Miami Herald leaves out McCain flip-flop, McClatchy critique of ad in reporting McCain's immigration-related attacks on Obama
SUMMARY: The Miami Herald quoted Sen. John McCain criticizing Sen. Barack Obama for "propos[ing] amendments that would have killed" an immigration bill McCain co-sponsored in 2006, but the article did not report that McCain later said he would vote against his own proposal if it were to come up again for a Senate vote.
A Miami Herald article about Sen. John McCain's September 15 campaign stop in Orlando quoted McCain saying he "fought for" comprehensive immigration legislation and criticizing Sen. Barack Obama for "propos[ing] amendments that would have killed" it. But the article did not report that McCain said during the Republican primary this year that he would no longer vote for his own immigration bill if it were to come up again in the Senate.
In the September 16 article, staff writers Beth Reinhard and Mary Ellen Klas wrote: "McCain spearheaded a bill in 2006 -- reviled by the right wing of his own party -- that would have allowed illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. Obama supported the overall goal but backed controversial amendments that would have limited a guest worker program." Reinhard and Klas then quoted McCain saying, ''The fact is that Sen. Obama proposed amendments that would have killed the legislation. I fought for it.''
In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, McCain said during a Republican primary debate that he would not vote for the immigration reform bill he co-sponsored with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Moderator Janet Hook mentioned that McCain's "original immigration proposal back in 2006 was much broader and included a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who are already here," and asked him: "At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the Senate floor, would you vote for it?" McCain responded that he would not, "because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first." This position is at odds with his previous position that border security could not be disaggregated from other aspects of comprehensive immigration reform without being rendered ineffective.
Further, Reinhard and Klas wrote that "McCain leveled the same charge in ads running in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, which Obama called 'dishonest' in an interview Sunday on Spanish-language television." But it was not just Obama who called the ad "dishonest"; McClatchy Newspapers itself, which owns the Herald, also concluded that the ad was not accurate, as did the editorial page of The New York Times. Reinhard and Klas did not note the McClatchy fact check or otherwise report that others besides Obama have accused the McCain campaign of distortions in the ad.
David Lightman wrote the fact check for McClatchy, which was posted September 12 on miamiherald.com and accused the McCain campaign of "misdirect[ing] blame" for the failure of the immigration bill:
Media accounts cited two votes as effectively killing immigration reform last year -- and Obama was on the same side as McCain in both.
On June 7, supporters failed by 15 votes to cut off a filibuster. McCain and Obama voted to limit debate. The Politico headline the next day: "Senate immigration compromise collapses."
On June 28, another effort to limit debate failed by 14 votes; CNN called it a "crushing defeat." Obama and McCain again voted to cut off debate, but it was largely Republican senators who led the filibuster.
In its review of the 2007 Congress, Congressional Quarterly cited both votes as crucial to killing the immigration measure.
The New York Times called the ad a "gross distortion" in a September 15 editorial titled, "What's Spanish for 'Lies'?" It said, "Hundreds of amendments were proposed to kill it or improve it, depending on your point of view, and some were called 'poison pills' by the 'grand bargainers' who had assembled the unwieldy compromise." It continued:
So, here is what that misleading Spanish ad is referring to.
Mr. Obama supported an amendment from Senator Byron Dorgan, backed by unions, that would have phased out a guest-worker program after five years. The amendment passed, 49 to 48, but it was no poison pill.
"Not one member of Congress stood up and said, 'I'm voting against the bill because of that Dorgan amendment,'" said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice, an organization supporting comprehensive immigration reform. "It's preposterous. Not even close."
In the end, it wasn't that amendment or any others supported by Mr. Obama that caused the fragile coalition to fall apart. The bill was killed by Mr. McCain's party. Its supporters were hoping to attract 25 to 30 Republican votes, but they could only round up 12, in the wake of all of those right-wing attacks.
From the September 16 Miami Herald article:
Speaking to a predominantly Hispanic audience considered crucial to winning Florida, Republican John McCain vowed Monday to make immigration one of his ''first priorities'' if elected president and accused Democrat Barack Obama of spiking reforms in Congress.
McCain spearheaded a bill in 2006 -- reviled by the right wing of his own party -- that would have allowed illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. Obama supported the overall goal but backed controversial amendments that would have limited a guest worker program.
''The fact is that Sen. Obama proposed amendments that would have killed the legislation. I fought for it,'' McCain told more than 350 people at a town hall meeting.
McCain leveled the same charge in ads running in Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, which Obama called ''dishonest'' in an interview Sunday on Spanish-language television.
Once pummeled for backing what critics tarred as ''amnesty,'' McCain has talked little about immigration during the general election campaign. He did not raise the issue Monday in Jacksonville, reliably Republican turf where he began a two-day tour that wraps up Tuesday in Tampa.
But Orlando offered a different audience. Central Florida is home to a fast-growing Hispanic community coveted for its political independence, unlike the staunchly Republican Cuban-American voters who have dominated Miami-Dade politics.














-- But the article did not report that McCain said during the Republican primary this year that he would no longer vote for his own immigration bill if it were to come up again in the Senate. -- mmfa
mmfa has floated this horse chestnut for months...dishonestly. McCain has never changed his mind on comprehensive immigration reform...he has just been quieter about it while pandering to voters.
Hook: At this point, if your original proposal came to a vote on the Senate floor, would you vote for it?
McCain: It won't. It won't. That's why we went through the debate...
Hook: But if it did?
McCain: No, it would not, because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal.
Cook: So I just want to confirm that you would not vote for your bill as it originally was?
McCain: My bill will not be voted on; it will not be voted on.
He plainly said his proposal would never make it back to the floor for a vote...that's why he wouldn't vote for it...it would be impossible to vote for a bill that never reached the floor.
But McCain has made many statements during the campaign that showed his continued support for immigration reform...including amnesty. mmfa is flat out wrong and dishonest in this continued charade.
http://speechology.org/video/mccain-on-immigration
Uh, sorry Wes. Even his own in-laws don't recognize him anymore.
54. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.
55. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
56. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders “before proceeding to other reform measures.” Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he’d never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his “top priority.”
Snoop,
Don't confuse me with someone defending McCain's position on illegal immigration...or being a straight talker...or being a maverick.
My beef is with the crap that mmfa is reporting on this issue. McCain was very clear why he wouldn't vote for the amendment...it would never reach the floor to be voted on.
mmfa has dishonestly word-smithed this issue to paint a phony picture...making them just like many media members that they piously rant against.
McCain, at his core, is just another long time politician...give lip service to his principles...say anything to get elected...and in the end...we get saddled with another lousy leader.
But that's not reason enough for mmfa to dishonestly report this story...puts them in the same class with McCain...front row seatmates in shittypolitics 101.
You're trying to saddle us with a lousy, incompetent flip-flopper for President, and that's enough reason for you to be dishonest, Wesley. Media Matters hasn't misled anyone or distorted reality. McCain said that he would not vote for his own bill if it came up for a vote. He didn't only say that it would not come up for a vote, and therefore he wouldn't get the chance to vote up or down on it. He said that if he got the chance, he wouldn't vote for it.
There was a mistake in the transcript - listen to the audio. It's clear he said that he won't vote for it IF it came up for a vote.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310007
CNN's transcription of the January 30 debate and a January 31 Associated Press article misquoted McCain as saying of the bill, "[I]t would not" come to a vote, rather than "I would not" vote for it.
My beef is with the crap that mmfa is reporting on this issue. McCain was very clear why he wouldn't vote for the amendment...it would never reach the floor to be voted on.
- wesley / Tuesday September 16, 2008 8:51:54 PM EDT
More dishonesty from the punk Wesley. McCain was clear as to why he would not vote for his own bill. It wasn't because it wouldn't come up for a vote. If it wouldn't come up for a vote, he wouldn't ever have to worry about voting against it, that's true, but if it did come up for a vote, he would vote against it. There's a difference between never having to vote up or down on a bill and saying you would vote against it if you did have to vote up or down on it. McCain said that if he did have to vote up or down, on his own bill, he would vote against it.
And the reason he would vote against it is because he has flip-flopped on immigration.
Until he got lots of pushback and he then caved to his critics, he had a reasonable approach to immigration reform. After he caved, not so much. After he caved, he couldn't continue to support the bill he had previously supported.
Wesley, will you ever stop being a dishonest punk?
You quote McCain as saying "it", when he really said "I".
He said "I" would not vote for my own bill.
HOOK: I know [it won’t come to the floor], but what if it did?
MCCAIN: No, I would not, because we know what the situation is today.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801310007
Listen to the audio. It's undeniable that he said he would not vote for his own bill.
You're a dishonest punk to try to claim that Media Matters has gotten it wrong time after time after time.
Mefirst, I know population is an important issue to you, as it is with me. I think the only beef I ever got into with you at this site was an immigration topic where you thought I was dismissing the problems of overpopulation. For the record, I think most problems in the world are related to uncontrolled population growth.
On that topic, I got an email from a right wing site I check out with the trailer for Demographic Winter. Have you seen this? I couldn't figure out if it was some White Supremacist group or a panicky Christian fringe group, but it's pretty bizarre.
whatever their agenda is belongs to them. it does seem off the wall, but my point is that every problem in this world and this country is worsened by overpopulation. as the late liberal senator gaylord nelson, founder of earth day, said: "but in this country, it's phony to say i'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration". with present trends, we're looking at a population of over 400 million before 2050. that's a bad idea.
http://tripatlas.com/Gaylord_Nelson