NY Times ignored McCain flip-flop on whether he believed Falwell was an "agent[] of intolerance"
SUMMARY: In an article about Sen. John McCain's outreach to "evangelicals and other Christian conservatives," The New York Times noted that "[i]n 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as 'agents of intolerance.' " But the Times did not point out that McCain subsequently said he no longer believed Falwell was an "agent[] of intolerance."
In a June 9 New York Times article about Sen. John McCain's outreach to "evangelicals and other Christian conservatives," staff writer Michael Luo wrote that "Mr. McCain's relationship with evangelicals has long been troubled. In 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as 'agents of intolerance.' " The article did not note, however, that, in April 2006, McCain said he no longer believed Falwell was an "agent[] of intolerance." A month later, McCain delivered the commencement address at Falwell's Liberty University.
Similarly, in a February 8 Times article, reporters Elisabeth Bumiller and David D. Kirkpatrick wrote that "[c]onservatives fault Mr. McCain for what they consider a long list of transgressions," noting that he "once call[ed] certain evangelical leaders 'agents of intolerance.' " Bumiller and Kirkpatrick also did not note McCain's subsequent statement about Falwell.
From the June 9 New York Times article:
Mr. McCain's outreach to Christian conservatives has been a quiet courting, reflecting a balancing act: his election hopes rely on drawing in the political middle and Democrats who might be turned off should he woo the religious right too heavily by, for instance, highlighting his anti-abortion position more on the campaign trail.
''If McCain tried Bush's strategy of just mobilizing the base, he would almost certainly fall short,'' said John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. ''Because the Republican brand name is less popular and the conservative base is restive, McCain has special needs to reach out to independent and moderate voters, but, of course, he can't completely neglect the evangelical and conservative base.''
The instrumental role of evangelicals in Mr. Bush's victory in 2004 over Senator John Kerry is an oft-repeated tale at this point. Mr. Bush's openness about his personal faith and stances on social issues earned him a following among evangelicals, who represented about a quarter of the electorate in 2004. Exit polls in the 2004 election found that 78 percent of white ''born again'' or evangelical Protestants had voted for Mr. Bush.
In contrast, Mr. McCain's relationship with evangelicals has long been troubled. In 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as ''agents of intolerance.''
In a sign of the lingering distrust, Mr. McCain finished last out of nine Republican candidates in a straw poll last year at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, a gathering for socially conservative activists.
James C. Dobson, the influential founder of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, released a statement in February, when Mr. McCain was on the verge of securing the Republican nomination, affirming that he would not vote for Mr. McCain and would instead stay home if he became the nominee. Dr. Dobson later softened his stance and said he would vote but has remained critical of Mr. McCain.















In contrast, Mr. McCain's relationship with evangelicals has long been troubled. In 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as ''agents of intolerance.''
I think that was before McCain sold his soul to the vicious right wing.
The McCain of 2000 on CNN, wow have times changed.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/28/se.01.html
Just to refresh your memory, Pat Robertson made phone calls about McCain. And in those, he said that McCain had chosen a man as his national campaign chairman, a vicious bigot who wrote that conservative Christian politics are antiabortion zealots, homophobes and would-be censors, and they have argued back and forth about that time and time again since that happened.
The Virginia Republican primary is tomorrow and Mr. McCain saying that he is inclusive and conservative, several times going through issues where he stood, saying he was a proud conservative, a Reagan conservative, and saying that what was good for America was good for the Republican Party, that he is bringing new people into the Republican Party everyday. Then he talked about his values against Pat Robertson particularly, and putting his images almost on the power with union bosses saying they were using political tactics and slander and corrupting influences, including money, would "shame our faith and our party and our country," and that his faith unites not divides.
Can't the fact that we're godless, commie bastards, who kill babies and advocate the elimination of the elderly and infirm, and who wish to shove our science down the throats of those who follow the Risen Savior show that we have values?
And Colonel, I'd ixnay the talk about putting your grubby hands in the pockets of hard working Americans unless you're willing to answer to Tommy.
Nah, we're still good. When we start measuring cranium size and taking note of features like the unibrow to describe someone who is genetically inferior then you should be worried.
Oops, my bad. Turns out the right wing does that now. Worry, JJ...
That is, unless they finally start doing their jobs and provide in-depth analysis of how the Bush Administration manipulated the WMD intelligence and lied us into Iraq. Remember that story? As far as I can tell, it's already dead. They're getting pretty efficient at killing any and all stories about the criminal activities of the Bush administration. How can we expect them to cover the election fairly?
How can we expect them to cover the election fairly?
We can not expect them to cover it fairly. Look what happened in 2004.
Speaking of O'Reilly, did anyone else catch this little gem from the National Conference from Media Reform?
HE. GOT. OWNED.
I'd like to say O'Reilly's guy was a weasel, but then I'd have to apologize to all of the weasels I offended.
I loved this guy's logic. When they asked him if he thought he was a journalist after he ambushed Bill Moyers the guy responded "Well, Bill Moyers just called me one."
I love it when Bill Moyers says that O'Reilly isn't a jouralist, he's a pugilist. I guess that didn't go the way O'Reilly and his thugs had it planned.
I saw that video yesterday at mediabistro. Bill Moyers is DA MAN! I love that ending, too! It'll be interesting to see how O'Reilly will edit this video on his show tonight, I'm sure he'll drag in his goofy body language expert to analyze Moyers. Then, he'll bring in suck ups Bernie Goldberg and Jane Hall to smear Moyers and pontificate how Moyers has declined as a journalist.
Jerry Falwell was not an "agent" of intolerance. He, Pat Robertson, and D.James Kennedy were Exclusive East Coast Distributirs for intolerance.
And now he and D. James are nice and toasty down in Hell.....