About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Roberts asserted that McCain is a "maverick" and "independent" from Bush, ignoring McCain's votes and statements

July 03, 2008 1:44 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: CNN's John Roberts asserted that Sen. John McCain "is a very different person, at least his record in terms of being a maverick and independent, than George Bush." But Roberts did not mention that, according to Congressional Quarterly, McCain was the Bush administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate in 2007, or that McCain said in 2005 that "on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

25 Comments

Discussing former Secretary of State Colin Powell's possible presidential endorsement on the July 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, guest host John Roberts asserted that Sen. John McCain "is a very different person, at least his record in terms of being a maverick and independent, than George Bush." But Roberts did not mention that, according to Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan publication that tracks legislators' votes, McCain was the Bush administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate in 2007, voting with the president 95 percent of the time. Moreover, when Bush endorsed McCain during a March 5 joint appearance, Bush said, "[T]he good news about our candidate is, there will be a new President, a man of character and courage -- but he's not going to change when it comes to taking on the enemy."

In fact, McCain has publicly touted his embrace of Bush's policies. As Huffington Post noted in a June 12 blog post, in a June 19, 2005, appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, McCain told moderator Tim Russert, "[T]he fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush."

Roberts did not note that McCain has appeared at fundraisers with President Bush, as CNN correspondent Mary Snow noted on the May 29 edition of The Situation Room.

Media Matters for America has also documented that numerous figures in the broadcast and print media, including Situation Room host Wolf Blitzer, have described McCain as a maverick. But McCain has changed his position on Bush's tax cuts, originally opposing them, but now supporting their permanent extension. McCain voted against the final version of Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax-cut package in 2001 -- explaining that he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," but he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief" -- and then voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut taxes on dividends and capital gains. However, in 2006, McCain voted for the bill extending the 2003 tax cuts, and, more recently, a press release on McCain's campaign website asserted, "John McCain will make the Bush income and investment tax cuts permanent, keeping income tax rates at their current level." McCain now maintains that he originally voted against the Bush tax cuts because they were not paired with spending cuts. Additionally, McCain has shifted his views of the religious right to align himself more closely with the base of the Republican Party.

From the July 1 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

ROBERTS: Let's start, first of all, with Colin Powell. As we said, this is a big endorsement. It looks like it might be up for grabs. Katrina, do you think that Barack Obama can peel him away from the Republican Party?

KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL (The Nation editor and publisher): I do. I think that Colin Powell has been someone who considers the Republican Party too extremist, too caught up with the neoconservative disasters. And he might well see in Barack Obama someone who I think -- and The Nation argues in an article this week -- Barack Obama's foreign policy may well restore the bipartisan consensus which characterized Bush I, and not this radical, reckless Bush II, neoconservative regime.

ROBERTS: Dana, we all -- we all know how disillusioned Colin Powell was in the -- the Bush administration. I mean, it -- it started when -- when he got his knuckles rapped on North Korea. He wanted to hang around for at least a little while in the second term, and he sort of got shuffled out.

But John McCain is a very different person, at least his record in terms of being a maverick and independent, than George Bush. Do -- do -- is there any hope by the McCain campaign that they might hang on to Powell's endorsement?

DANA BASH (CNN congressional correspondent): There's a lot of hope, absolutely, by the McCain campaign that they would get a Powell endorsement. And even more importantly, a lot of -- of fear that there -- there would be a potential endorsement of Barack Obama for a lot of reasons. But I think the biggest reason is because the -- the central theme of the McCain campaign -- you talk to their advisers and you really -- you see it -- it's pretty obvious, is that they're trying to say Barack Obama isn't really the kind of person who reaches across the aisle. If he got a Colin Powell endorsement, it would be very, very difficult for the McCain campaign to make that -- to make that claim still.

The other thing, I think, that is -- you know, not to be the skunk at the garden party -- but obviously, Colin Powell is somebody who had trouble with the Bush administration. But he still, on his legacy, in his legacy, is what happened at the United Nations and how he was very central in making the case for war in Iraq.

ROBERTS: All right. Well, somebody's got to be the skunk at the garden party.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by IRONY 101 (July 03, 2008 1:59 pm ET)
         
      Yea, you can't put a saddle on that maverick. Hell, he'll even contradict himself to prove how independent he is. He's not beholden to any man...not even himself.  ;>)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tommy (July 03, 2008 2:00 pm ET)
         

      Who really gets upset at these silly labels besides MMFA? They have been bandied around McCain for years and have been reduced to mere irrelevancies, throwaway descriptors that these pundits fall back on when they have run out of adjectives.  

      Stomping your media watchdogging feet every time they're uttered is an exercise in futility, nobody cares anymore.  It isn't even misinformation or furthering of some conservative agenda at this point, it's stale old labels that I imagine would illicit a shrug from even the most ardent McCain critics, except here.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (July 03, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
           
        For a good manual of the effect of political framing and the political use of labels , try Drew Westen's "The Political Brain."
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (July 03, 2008 2:41 pm ET)
           

        it's stale old labels...

        That are patently false, ergo, the misinformation.  He's no more a "maverick" than you are a space alien.  I like Rachel Maddow's "Double Talk Express" better.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (July 03, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
           

        "Who really gets upset at these silly labels besides MMFA?"

        I would surmise many of the people who read this item would, if they don't share your belief that apathy toward the "liberal" media is the best way to hold them accountable for telling the truth about a man who is seeking the presidency.

        If they truly are just silly labels, why does the media feel it necessary to furhter propagate them?  I think this is what MMFA is collectively asking.

        So what's more futile?  Getting upset (i.e. concern trolling) at a partisan organization for criticizing the media's use of silly labels, or getting upset at the media for propagating them in the first place?

        "Nobody cares anymore." 

        So it's all about how many people care?  What about the number of people that BELIEVE IT?

        McCain is not the only one running for the hills from Bush.  Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore) is up for reelection and is running countless ads in my area that downright dress him up as a Democrat!  The last thing we need is a media that's complicit in hiding their records from a populace that's had its fill of the right-wing agenda for a while.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (July 03, 2008 3:41 pm ET)
             

          Bottom line is that if you think this silly label stuff puffs up McCain and seriously furthers some conservative agenda, then you are entitled to that opinion, absolutely.  I don't. And for you to call someone who disagrees you, and MMFA, "trolling" on this website because they don't share your feelings on this is pretty lame, in my opinion.

          Sorry, Pete, just because I don't personally validate the attention given this "maverick" silliness, hardly justifies the "troll" label you affix to me.......since you're such a stickler for labels and all. 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (July 03, 2008 3:44 pm ET)
               
            Fog was at least nice enough to say that you were not a space alien...as far as he knows.  ;>)
            Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (July 03, 2008 4:30 pm ET)
               

            I figured you'd toss the rest of my post and latch onto that.

            You went beyond a simple lack of "personal validation" or a lack "mutual feelings."

            You wrote MMFA a prescription under the guise of supporting their overall goals.  I feel the concern trolling criticism (not label) is applicable because you have a longstanding legacy of not supporting MMFA's goals.  Sure, you'll toss in an occasional compliment here and there, but you're not fooling me.  Your goal, in my judgment, is the promotion of liberal and progressive apathy toward the media.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (July 03, 2008 4:55 pm ET)
                 

              Which MMFA goals would that be Pete?  The ones that are really concerned with media misinformation and setting the record straight, because I have often said those are commendable, look through the archives, you will see it for yourself.

              Or are you talking about Democratic party advocacy?  No, I am not on board with that sorry. 

              Or highlighting offensive stupid right wing talk show hosts offensive remarks? Those are here for the red meat crowd, they are basically throwaway comments with little to no relevance, so no, I think those are silly for the most part.

              As for this thread, I have already said why I think the "maverick" label is impotent.  Why don't you just disagree instead of your pedestal scolding stump speech on behalf of MMFA, I am not interested.  They are more than capable of the criticism, even if your sensibilities are not.

              Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 03, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
           

        Honestly, Tommy, there are times that I do.  I just had a discussion with a law school buddy who told me that he was thinking of voting for a Democratic candidate for the first time this election until the Republicans nominated McCain.  When I asked him why, he said its because he's so "independent."  I asked him what he based his thoughts on and he said that everything he had heard about McCain was that he was "independent." 

        I attempted to give him an assignment and told him that I wanted to hear the issues that McCain differed from Bush on.  I have yet to get a response.

        I understand where you are coming from, Tommy, but there are some who do buy into the media's labelling and go with it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (July 03, 2008 3:56 pm ET)
             

          Fried, There are some who buy into any labels, both pro Republican and pro Democrat - if people vote on labels and no substance that is their business.  People here always act like it works against them, it does not.  

          It is my opinion that many hardline partisans have no interest in educating anyone fairly or offering up varying opinions, they just want people to agree with them and follow them blindly. Generally speaking, those that object to this "maverick" label are less concerned with it's accuracy and fairness, than they are with worrying it may stray a vote or two away.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (July 03, 2008 5:16 pm ET)
               
            People voting with ignorance.  You're happy with that?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by friedbergboy1422 (July 03, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
               

            Tommy,

            While I see your point, when people vote based on labels and don't know what the person they are voting for stands for, that makes it our business.  When people vote on ignorance and not on facts, we all lose.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (July 03, 2008 4:52 pm ET)
           

        Oh goody.  Another one of Tommy's WITH posts.

        Color me surprised.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (July 03, 2008 2:03 pm ET)
         

      Roberts has a good point. Maverick has a long history of independent judgment, and of bi-partisanship, rarely ever letting partisan ideology interfere with sound leglisation and policymaking. That is why he has earned the ire of some right-of-center leaning journalists and scholars.  As an example:

      http://www.anncoulter.com/

      Report Abuse
      • Author by tommy (July 03, 2008 2:05 pm ET)
           
        Good point.  Perhaps MMFA should hire Coulter to write columns here like Eric Boehlert and the others.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dbeden4153 (July 03, 2008 2:19 pm ET)
             

          Tommy, I'd doubt Coulter would work for traitors ;)

          Of course, she's pretty shameless, so who knows?

          Report Abuse
          • Author by IRONY 101 (July 03, 2008 2:21 pm ET)
               
            Ann Coulter would do lap dances at the Republican Convention if she could make a buck...
            Report Abuse
      • Author by wookie (July 03, 2008 3:07 pm ET)
           
        No kidding! Ann Coulter accused someone of not being far enough to the right?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by commonsenseliberal (July 03, 2008 4:55 pm ET)
           

        Oh yes - and Ann Coulter is such the authority.

        You killed your credibility (and any semblance of support for an argument) when you used Coulter as a reference. 

        The only thing Coulter is an expert on is black dresses, smoking and credit card declinations...

        Report Abuse
    • Author by Dem02020 (July 03, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
         

       

      John McCain is so close to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney on the single issue of IRAQ, that they could be like some kind of Siamese triplets that you've seen a picture of in the Guinness Book of World Records (I might be misremembering that: I haven't seen that book in a lot of years)...

      McCain and Bush and Cheney are as close to one another on the issue of IRAQ, as the Three Stooges were, when they slept in the same bed (which they always did I think)...

      And on the issue of IRAQ, if you could take a snap poll from the American People, and ask them "do you think George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be shot by a firing squad because of IRAQ?"

      You might get a simple majority responding "yes"

      And seeing as how close McCain is to those two, on the issue of IRAQ, that same simple majority of Americans might say yes to all three of them being lined up before a firing squad: as the Three Stooges often were.

       

      Report Abuse
      • Author by neondesert (July 03, 2008 2:29 pm ET)
           
        You're just begging for someone to post that picture of Bush with the Moe haircut, aren't you?
        Report Abuse
    • Author by see it real (July 03, 2008 4:13 pm ET)
         

      GOP-CNN's John Roberts is STRIVING to be more right wing than his namesake counterpart on the Supreme Court.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 06, 2008 1:50 am ET)
         
      I'm not ready to take the chance that McCAIN  will be different than BUSH. McCAIN  has been pandering to the FAR RIGHT CONSERVATIVE BASE since he has secured the GOP nomination. We all know how good of a job the CONSERVATIVES have done the past eight years.
      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.