About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Ignoring McCain's own votes against troop funding, AP, LA Times uncritically quoted his attacks on Obama

June 04, 2008 1:47 pm ET

SUMMARY: The AP and the Los Angeles Times quoted Sen. John McCain's assertion that Sen. Barack Obama voted "to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job" in Iraq, without noting that McCain himself voted against bills that would have provided "funds to the soldiers" serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

28 Comments

Reporting on Sen. Barack Obama clinching the Democratic presidential nomination on June 3, two separate AP articles and a Los Angeles Times report uncritically quoted Sen. John McCain's assertion that day that Obama voted "to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job" in Iraq. Yet, in these articles, neither the AP nor the Times pointed out that McCain himself voted against legislation that would have provided "funds to the soldiers" serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and directed more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as other legislation funding care for veterans.

A June 3 AP article by staff writer Libby Quaid stated, "Republican John McCain welcomed Democrat Barack Obama to the fall campaign for the White House on Tuesday with a blistering attack on his judgment and a charge that he 'voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job' in Iraq." Quaid later wrote:

"Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out," McCain said.

A year ago, Obama voted against a funding bill for the Iraq war because it lacked a timetable for withdrawing troops. At the time, Obama said the bill would give Bush "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

On June 4, AP staff writers Tom Raum and Nedra Pickler reported:

McCain spoke first, in New Orleans, and he accused his younger rival of voting "to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job" in Iraq. It was a reference to 2007 legislation to pay for the Iraq war, a measure Obama opposed citing the lack of a timetable for withdrawing troops.

Similarly, in the June 4 Los Angeles Times article, writers Mark Z. Barabak and Michael Finnegan reported:

McCain brought up the war in a prime-time speech he delivered outside New Orleans, just before Clinton and Obama spoke. He accused Obama of voting "to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job" in Iraq -- referring to a 2007 war-funding bill that Obama opposed because it lacked a timetable for troop withdrawal.

None pointed out that on March 29, 2007, McCain himself voted against H.R. 1591, an emergency spending bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Senate passed H.R. 1591 by a margin of 51-47. Once the bill's conference report was agreed to by the House, the Senate again passed the measure on April 26, 2007, by a vote of 51-46. McCain did not vote on that version of the bill. By contrast, Obama voted for it on both occasions. President Bush vetoed the bill, citing its provision for a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Moreover, McCain has voted against other legislation funding care for veterans. On April 26, 2006, McCain voted against an amendment by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) that would have "provide[d] an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans." In addition, on March 14, 2006, McCain voted against "increas[ing] Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes." On March 10, 2004, McCain also voted against "creat[ing] a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating tax loopholes." Obama voted for the first two measures; he had not yet entered the Senate when the third vote was cast.

The AP and Los Angeles Times articles continue a pattern, documented by Media Matters for America, in which the media uncritically report McCain's attacks on Democrats for voting against funding the troops, without noting that McCain has done so himself.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (June 04, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
         
      The reason McCain voted against the funding bill was because it included a timetable, that is an importent component that no media outlet, or media watchdog group, should leave out.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (June 04, 2008 2:09 pm ET)
           
        So? They each have conditions about how the troops should be funded but you like McCain's conditions better.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (June 04, 2008 2:10 pm ET)
           

        Tommy,

        I agree...but...

        This is an outrageous example of dirty campaign tactics by McCain. No one...and I mean no one...is for denying funds to our military while they are in combat.

        It's also repugnant to accuse McCain of denying funds to combat troops.

        It's a sad example of the lousy character exhibited by the leading pols...shameful. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (June 05, 2008 9:31 pm ET)
             

          I would have to agree.  These votes are put out by the party leadership specifically to be used as a cudgel in elections against the opposition party.  The party in power usually does this.  It is pretty stupid and I am tired of it.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by BillJ-MN (June 04, 2008 2:11 pm ET)
           
        Regardless, if both Senators have voted for and against various versions of these bills, it should be noted that both have done so if one of them is using the other's vote to attack.  That is balanced journalism.  MMFA was simply pointing out the failure to provide that balance, and was under no obligation to dig further.  McCain's reasons had no bearing on the failings of the AP and LA Times.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 04, 2008 2:20 pm ET)
           

        The reason McCain voted against the funding bill was because it included a timetable...

        In other words, he was FOR the bill before he was AGAINST it.....

        Bottom line? In "The World According to Tommy", any reason Gramps McCain has for opposing a bill is valid, while any reason Obama has for opposing a bill means he hates America and hates the troops.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (June 04, 2008 4:32 pm ET)
             

          WZ-

          Don't you get it?  In repubspeak, 'timetable' is synonymous with surrender.

          McCain has always been consistently AGAINST surrendering to our enemies.  (at least he's consistent on something!)

          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 04, 2008 3:09 pm ET)
           
        There are always reasons why you vote for bill, but not for another substantively similar one.  The meda should ALWAYS report those reasons, even if the american public is allergic to details.  What they shouldn't do is allow one guy who does it to claim that he's 100% consistant, etc... while blasting the other guy for doing the same thing.  Both McCain and Obama should be talking about the REASONS the voted for or aginst things.  That will reveal more about them than just the voting record will.  (And I hear Obama talking more about how he reasons and what he believes and McCain jsut keeps sayig "look at my record."  Well, we have Johnny, and it's moved to the right, and it has sold out your rep as a party maverick.)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (June 04, 2008 2:06 pm ET)
         
      I think the electorate has finally figured out that the Republicans have milked the "support the troops cow" dry.

      Americans are smart enough to understand that supporting the troops requires more than just denouncing others for not supporting the troops.

      Americans want the troops home, they want their wounds healed and benefits provided to those who've served their country.

      If McCain insists on continuing to politicize patriotism and support for a war, he'll be one of the loyal opposition in the Senate next year and not the president.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by JLyons (June 04, 2008 2:12 pm ET)
           

        If McCain insists on continuing to politicize patriotism and support for a war, he'll be one of the loyal opposition in the Senate next year and not the president

        That is exactly what McCain will insist.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 04, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
           
        Essentially, the Repuglicans have used the phrase "support the troops" as shorthand for supporting their Iraq War policy. Anyone with the good sense to oppose their imperialist stupidity are shouted down and acused of "not supporting the troops". They've even gone so far as to insist that criticizing President Numbnuts "hurts the morale of the troops." It's a rhetorical fig leaf which they shamelessly use to shield their asshat in chief from any and all criticism.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 04, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
           

        I think the electorate has finally figured out that the Republicans have milked the "support the troops cow" dry.

        Especially in light of how the Republicans cut funding to the VA and left Walter Reade Army Hospital - once a great medical facility - a mere shell of its former self.  That's why they lost big in 2006, and why they'll lose even bigger this November.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 04, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
         

      Sure, so he can stand with shrub and somehow distence himself from same.

      Evidence shown indicates McFritters is not a good friend to veterans, nor  future veterans.

      Will any of these bozos ever show this, ever indicate where his protective influence has been most effective, and for who?

      To much effort involved with swiming against the narrative that has so many media enablers I suppose. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by anotheramerican (June 04, 2008 2:37 pm ET)
         

      The issue Republicans have with Obama is that he tried to use his vote on War Funding in 2007 as a political statement because it did not include timetable for withdrawal. 

      We all know Obama's position and we all know McCain's position. This dustup is simply part of that skirmish.

      This is one of the reasons why Senators generally have a hard time getting elected. Their opponents can go to the candidates' voting record and use some of those votes against the candidates.

      It is a legitimate tactic but a frustrating one just the same. It causes the candidate to go on the defensive.  

      Report Abuse
      • Author by wesley (June 04, 2008 3:09 pm ET)
           

         -- It is a legitimate tactic -- AA

        I'll have to disagree. It is certainly a tactic that is used repeatedly but it is dishonest to willfully mis-characterize a person's vote. 

        I'm not playing pollyana with the issue...but it is not legitimate...it's sleazy. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (June 04, 2008 4:15 pm ET)
             
          It is not mis characterizing someone's voting record to say he/she voted a certain way if in fact, that is how they voted.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (June 04, 2008 4:36 pm ET)
               
            So, then you agree that the article should have pointed out McCain's votes against the funding of the troops and veterans' benefits as well?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (June 05, 2008 9:57 am ET)
                 

              Not "should have" but doing so is legitimate. I understand that it can be used to mislead, and I am not for that. But that is not the issue.

              The issue is using the candidate's voting record in a political debate. Is that legitimate? Yes.

              The sidelight is if it is used fairly. In many cases, but not all, it is not. That is the gutter politics that turns off so many. The problem is who can decide what is fair and what is not? MMFA?  Of course that is what they have set themselves up to do. But we can see that they are pushing their own agenda and daily post thing that I feel are unfairly biased. Oh well. MMFA and our liberal friends here are of the opinion that much of what is in the media is unfair. Oh well.

              I guess the bottom line is that it is fair game to use the voting records in election debates. Everyone complains about it, but everyone does it.  

               

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (June 05, 2008 9:34 pm ET)
                   

                "Not "should have" but doing so is legitimate. I understand that it can be used to mislead, and I am not for that. But that is not the issue."--AA

                I haven't seen such descriptions of votes used any way other than to deceive.

                Report Abuse
          • Author by wesley (June 04, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
               

            Don't play games with me AA...you know exactly what I meant.

            It is ok to report anyone's vote. If it is a single issue it will explain itself. If the bill has many aspects...as almost all do...then it is not ok to mis-characterize the vote without an explanation.

             

            Report Abuse
            • Author by anotheramerican (June 05, 2008 10:02 am ET)
                 

              Wes,

              I understand your point and I agree. But we don't live in a pefect world. The cleanliness of theory is no match for the mess of reality. :-)

              Report Abuse
              • Author by open_mind (June 05, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
                   
                That mess of a reality would not be there if people did not tolerate it so much.
                Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 04, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
           
        The devil is in the DETAILS.  The WHY they did or didn't vote for it, and the HOW they go about their reasoning and WHAT PRINCIPALS MATTER to them.  The inherent problem with this kind of campaining is that the media does not have the patience to report (and the public does not havethe patience to listen to) the DETAILS.  It shoudl be interesting though - one way of the other a Senator IS getting electied this year.  And whomever it is he'll probably pull in some seats fro his party in congress as well.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by mari2jj2970 (June 04, 2008 11:33 pm ET)
         
      We never expect fairness out of the LA times of late.  They are in the pocket of Republicans, most notably, Senator McCain.  Senator McCain used to be a straight shooter.  In fact, as a Republican I wrote in his name twice when the alternative was George W. Bush.  You see, I used to live in Texas and I know all about GWs frat boy mentality.  I expected him to behave exactly like he has, like a belligerent bully that he is.  His really, really stupid invasion of Iraq though, goes beyond his frat boy image into the truly deranged and self centered decisions he has ever made.  There is something very strange about his attempt to outdo his Daddy's Iraq war, but even so, remember that Bush 1 ripped through Kuwait with the support of so many Gulf countries and won the war in no time at all.  GW on the other hand, has mucked the entire region year after year and we are still in a muck mess after all these years and we definitely are not safer now nor are our friends in the region.  In fact, everything GW has touched has turned to a wreck and a ruin.  This war is such a blunder in comparison to his father's Gulf war, or even in comparison to the Kosovo war which had true international cooperation under Clinton.  So GW's best laid plans to outshine his predecessors have flunked out miserably and nothing the LA Times can say can change that FACT!!!!! 
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 05, 2008 1:07 am ET)
         
      Dat's da bunnie!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    The Associated Press
    450 W. 33rd St.
    New York, NY 10001

    Main Number
    +1-212-621-1500
  • Los Angeles Times
    Los Angeles Times

    Los Angeles Times
    202 W. 1st St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

    (213) 237-5000