About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Chicago Tribune cited immigration reform as an example of McCain's "credentials as a maverick" but didn't note his flip-flop on the issue

June 04, 2008 7:44 pm ET

SUMMARY: The Chicago Tribune's Jill Zuckman asserted that Sen. John McCain "has a considerable record" as a "maverick" and cited his partnership with Democrats on immigration legislation, among other issues. But Zuckman did not mention that McCain reversed his position on immigration reform to appeal to Republican primary voters and no longer supports the comprehensive immigration reform legislation he sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy.

46 Comments

In a June 4 Chicago Tribune article about Sen. John McCain's June 3 speech in which he described himself as "a change agent," correspondent Jill Zuckman wrote that McCain's "first priority is underscoring his credentials as a maverick," asserting that "[h]e has a considerable record in that regard" and citing McCain's partnership with Democrats on immigration legislation, among other issues. Zuckman further wrote: "Each of these partisan heresies has sparked heartburn among GOP leaders." But Zuckman failed to mention, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, that in the race for the Republican nomination, McCain reversed his position on immigration reform and now says that "we've got to secure the borders first" and that he "would not" support the comprehensive immigration reform legislation he sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA). Moreover -- in writing that "McCain cannot afford to unduly alienate Republican loyalists. But ... his first priority is underscoring his credentials as a maverick" -- Zuckman failed to note that, like his reversal on immigration, McCain changed his stance on other issues during the race for the Republican nomination.

From Zuckman's June 4 Chicago Tribune article:

Differences with Bush

"I have worked with the president to keep our nation safe," he said. "But he and I have not seen eye-to-eye on many issues. We've disagreed over the conduct of the war in Iraq and the treatment of detainees; over out-of-control government spending and budget gimmicks; over energy policy and climate change; over defense spending that favored defense contractors over the public good."

And he criticized [Sen. Barack] Obama for engaging in intellectual dishonesty by rhetorically tying him to Bush.

"Why does Sen. Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false," McCain said. "So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it, rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Sen. Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving."

McCain cannot afford to unduly alienate Republican loyalists. But in a year when Republicans are deeply unpopular with most voters, his first priority is underscoring his credentials as a maverick.

He has a considerable record in that regard. Over the years, McCain has partnered with Democrats such as Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin on campaign finance- and ethics-reform legislation and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts on Immigration reform. Each of these partisan heresies has sparked heartburn among GOP leaders.

Obama on Tuesday dismissed those episodes as aberrations. "While John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign," Obama said. "It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time as he did in the Senate last year."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by infinity5551913 (June 04, 2008 9:04 pm ET)
         
      You know John McCain as well Obama, are going to sign into law a massive AMNESTY. That's why we must pass the the SAVE ACT, before its too late.

      The Save Act would overrule any state law and bring back 'The RULE OF LAW' to our nation. A big pay-off for big business who needs Taxpayers to support their profits, because they don't want to pay livable wages, health care or any other benefit. When they know that  stupid taxpayers will fund the free health care, schooling and prison cells.

      Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) need to be fully funded, so as representatives of 'THE PEOPLE' they can use interior enforcement, to go after parasite employers. An army of (ICE) can check construction sites and other businesses, to determine if the employer is hiring illegal aliens. But of most importance is to rid our nation of the criminal's who also came with cheap labor.  Finally after the enactment of the 1986 Simpson/Mazzoli immigration bill three decades ago, the law is finally being strictly enforced. If you want the (ICE) to get the job done and send the millions of illegal aliens fleeing your state. Then Demand the Democrats endorse the Federal SAVE ACT (H.R.4088), which will give the agency the monetary backing to imprison predator businesses and go after 'Sanctuary city' states. Today! NOW! Phone: (2022243121)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (June 04, 2008 9:25 pm ET)
         

      An interesting exercise would be to inventory the number of core issues on which John McCain has remained consistent. In my observation McCain's campaign positions on issues appear to be diametrically the opposite of his voting record. If McCain was on trial a good lawyer would ask him whether he was lying then or lying now.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 05, 2008 8:40 am ET)
           

        I know.  I was a HUGE McCain booster in 2000.  I hated W. anyway, but I was livd at the hatchet job he and Rove did on this man.  But every word that McCain has uttered since them has served to suck up to the party bosses and the extreme right wingers, in order to get the nomination.  (Is that the way he's going to change politics?  I like Senator Obama's way better.)

        He flip-flopped on Taxes, the War, Immigration and he's moved to the right on all the issues important to the Funny-Mentalists in the party.  He's now a clone of Bush now: Just an empty puppet, with the Right Wing's arm firmly placed up his back-side.

        It's sad.  But: just as James E. Carter brought us Ronald W. Reagan, so will George W. Bush bring us Barack H. Obama.  (Let's just hope that Senator Obama is more JFK and FDR and less JEC!)

        Report Abuse
        • Author by IRONY 101 (June 05, 2008 8:49 am ET)
             
          I used to respect John McCain but saw the big change in him in the 2004 campaign when he vigorously campaigned for his former nemesis, George W. Bush, in order to gain the blessing of the GOP for a run in 2008, and while throwing his old friend, John Kerry, under the bus. Then the flip-flops began... As I've said before, John MCain has proven himself to be a common, garden variety politician...nothing special about him. He certainly does not deserve to be president...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 10:20 am ET)
               
            I've never respected him. Any guy that calls his wife the C-word and acts like a two year old when he doesn't get his way isn't worthy of respect. He certainly has no business being President.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:22 am ET)
                 
              He called her Cute?
              Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:57 am ET)
                 

              I've never respected him. Any guy that calls his wife the C-word and acts like a two year old when he doesn't get his way isn't worthy of respect. He certainly has no business being President.

              Do you apply the same standard to Bill Clinton?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by doggone-ga (June 05, 2008 11:00 am ET)
                   

                "Do you apply the same standard to Bill Clinton?"

                Bill Clinton is running for President?  And here all this time I thought he was no long eligible.  Learn something new every day!  /sarcasm

                Report Abuse
              • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 11:01 am ET)
                   

                Bill isn't running for Prez, you moron. You're just a tad behind apparently.

                Why do you Righties have this pathological need to use Bill Clinton as a litmus test for everything? Really... are you that desperate?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 11:02 am ET)
                     
                  You have no respect for Maverick because he called his wife the C-word. I'm curious whether you have any respect for BC, after all the sh!t that he put his wife and child through.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 11:07 am ET)
                       
                    Reread my post, pay particular attention to the second part, and answer the question. Can you at least handle that or has your mind been totally cooked to oblivion by Jeff Christie and his terminally unfunny routines?
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 11:16 am ET)
                         
                      I'm not familiar with Jeff Christie.  . . . But I'm inferring from your comment that it's not the fact tha Maverick called his wife the C-word that makes him unworthy, it's his temper, or a combination of the two? I don't really care in any event . . . . Good day!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 11:26 am ET)
                           

                        Your first mistake is inferring anything. Strike one.

                        Jeff Christie = Rush Limbaugh. You should know that. You've been here long enough so don't play the dummy card. Strike two.

                        McManiac is 'Unfit for Command' - remember that title, btw? - for many reasons... his temper and verbally abusing his wife, not to mention his earlier infidelities, are only two reasons. There are others. Strike three.

                        You're out. Have a nice day.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by IRONY 101 (June 05, 2008 11:34 am ET)
                             
                          Rabbit...we're on the same page about John McCain, but when I said I used to respect him that was before I knew what I know now about him, including what he called his wife in front of a number of people.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 11:37 am ET)
                               
                            At least you are informed, unlike this Stevie dude who is still stuck on this 'Maverick' and 'Straight Talker' crap. That went out long ago. He has some serious catching up to do.
                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 11:52 am ET)
                             

                          Your first mistake is inferring anything. Strike one.

                          That makes a ton of sense. Strike one for inferring about the reasons why you disapprove of Maverich when your comments, taken collectively, were unclear to me.  Good one.

                          Jeff Christie = Rush Limbaugh. You should know that. You've been here long enough so don't play the dummy card. Strike two.

                          I've never listened to Limbaugh in my entire life, and from what I've heard of him, have no interest.  But good strike two.

                          McManiac is 'Unfit for Command' - remember that title, btw? - for many reasons... his temper and verbally abusing his wife, not to mention his earlier infidelities, are only two reasons. There are others. Strike three.

                          I respect McCain and don't particularly care about his relationship with his wife. My opinion of the man differs from yours, but that's strike three.  Another good one!

                          You're out. Have a nice day.

                          Thank you.

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 05, 2008 3:00 pm ET)
                             
                          That's right!  I forgot that Johnny Mac cheated on his 1st wife with his 2nd.  LOL.  That'll be a good pat anwswer to any "What about Bill Clinton questions" from now on. ;)
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
                               

                            I have a new rule now and that is to automatically dismiss anyone on the Right who has the loony need to drag Bill Clinton into any of these discussions. He isn't running for President and his wife just lost the primary so he and his indiscretions are not valid for debate.

                            The contest now is between McManiac and Obama.

                            Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 05, 2008 12:24 pm ET)
                   
                I'll come out and admit it: I DON'T respect Bill Clinton.  Most of his policies (NAFTA?) I woudl rate as medicore at best.  But the fact remains that the country was in better shape after 8 years of Clinton (even having inheriting several messes from Bush41) and could hardly be worse after 8 years of Bush43.  (Who inherted a gov't budget surplus and pissed away in his first week in office.)  That being said: John McCain is a spineless, pandering suck-up to the fringe/whacko republican base. 
                Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 05, 2008 11:06 am ET)
           

        An interesting exercise would be to inventory the number of core issues on which John McCain has remained consistent.

        You could probably list them all on one side of a 3 x 5 file card.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 11:30 am ET)
             

          One of them would be that he is a consistent jackass.

          Next...

          Report Abuse
    • Author by miriamsong (June 05, 2008 7:47 am ET)
         

      This "maverick" thing is so funny! McCain is almost welded to standard GOP policies; his occasional forays outside those boundaries are purely rhetorical.

      http://maverickorescort.blogspot.com/ 

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (June 05, 2008 8:31 am ET)
           
        Therefore it could reasonably be stated that McCain is a FRAUD. :>)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 8:56 am ET)
         

      Why is Obama dodging the Straight-Talker's challenge to hold 10 "town-hall"- like debates, addressing the economy, iraq war . . . .. Is it because he's uncomfortable debating the issues, and would rather give shallow speeches to adoring audiences who think they're at a rock concert? His evasion amply demonstrates his own lack of confidence in his positions. The Maverick's challenge was very reasonable, and lincoln-douglass style debates between the two would be informative.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by IRONY 101 (June 05, 2008 8:58 am ET)
           
        As Rachel Maddow pointed out, maybe McCain just wants to see what it's like to speak before a large crowd. ;>)
        Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 05, 2008 9:05 am ET)
           
        Oh, please. Obama has a huge cash advantage over McCan't. If they do "town hall" meetings, it's free press coverage for Gramps. I think it will backfire.... does Grampy really want to spend a lot of time in side-by-side comparison?

        I know the Troglodytes think Obama can't speak without a teleprompter... we'll see. After watching McCan'ts downright creepy performance in front of the Green Screen the other night, I don't think it matters.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 9:08 am ET)
             
          So Obama doesn't want press coverage of The Maverick and Obama debating the merits of their positions, and distinguishing their views on the issues?  That's what I was thinking as well. 
          Report Abuse
          • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 9:28 am ET)
               
            With the entire liberal media already lock-step behind him, I thought Obama would have been less afraid to go head to head with the Maverick.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 10:24 am ET)
                 

              I can assure you that Obama isn't afraid to go at it with McManiac. All it will take is one moment of McManiac blowing his wad onstage when Obama nails his ass and then it will be over.

              Americans will not want a crybaby as their President. McManiac is one and it's quite evident based on his history.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:27 am ET)
                   

                All it will take is one moment of McManiac blowing his wad onstage when Obama nails his ass and then it will be over.

                Is that the kind of behavior we want to see out of our candidates?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 10:29 am ET)
                     
                  You tell me, Stevie.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:31 am ET)
                       
                    On the positive side, it probably will promote bi-partisanship
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 10:34 am ET)
                         

                      You consider McManiac's temper promoting bipartisanship? He can't even get along with his own party. Just ask his Republican 'colleagues' in AZ about it.

                      You really need to research this issue before coming here.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:35 am ET)
                           
                        I feel so humbled by your knowledge and astute comments.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 10:38 am ET)
                             

                          How about humbling me with your knowledge? Oh wait, no can do, huh? You don't seem to have much.

                          Now answer the question I posed to you about McManiac and his temper.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:45 am ET)
                               
                            Maverick has a long history of working with dems and repubs alike. That he's loose with his words, and gets frustrated with his fellow politicians, bothers me not a bit.  Had Obama been in the Senate as long as the Straight-Talker, I'm sure he'd have a history of infighting with fellow politicians as well.  Look at guys like Ted Kennedy. Like Maverick, his history is replete with working in a bi-partisan manner, yet there's many who are critical of him for his quick temper.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by RABBITLUVR (June 05, 2008 10:54 am ET)
                                 

                              Maverick, my ass.

                              And he is no Obama or Kennedy. Quit shilling for McManiac... he's a fraud and a nutbag with a temper more suitable for a whiny spoiled brat. Case closed.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by IRONY 101 (June 05, 2008 11:42 am ET)
                                   
                                McCAIN=Common, garden variety politician who will say anything to get elected.
                                Report Abuse
          • Author by nerzog (June 05, 2008 9:59 am ET)
               
            What the hell are you talking about? Here was the Obama campaign's response to McBush's challenge:

            "The idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

            "We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas," he said, referring to famous debates in 1858 before the Civil War."

            I know that your Rush Limbaugh talking points say otherwise, but even he will have trouble spinning this as Obama "running away" from McBush's challenge.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:07 am ET)
                 
              I can say honestly that I've never listened to Limbaugh in my entire life
              Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (June 05, 2008 10:13 am ET)
                 
              Also, where's the link to your quote? Or where'd you get it from? (I don't at all doubt their accuracy, but I'd like to read it too)
              Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 05, 2008 9:00 am ET)
         
      President Numbnuts is working hard to hand McBush a bloody trump card this summer:

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/revealed-secret-plan-to-keep-iraq-under-us-control-840512.html

      This is McBush's reward for sucking up to the Troglodytes. The true nature of our Imperialist Adventure in Iraq will be clear, but eclipsed by the chest-thumping of the NeoClowns over their "victory".

      On top of this is the suspiciously timed "trial" of the alleged masterminds of the 9-11 attacks. Isn't that interesting.... they've had them in custody for five years, and just happen to start the trial right before a presidential election? I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
      Report Abuse