ABC, NBC reported on ad of Clinton supporter backing McCain without noting her false suggestion that McCain supports abortion rights
SUMMARY: The evening newscasts on ABC and NBC each aired a portion of a McCain campaign ad featuring Clinton supporter Debra Bartoshevich. But neither noted that at a Republican press conference, Bartoshevich reportedly falsely suggested that Sen. John McCain does not support overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, McCain's campaign website says that he "believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned."
During the August 25 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News, Capitol Hill correspondent Kelly O'Donnell reported that Sen. John McCain was "[a]ggressively pursu[ing] Hillary Clinton voters" before airing a McCain campaign ad showing Clinton supporter Debra Bartoshevich saying, "I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain." On the August 25 broadcast of ABC's World News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper aired the same clip of Bartoshevich from the ad. However, neither O'Donnell nor Tapper noted that earlier that day at a Republican press conference, Bartoshevich reportedly falsely suggested that McCain does not support overturning Roe v. Wade. In fact, McCain's campaign website currently says: "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned." Moreover, according to Michael Scherer of Time magazine, a Republican National Committee spokesman contradicted Bartoshevich after the press conference.
In an August 25 post on Time's Swampland blog, Scherer reported that Bartoshevich said at the press conference: "Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions." Scherer reported that "[a]fter the event, an RNC spokesman reiterated that McCain has been very clear about his position on abortion this campaign cycle. And he has. He speaks about the life issue at almost every campaign event, and his campaign has aggressively courted evangelical voters by highlighting McCain's consistent pro-life voting record, and his stated determination to appoint Supreme Court justices like [Samuel] Alito and [John] Roberts."
On August 20, 1999, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that during an interview with the paper's editorial board that McCain did say: "I'd love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations." But on August 23, 1999, according to the Chronicle, McCain issued what the Chronicle called a "clarification," stating: "I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as president, I would work toward its repeal. ... But that ... must take place in conjunction with a sustained effort to reduce the number of abortions performed in America" [ellipses in original].
As Media Matters for America has noted, McCain has previously made other inconsistent statements about his position on Roe and abortion rights.
From Scherer's post:
Midway through the event, Bartoschevich was asked if she was concerned about McCain's pro-life voting record. At a podium paid for by the Republican National Committee, with McCain aide Carly Fiorina standing nearby, Bartoschevich said this:
Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions.
Was she going off message? Or are Republicans engaging in some cagey multi-messaging? After the event, an RNC spokesman reiterated that McCain has been very clear about his position on abortion this campaign cycle. And he has. He speaks about the life issue at almost every campaign event, and his campaign has aggressively courted evangelical voters by highlighting McCain's consistent pro-life voting record, and his stated determination to appoint Supreme Court justices like Alito and Roberts. Just last week, in his weekly radio address, McCain hammered Obama on abortion. "I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade," he said.
From the August 25 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:
WILLIAMS: The news media and political types, especially everybody in here, still chatting about Obama's choice of Joe Biden as a running mate. And as one theory goes, the Biden choice might change or alter or influence John McCain's choice of a running mate. Kelly O'Donnell covers that campaign for us. She's in Arizona tonight.
[begin video clip]
O'DONNELL: The McCain strategy? Rule one: Do not give the week away to the Democrats. So John McCain is staying visible. Today at wife Cindy's high school alma mater in Phoenix:
McCAIN: I have a very honorable opponent and one who will receive the nomination of his party this week in Denver.
O'DONNELL: Rule two: Keep the media guessing. What reporters thought would be a press conference turned out to be a surprise endorsement from a Latin Grammy-winning star.
McCAIN: Here he is, Daddy Yankee.
O'DONNELL: The teenagers shrieked.
McCAIN: I just want to say thank you, Daddy Yankee.
O'DONNELL: Rule three: Aggressively pursue Hillary Clinton voters. Today, another Hillary-inspired ad.
BARTOSHEVICH: She had the experience and judgment to be president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain.
O'DONNELL: And hanging in the air, the biggest unknown: Who will join McCain on the GOP ticket to counter Biden, who brings experience and blue collar roots that connect with voters in big industrial states?
From the August 25 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
TAPPER: But while Obama was reaching outside his party, in Denver, the unity of the Democratic Party was under the spotlight. For many supporters of Senator Hillary Clinton still bitter about her loss in the primaries --
GROUP: Eighteen million.
TAPPER: -- Obama's hope for victory this fall is not a priority. This morning, Clinton gave them a pep talk.
CLINTON: Good morning. We're not the fall-in-line party. We're diverse. Many voices.
TAPPER: Obama today downplayed any tension, but acknowledged he had some work to do.
OBAMA: There are going to be some of Senator Clinton's supporters who we're going to have to work hard to persuade to come on board.
TAPPER: Last week, Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, met with some campaign officials for Senator John McCain, and former President Clinton recently praised McCain for his leadership on global warming -- fissures in the party that McCain and the Republicans are hoping to exploit in a glut of new TV ads reminding voters of what Clinton said about Obama just a few weeks ago.
CLINTON: You never hear the specifics. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I will bring a lifetime of experience. And Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.
TAPPER: Another ad features a former Democratic delegate for Clinton.
BARTOSHEVICH: She had the experience and judgment to be president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain.
CLINTON: Let me state what I think about their tactics and these ads. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message.
Welcome to the U.S. of A.
Her kind represents about-- oh, maybe 65 % of the total population. A nation of morons.
A lesser man than me would hope she gets raped and knocked up the day after congress outlaws all abortions, following the supreme court decision to overtu ROE v. WADE.
Me? I just wish these loonies would be content to live their OWN lives according to their respective medival superstitions and stop trying to shove them down the rest of our throats.
Yeah... this country needs a new direction alright. Good thing were at least STARTING to go that way.
trying to make it sound that they don't know when they believe conception occurs
I have to admit that I may not understand this bit because I didn't hear Pelosi's speech myself. For I moment I'll assume this should say something about "life beginning at concepcion?" (please correct me if I'm wrong. Like I said: I didn't hear her speech.)
But if that's the case, I CAN assure you - it doesn't. In fact there's not even the potential for life at that point. It's absurd. Until IMPLANTATION in the uterine wall there is NO POTETNTIAL FOR HUMAN LIFE. PERIOD. To believe otherwsie is to fail Biology 101 and need to look up definition of potential. (Something that's IMPOSSIBLE can't have the POTENTIAL to happen! Which is the case of a fetus anywhere OTHER than implanted in the uterine wall!)
BTW - this argument does suggest that all abortions are still very much WRONG; assuming you value the POTENTIAL for life the same as [something fitting a more universal definition of] life. (Which I do.) But it clearly prooves that any and all anti-stem cell and anti-contracepcion nonsense - INCLUDING the "morning after" pill, are just that: medieval superstitious NONSENSE.
And even in admiting that abortion is immoral - and I believ that it is - NOTHING gives me the right to force that value onto someone else... Especially since WE DON'T KNOW when life begins, and WE ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION to vlaue all stages of potential life equally. And it certainly does not allow a doctor to refuse to give SOMEONE ELSE access to contraception. Religious prohibitions apply only to the people who believe in them. NO ONE ELSE.
Roe V Wade will never be overturned. It's a scare tactic by the left and a rallying cry by the right. Both sides use it to raise money and get votes but the issue is settled, rightly or wrongly.
B*LLSH!#. It absolutely CAN be overturned, as the four troglodytes sitting on the right of the Supreme Court have shown a breathatking disregard for any president that doesn't fit their narrow, extremist political viewpoint. One more judge. That's all it will take. One judge, one challenge, and it's GONE. Same goes for most of our cherished freedoms and legal protections. You're a fool if you don't recognize this. Outside of being both blinded and stupified by religious fanaticism, I don't understand how ANYONE can't see this.
The Supreme Court is the only really improtant voting issue here people!!! Everything else is transient and even the worst decisions last four years TOPS. But these guys stick around FOR DECADES. IF YOU DON'T THINK OUR CONSTITUTIONAL FREDDOMS ARE IN JEOPADRY WITH THIS COURT [AND GOD FORBID WITH ONE MORE CONSERVATIVE TROLL ON THE BENCH] THEN YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION!!!
Unfortunately, I think you're right.
I'm always right... whenever I sincerely hope I'm wrong!
I have 2 hands, a map, a compass, and a GPS. How can I get lost?
When you have one hand constantly on your weiner, it should not be counted in your "inventory". And your map, compass, and GPS won't help you, Wuss, because the one thing you're lacking is a clue.
What!?!?!?!?!?!?
Cut it out you muppet!!
Knowledge?!? You think O'bama has knowledge when he doesn't even know what city he is in moment to moment?? He was in St. Louis with a nice family one moment, then moments later he was transported to Kansas City with the same family. Good thing his daughter was there to help him remember where he is at.
Obama was in St. Louis the night before, so that was an honest mistake. Iran and Pakistan have NEVER shared a border, so that's an example of Gramps McCain being unfit for the presidency.
"Obama was in St. Louis the night before, so that was an honest mistake."
You mean he can't remember from night to night where he is at? When that call comes in at 3am, will he have to try to remember who called? Hopefully not thinking about who called the night before?
"the former POW who doesn't even know what terrorists we are at war with, who doesn't know what countries border other countries, and who has to have Losermann of all people correct him when he speaks."
So you're saying that not knowing the difference between president and vice-president and not knowing how many states are in this country and not knowing where he is moment to moment is better than not knowing world geography?
Oh, O'bama needed a 5 year old to ask him to clarify his location.
So you're saying being an adulterer, lying about your adopted child, lying about your time as a POW, being corrected by Losermann, having your campaign surrogates say "when mccain says that on the campaing trail, he really isn't speaking for the mccain campaign" and the million other flip flops and uh, I forgot how many houses I have, what car I drive, and who I sleep with makes you more qualified?
Kahn, I'm laughing at your superior intellect...
The guy is rich. Even O'bama could NOT get the number of houses McCain owns right. The next day Obama comes out with an attack ad whining about McCain not knowing how many houses he has. O'bama claimed McCain owned 7. His brilliant staff of "fact checkers" could not even come close. According to an AP article the next day, McCain owns 8 homes, and that one of the properties has several houses on it which could take the count up to 12 or 13 depending on how you count them.
So, O'bama creates an attack ad that is full of lies (which O'bama approved) and you think O'bama is qualified. McCain isn't the only liar out there.
BTW, the rest of your list was inacurate, also. You just make that stuff up to sound impressive, don't you? Typical liberal
You don't travel much do you? I've said "Spain" when I was in "Portugal." That can get you into a fist-fight over there, but it happens. Personally, if you were ever in 17 cities in 20 days, I'm sure you'd made a mistake or two. Mistakes are OK. They happen. Correct yourself, laugh it off and move on. That's what strong MEN and WOMEN do.
OTH - clinging to a mistake and insisting it's right, throwing good money (and lives) after bad? That the act of a spoiled child. Not knowing shia/sunni, Chzeck's not a country, Iran/Pakistan borders, etc, etc, etc... Well, those would be just mistakes... But when they guy (repeatedly)making them claims to be some kind of EXPERIENCED FORIEGN POLICY WONK and then tries to paint his opponent otherwise... That goes WAY BEYOND a simple mistake. It's called IGNORNACE, LIES or HYPOCRASY. (Pick one, and hang it around your candidate's neck, because THAT'S what you're voting for.)
"You don't travel much do you? I've said "Spain" when I was in "Portugal." "
Yes, I've travelled a bit. I have said "I don't know" when I didn't know where I was. But, when I was in Baumholder Germany, I said I was in Baumholder Germany. When I was in Taipei Taiwan I said I was in Taipei Taiwan. When I drive from east coast to west coast, I will say I don't know which state/city I'm in at any given time if I don't know.
But, to be camped out with a local family (for the evening) and NOT know where you are is just plain stupid. Ignorant, if you want me to be friendlier. What a great president he will make...."should I bomb Iran or Turkey...ah it doesn't matter...they're all the same". I look forward to THAT statement from him soon.
"should I bomb Iran or Turkey...ah it doesn't matter...they're all the same". I look forward to THAT statement from him soon.
Again, this is somethig you're more likely to hear from McCain. Obama made a mistake. Unless he's touting his National Ranking in the High Geography Bee that's all it is. McCain has made MANY statements now barely more enlightened that your example above, all the while touting his foreign policy experience and saying that his opponent doesn't understand these matter. (Like say... the difference between shiites and sunni's.)
I'm not totally clueless. - Phil
Denial is the first step...
Philib, first off you may know which city you are in, but I'd like to know which planet you are on? Also, which city sits on the Iraq/Pakinstan border?
P.S. I don't like to talk about it but, I am the real POW. So you cannot say anything bad about me.
Philib, my keyboard is running out of ink so I'll be ending contact with you.
Did you just say that there are 47 states and St.Louis and Kansas City are the same city? Is that what you just wrote? Can I quote you last post in the future?
Got to stop now, my keyboard has been taken over by the ghost of the Original Philib. Goodbye Philib..good luck getting responses from other posters. I cannot post with someone who believes there are 47 states unless it was just a slip of the finger.
Last month she started making loud public statements about supporting McCain while she was still scheduled to attend the Democratic Convention as a Hillary delegate. They told her to stop. She didn't. They removed her delegate status. After that she made a very bitter statement that after the "way she had been treated" she would never support the party again.
Yeah, that's pretty sane and rational.
Hey Phi, the last wingnut stooge I put this one to couldn't answer it, let's see how you fare:
Eight years ago the Republican Party decided that the man who may go down in history as the worst American President ever was more qualified for the job than McCain. So, in the past eight years, how has McCain become more qualified now than he was then?
"So, in the past eight years, how has McCain become more qualified now than he was then?"
Because the previously more qualified candidate is no longer able to run for the office. You do know your constitution, right? He can only be in office for 2 terms.
If it will help you understand my concerns...the supreme court got 2 good judges during the Bush administration. I don't think ginsberg will live through another presidency, so I will vote republican in order to get another good judge in there. His stance on abortion will also weigh heavily on my mind during election day. The Iraq war is a toss up. Both guys say the same thing-- reduce troops. But each mean 100K troops will stay there. After that, all the issues run together and none stand out as any more important than another.
And what are your thoughts on McCain's experience on world stage please?
Also, please:
Do not mention Georgia, he (and his campaign) is on their pay roll.
Do not mention Iraq, he favors NEVER brings our troops home. Even the Bush administration accepted a timetable (horizon, whatever).
lastly, please do not mention bomb bomb bomb Iran.
Well, even if you mention any of above, please explain how his policy is not a continuation of Bush's.
What 'tough questions' has McCain answered so far?
What 'tough questions' has McCain answered so far?- my4cents1172
Good question, Myfour. "How many houses do you have" seemed like a real stumper to GramPOW, and that seems like a creampuff for most people.
The hardest question I've heard anyone ask him was about the point at which a baby gets human rights. That one's impossible to answer, as it's all philosophy and opinion and religion, but he came up with a crazy answer without hesitation.
Maybe he's a bit of a surrealist, confused by simple reality-based questions, while jumping on abstract poetic types.
Hopefully for him the debates will cover topics like "How do you mend a broken heart ?" and "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"
What 'tough questions' has McCain answered so far?
Well, tough questions, such as the number of homes he owns, have forced John McCain to discuss his experience as a POW...and you know how much he hates to talk about that. ;>)
In our News interview, he was asked what kind of car he drove. As with Politico’s question about home ownership, he didn’t know and had to ask a nearby aide. “A Cadillac CTS,” she told him.
Q: I’m just saying is he for taking away the tax breaks for big oil?
GRIFFIN: Yes!
Q: He is for that?
GRIFFIN: Yes. The tax breaks in the 2005 energy bill, Senator McCain believes they should be repealed, yes.
Romney: McCain Doesn’t Speak For McCain When He Suggests Renegotiating The Colorado River Compact»
What do you expect though? This is the same guy who lies about his pow experience, lies about his adopted daughter and lies about his voting record. So if all you got is some pissy little beef about Obama making a little gaffe run with it, cause it's nothing compared to the moron you plan on voting for.
But really, keep doing that. You've managed to kill everyone else but like a poor marksman, you keep... missing... the target!
Revenge is a dish best served cold...
But really, keep doing that.
Don't encourage them, Snoop. The wingnuts have already repeated their same points about 20 times in this thread.
Repetition really seems to be the key with wingnut talking points. Just like training parrots to talk or dogs to sit, it works on them. It's cute when they think it's going to work on humans.
and you're relying on the fact that Clinton supporters don't think so they'll follow the herd? How very... "democratic" in your views.. lol
“Senator McCain was a senator. He had to vote. He had to decide, 'Am I in favor of pursuing these tax cuts or not,' and he voted against the tax cuts — twice.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-23-romney-mccain_n.htm
"His plan calls for a new financial burden to be placed on people who are purchasing gasoline, or for that matter, natural gas to heat their homes or to cook in their homes. The energy information agency has said that his plan would cost America 300,000 jobs. In addition, people would pay, they estimate, approximately 50 cents per gallon more for gasoline and 20 percent more for their gas utility bill. That would depress the economy just at a time when we’re trying to stimulate the economy.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/01/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry3756414.shtml
The Cato Institute on John McCain“The foreign policy that John McCain now advocates is reckless and promiscuously interventionist. If he were a university student majoring in international relations or security studies, he would deserve a resounding F for his analysis of the crucial issues that the United States has confronted over the past 14 or 15 years. After a promising start, his performance has steadily deteriorated. The last thing that America needs is an even more aggressive and incompetent steward of foreign policy than George W. Bush has been.”http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9548
Rush Limbaugh on McCain:"I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama or McCain…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402798.html
Ann Coulter on McCain:“John McCain is Bob Dole minus the charm, conservatism and youth. Like McCain, pollsters assured us that Dole was the most "electable" Republican. Unlike McCain, Dole didn't lie all the time while claiming to engage in Straight Talk.”
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59854
George W Bush on McCain:On the one hand, he preaches campaign funding reform. On the other hand, he says pass the plate.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/09/ip.00.html
Go ahead, keep working the primary angle for your ads John. There’s a lot more stuff like this to be found.
"McCain supporters are confused"
What city are YOU in? Talk about confused...your candidate is confused!
I just looked at an interview with Debra Bartoshevich, the young woman who was elected in Wisconsin to be a Hillary Clinton delegate. After Clinton withdrew, Bartoshevich announced that she would vote for McCain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJm-56iKMAo&feature=user
The Wisconsin Democratic Party then removed her as a delegate, citing a pledge the woman had signed to support the Democratic nominee.
She has now been used in a McCain campaign ad.
I am having a hard time understanding what this young woman is about. She didn't state (in fairness she wasn't asked) why she was for Hillary Clinton so it's impossible to know if there are any policy issues (on women's rights, on the economy, on health care, on Iraq) that are important to her. Perhaps none are. But, if there are, then it would be difficult to see where McCain and Clinton agree on any of these issues.
As to the supposed unfairness of the Wisconsin Democratic Party in unseating her - she admits that she signed a pledge that she would support the Party's nominee. On this she suggests that she didn't know what she was signing - which merely reflects poorly on her - and that she signed expecting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee - as to this, one would hope that she might understand that in an election no one is guarenteed victory (that is after all the point of the election) and that if her promise to follow the rules was conditional on the outcome she has no one to blame but herself.
Most tellingly she repeatedly refers to the "Wisconsin Democrat Party". The phrase "Democrat Party" is used by some Republicans as a rather immature way to "razz" the Democrats. It is only used by partisan Republicans. Democrats all refer to the Democratic Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase)
It certainly suggests that she is a plant who is simply trying to disrupt the Democrats' nominating process.
It certainly suggests that she is a plant who is simply trying to disrupt the Democrats' nominating process.
That was my suspicion as well. I'm sure that if someone dug in to the Wisconsin voter registration records, they would show that until recently she was a registered Republican.
How could anyone who genuinely supported Hillary's issues vote for McGrumpy? The only possible reasons are fear, racism or stupidity.