, in the way that he did, had it not been for political expediency? They all flip-flop. Obama probably not as much as the Maverick so far, but that's only because the Maverick's been a senator so much longer. It's pretty trivial to carp on this sh!t. I've heard neither the Maverick nor Obama espouse the views of their nutty "friends," and both have said quite a lot in their lives.
Obama probably not as much as the Maverick so far, but that's only because the Maverick's been a senator so much longer.
False. All of McCain's flip-flops have emerged in the last 7 years, as he ramped up the conservative rhetoric to win the Republican nomination. Even though Obama has only been in the Senate for 2 years, his one flip-flop pales in comparison to the dozens of flip-flops from McCain over the past 7 years. Not to mention, McCain is going to flip back on some of those positions when the general election comes.
By the way, everyone should read Grampy McBush's "Agents of Intolerance" speech. I think the John McCain who gave that speech is shackled in Karl Rove's basement, and has been replaced by a Cyborg.
Here's the speech:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html
Nerzog,
Speaking of intolerance, your respect for people who disagree with you is heartwarming.
Speaking of intolerance, your respect for people who disagree with you is heartwarming.
Intolerance of bigotry is such a terrible thing. Shame on you, Nerzog.
heh heh, Carn.That's about all the wingnuts have anymore.
You want to criticize those who would withhold rights from a group of Americans based only on things they were born with?Well, you must be just as intolerant as those who want to restrict those rights!!