LA Times editorial falsely claimed "unusually centrist" McCain "oppose[s] a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage"
SUMMARY: In an editorial, the Los Angeles Times falsely asserted that Sen. John McCain "oppose[s] a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." According to remarks he made in March, McCain supports amendments to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and would also support under certain circumstances an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriage. The Times also called McCain "an unusually centrist candidate"; however, McCain has said that he has "the record of a mainstream conservative."
In a June 8 editorial, the Los Angeles Times falsely asserted that Sen. John McCain "oppose[s] a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, according to remarks McCain made on the March 13 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, he supports amendments to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and would also support under certain circumstances an amendment to the federal Constitution banning same-sex marriage. McCain stated: "I believe that states like mine and other states ... should amend our state constitutions. And I will stick to that position until such time, if ever, a higher court says that my state or another state has to recognize the other stat -- another status of marriage." He added, "I'm committed to maintaining the unique status of marriage between man and woman. I think it can best be accomplished, and in keeping with my federalist philosophy that states should do as much as possible to have that done at the state level. ... But if it is overturned by a superior court, I will then obviously support the other path."
The Times misstated McCain's position on a federal marriage amendment while asserting that McCain and Sen. Barack Obama "agree" on the issue of "same-sex marriage." However, in addition to their differences on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, McCain has also reportedly continued to oppose civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, unlike Obama, who has said he supports them. In 2006, McCain supported Arizona's Proposition 107, an amendment that would have banned both same-sex marriages and civil unions. According to an April 27, 2007, New York Sun report, McCain stated of a civil-union bill in New Hampshire: "I am opposed to that legislation." According to the Sun, he further said: "If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it. ... Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I'm opposed to it."
In addition, the Times wrote: "With a Republican president experiencing some of the worst approval ratings ever, it's no shock that the party opted for an unusually centrist candidate." However, contrary to the Times' assertion that McCain is an "unusually centrist candidate," in a February 7 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, McCain stated, "My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative." He also said in the speech: "If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for president, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing."
From the June 8 Los Angeles Times editorial:
It has been a refrain during the exhausting battle for the Democratic presidential nomination that once Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama emerged as the party's choice, we could finally dispense with the personality battles and get down to nitty-gritty policy differences. Indeed, now that Obama seems to have the position locked up, he and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain will have plenty to argue about. But some might be surprised at the breadth of issues on which they largely agree.
On McCain's side, this is understandable. With a Republican president experiencing some of the worst approval ratings ever, it's no shock that the party opted for an unusually centrist candidate. Yet Obama, too, represents a break from Democratic orthodoxy and is reaching out to the middle. This could indicate that on certain policies, something like a national consensus is developing. It at least signals a lessening of the partisan divide that has blocked progress on important changes.
Here are the biggest plots of common ground:
[...]
* Social issues. Of the three biggest issues of the day -- abortion, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem-cell research -- Obama and McCain agree on two. That is, both oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, and both would like to eliminate restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell studies. McCain, though, is an outspoken abortion opponent who wants to see Roe vs. Wade overturned and would appoint Supreme Court justices who share that view. Obama is pro-choice.
Yet more false reporting by MM:
CNN, July 14, 2004: "McCain: Same-sex marriage ban is un-Republican" ... McCain: "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans. It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
McCain is clear that he opposes a Constitutional amendment. He would only motion for it as a last resort if a "superior court" usurped the states' authority. He's always been very clear on this.
Why is Media Matters so dishonest and misleading? If "conservative misinformation" is such a problem and so real, why does MM have to lie?
as a last resort...
Where have I heard that before?
"as a last resort "
If he's FOR it as a last resort...he's FOR it.
One of the great myths is that the Los Angeles Times is some kind of "liberal' newspaper. But they have always been a conservative Republican, anti-union and union bashing rag.
Even the Otis Chandler days saw him fire columnists who threatened their business interests (anyone else remember what they did to architecture critic John Pastier?)
Nowadays, it's much worse. Most of their editorial writers are young, out-of-state, quasi-libertarians who know little about economics and even less about California history.
And their news editors constantly re-write stories and heads in order to give them a conservative slant. Subheads will often make some kind of right-wing point that isn't borne out by the news article itself, once you read it. This happens on a daily basis.
"One of the great myths is that the Los Angeles Times is some kind of 'liberal' newspaper."
Are you serious?!? I actually get the paper every day. There's absolutely no way that any clear-thinking person can say it's not liberal.
The Times' extreme liberal slant has been very well chronicled. In addition, it has been a tireless cheerleader for the Obama campaign. (Examples: 1, 2, 3 ...)
Your statement has no basis in reality whatsoever.
I read this item this morning. (I still get The Times on Sunday). The theme seemed to be "They're pretty much the same thing, so vote for the kindly old white man, not the black guy who knows people who scare sean Hannity". That was me reading between the lines.
The L,A. Times was never a "liberal" paper, but they did, in the past, have a more balanced number of columnists in the OP-Ed pages. Scheer had a column last week, but it was just a guest shot.
I'm still a bit pissed that they cut Mallard Fillmore from the funnies.That was basically a synopsis of the weeks right wing talking points in four panels of a duck with a Drudge hat, as well as a great example of the rightys' reliance on strawmen and other logical fallacies.
Mallard Fillmore makes Beatle Bailey seem like Monty Python.
Mallard Fillmore makes Judge Parker or Prince Valiant look funny by comparison. There IS no humor in Mallard Fillmore - only attack and lies....
Yeah, but right wing talking points sound so much more appropriate coming out of a cartoon duck.
They'd be even more appropriate coming out of the duck's a$$. :-)
*Sigh* I wish the media would stop trying to convince me it's still 2000. A lot's changed since then guys: The tech stock bubble has burst; the real estate bubble has burst; 9/11; $1.25 gas is a distant memory; FMEA,FDA, etc... are largely dismantled and in disarray; Surplusses have become deficits; We're in two different wars, with no sign of an exit strategy (or even a coherent mission); AND JOHN McCAIN HAS MOVED TO THE RIGHT ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THERE IS IN ORDER TO APPEAL TO THE WHACKO REPUBLICAN BASE! HE HASN'T BEEN A MAVERICK SINCE THE HATCHET JOB DONE ON HIM BY BUSH AND ROVE EIGHT YEARS AGO!!! HE'S NOT A MAVERICK ANYMORE, IT'S NOT STILL THE YEAR 2000! UPDATE YOUR D-MNED CALENDARS!!!!
*panting* *panting* *panting* :)
OK. I'm good now. Thanks.
(The last time John McCain was even close to being a Maverick, the Yankees had won their third strait World Series and the Red Sox were still cursed! THINGS CHANGE. Try reading a paper... oh... wait... never mind.)