WSJ omits facts about McCain's voting record, reversal on immigration
SUMMARY: The Wall Street Journal reported that the RNC "made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the CQ 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, the Journal failed to note that according to a 2008 CQ study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year.
In an August 13 Wall Street Journal article, Elizabeth Holmes and Amy Chozick reported that the Republican National Committee (RNC) "criticized" Sen. Barack Obama "for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments." The article continued: "They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly." But in citing only the Congressional Quarterly 2005-2006 "party unity" scores provided by the RNC, Holmes and Chozick failed to note that according to a 2008 Congressional Quarterly study, McCain voted in support of the Bush administration's position 95 percent of the time in 2007, making McCain the administration's most reliable supporter in the Senate that year. Indeed, in a January 13 article (accessed via Nexis), CQ reported that "McCain's 95 percent support [for Bush] score for last year was the highest in the chamber." Moreover, CQ also found that McCain has voted with Bush 90 percent of the time over the seven-and-a-half years of Bush's presidency.
In addition, discussing the establishment of "Republicans for Obama," Holmes and Chozick wrote: "Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved." But in citing immigration as an example of McCain's "bipartisan activity," Holmes and Chozick did not note that, under pressure from the Republican base, McCain reversed himself on a key component of immigration reform, now saying that "we've got to secure the borders first" -- a position at odds with his prior assertion that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective. McCain further stated during the January 30 Republican presidential debate that he would not vote for the comprehensive reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) if it came to a vote on the Senate floor.
From the August 13 Journal article:
Sen. McCain echoed the same sentiment in his opening statements. "I know Americans are tired of the partisanship," he said before opening the floor up to questions. "I have a record of reaching across the aisle, reaching across the aisle and working with my friends, whether it be Joe Lieberman or Ted Kennedy."
The Arizona senator's comments were supported by the Republican National Committee, which criticized the Illinois senator for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments. They made note of Sen. Obama's party-line votes. During the 109th Congress, which was in session in 2005-2006, Sen. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. Sen. McCain voted with his party 81% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.
Despite Sen. McCain's bipartisan activity, including on campaign finance and immigration, the Republicans behind the Obama support group express dismay with how his candidacy has evolved.
Mr. [Lincoln] Chafee said that he supported Sen. McCain on a number of issues while he was in the Senate but said he's seen a sharp change. "It's a different John McCain," Mr. Chafee said, pointing to the candidate's reversal from previous stances to support offshore drilling and Bush tax cuts. "Seeing the two different John McCains is a fracture in his credibility."















They (O'Reilly and others) were making an issue of the Obama ad that quoted his votes from a few years ago where he voted with Bush 90% of the time. Only to find out, the most recent polling of him showed an even greater alliance between McCain and Bush.
The WSJ talking about one metric, one way to measure the candidates, while ignoring other metrics, is conservative misinformation.
Mary, your answer for the Wuss threw him off his game. Shame on you. He never would have thought of it that way.
We'll find him on the next thread.
Yet again ... MM takes an article that is very unflattering to Sen. McCain and cherrypicks a fact buried in it.
The casual reader will get the gist of the article, "Republican Trio Crosses Party Lines To Back Obama" and see that this is not good news for the senator.
"Conservative misinformation"? Hardly!
Yet again - Shoes nitpicks a story in a vain attempt to make her side look good, fails miserably, and slithers away.
Why don't you ever respond, Shoes? Are you chicken?
The WSJ did the cherry-picking, not MM.
(off topic alert: another republican wacko has committed a terrorist attack on US soil: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/us/14arkansas.html?ref=politics)
I'm not a Dem, so I've no political points to score, but if you can speculate that it was a shooting not based on politics, others can surely, and, in my opinion, be far more close to the truth in assuming it was a political hit.
You specifically called him a Republican with absolutely no factual basis, and you say you've no political point to score?
Now that's one for the books, LOL!
It's shameless to even assume his political affiliation unless you're out to shamelessly score political points, which you did, and you are.
Shameful.
And it's pathetic of you to try and score points as you pretend to give a shit.
Shoes,
Media Matters did not cherry pick a "fact."
Media Matters highlighted a piece of conservative misinformation. That's what Media Matters does.
It appears in this case that the reporters were too lazy to present the true facts, and merely repeated verbatim the sludge they were handed by the RNC stooges.
"RNC stooges" handed "sludge" to the NY Times for an article entitled "Republican Trio Crosses Party Lines To Back Obama"??
I really, really doubt that.
Republican National Committee (RNC) "criticized" Sen. Barack Obama "for, in its view, his lack of bipartisan accomplishments."
Say it ain’t so!
Hahaha!
This is just too good to pass up. McSame's lobbyist, what a guy!
Monday, August 11, 2008
POWER HOUSE
Super lobbyist, McCain donor and loathsome GOP figure Ed Rogers decided to talk to the Washington Post about Barack Obama last week:At least he was able to refrain from mentioning Obama's middle name while calling him "glitzy."
In other news, NBC has just completed the pilot for their new show, POWER HOUSE. In the first episode, we get to see how Ed Rogers and his wife live in their "Republican Shangri-La" -- an 18-thousand square foot estate in McLean, VA.
Looks just like my livingroom. We must have the same architect.
The genuine cowhide toilet-seat cover really says "I shit you not" with class. The golden studs around it aren't the least bit ostentatious.
And finally, we get to see why the lobbyists and hedonists with whom McCain has surrounded himself have proclaimed Americans to be a bunch of whiners:
That's right. She's standing in front of rows of her designer shoes cutting up sheets of freshly printed U.S. dollar bills with a pair of scissors so she can use them as wrapping paper.