AP ignored McCain's record in reporting Palin's attack on Obama's troop funding vote
SUMMARY: The AP reported that Gov. Sarah Palin accused Sen. Barack Obama of "voting to cut funding to troops, which Palin said left those in Iraq at grave risk." But the article did not mention that Sen. John McCain himself voted against legislation that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ignoring Sen. John McCain's own vote against troop funding, an October 21 Associated Press article by staff writer Sandra Chereb reported that Gov. Sarah Palin accused Sen. Barack Obama of "voting to cut funding to troops, which Palin said left those in Iraq at grave risk." While Chereb noted that "Obama's lone vote against a funding measure came because the bill did not include a timetable for withdrawal of troops" and that Obama "followed with a vote for funding and has supported every other funding measure," the article did not mention that McCain himself voted against legislation that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
As Media Matters for America noted, the AP has previously ignored McCain's own vote against war funding while quoting attacks on Obama.
From the October 21 AP article:
In Palin's view, the potential crises would be sparked by Obama's own actions. Playing off the Republican ticket's previous criticisms of the Democratic nominee, she criticized Obama for:
[...]
Opposing the troop surge in Iraq and voting to cut funding to troops, which Palin said left those in Iraq at grave risk. Obama's lone vote against a funding measure came because the bill did not include a timetable for withdrawal of troops; he followed with a vote for funding and has supported every other funding measure.
"Obama's lone vote against a funding measure came because the bill did not include a timetable for withdrawal of troops; he followed with a vote for funding and has supported every other funding measure"
WITH? This is perfectly accurate reporting, yet it's not good enough for MMFA? They would rather the AP include McCain's vote against funding without context. Too funny.
Sometimes, more than accuracy is required.
The report promoted the McCain/Palin stump speech but omitted McCain's own vote against funding, which according to McCain/Palin wingnut logic would leave those "in Iraq at grave risk".
The McCain/Palin version harms Obama's campaign while it promotes McCain/Palin.
The article reports on Palin's out of context claim regarding Obama's vote against funding. The article corrects the record by putting Obama's vote in context. I see nothing wrong with it.
How about if somebody were to say "Context, shmontext, Obama voted against funding, and that's reason enough not to vote for him!"?
I don't know who "somebody" is? The media? A voter? Not sure I get your point Colonel?
"A voter" would probably work well as "somebody". I was just trying to make the item more understandable for you. The article puts Obama's vote in one context, but not in another context that would be much more informative.
The article puts Obama's vote in it's context. Which is normally the "uncritical" part that MMFA always complains about, I guess now that isn't good enough.
The article puts Obama's vote in it's(sic) context..
Bingo, Tommy. It puts the vote into context only of Obama's vote. Can you think of another well-known presidential candidate, possibly an opponent of Obama, whose troop-funding vote would provide a much more enlightening and well-rounded context?
I'll answer this one Tommy. Bob Barr
You, Sir, are a great real American.
I know this just ticks you and MMFA off Colonel, but this particular article is about Palin, and her claims, her attacks. The article's author reports on her claims, and then shoots it down by putting it in context, Bingo - Palin is shown to be spinning at best, intentionally leaving out the vote's context just to make Obama look bad. The reader certainly gets that.
If and when an article is written about Obama or Biden's claims about McCain's vote funding, then the article should then put it in context as well.
So, just to be clear, why specifically does McCain's vote against funding the troops not pertain to Palin's claim?
I have been clear, if not clear enough for you, sorry. The article is fair and responsible reporting, obviously you, and others don't think so. Believe me, I am more than comfortable with having a different opinion than you, so you needn't worry.
I'm not worried. Like the Col., I'm now bored, though.
As much as I hate to contradict what you know about me, Tommy, I'm not ticked off. I just went from "amused" to "bored", though.
I am sorry. Perhaps to avoid boredom setting in, you should resist the urge to engage me in conversation around here - just a suggestion. :)
It sort of depends on the reader, doesn't it? I'm not sure Palin's charge is totally diffused by listing the reason for Obama's vote. Some people would say the funding of the troops is more important than a timeline, so Obama's priorities would be out of whack.
But if you show how McCain voted against funding the troops, for whatever reason, that kills off any effectiveness of the charge that might carry over.
Isn't that true?
"Some people would say the funding of the troops is more important than a timeline, so Obama's priorities would be out of whack"
But that is up to the voter to decide that, nevertheless that is why Obama voted against it. If a voter says that is not a good enough reason, that is their choice. The point is Obama's vote against troop funding is given in it's full and complete context, so the reader and/or the voter have the information on his vote to make an informed decision. As I said, I think it's perfectly fair.
Of course it's up to the voter to decide that, but this article doesn't allay their concerns on the matter. Why shouldn't more information be given in order to do that?
I never said it shouldn't be given, I am talking about the fairness of this article where Obama is concerned. If you think the article is unfair, we disagree, I don't.
If people don't think the timeline is relevant, that the troops should be funded either way, then Palin's charge stands as far as those people are concerned. How is that fair to Obama?
Huh? If people don't think a timeline is relevant they probably wouldn't accept his reasons for voting against the troop funding, so your "fairness" towards Obama argument is moot.
Then they wouldn't accept McCain's reasons for voting against troop funding as well. They should know that.
One voted against troop funding because it had a timeline, the other voted against troop funding because it didn't have a timeline. If one doesn't accept Obama's reason doesn't mean they wouldn't accept McCains. They are the exact opposites.
This point is moot but it's only moot becuase only Obama's vote gets reported. McCain's vote against funding the troops is somehow lost on the media. MSM is somehow clueless to his vote. In report after report on votes to fund the troops, Obama's vote gets mentioned and McCain's does not. And there's no valid reson for it.
"In report after report on votes to fund the troops, Obama's vote gets mentioned and McCain's does not"
Perhaps if you step outside the comfort of MMFA, you would see your claim above as being ridiculous. I have seen the MSM report plenty on McCain's votes, just because it's not highlighted on this website is not indicative of the real world outside partisan parameters that some of us inhabit.
Do you have a MSM link to a report that mentions McCain's vote against funding the troops in 2007? I honestly have not seen one.
One example;
October 13, 2008, 10:15 am....The New York Times The Caucus Blog
Check Point: Funding the Troops
By Larry Rohter
That report FAILS to mention McCain's VOTE against funding the Troops.
If they're that much in favor of the war at this point in time, then those people will vote for McCain anyway. It will still make a difference to other people who think that the troops should be funded no matter what, because this article gives them a reason to vote for McCain over Obama.
The more information, the better. The hypocrisy is directly relevant to the topic. You don't have an argument as to why they shouldn't provide this information. So why put your WITH stamp on it?
But you're leaving out how the article is showing Palin being disingenuous in her criticism of Obama, because she leaves out his reason for voting against the troop funding, as the article corrects the record by showing Obama's vote against in clear context. So I haven't the vaguest idea how this article "gives them a reason to vote for McCain over Obama". Your argument makes no sense.
Seriously? This whole time I've been saying that they don't necessarily point out her disingenuousness, because a person who thinks the troops should be funded no matter what still takes her point as a reason to vote for McCain over Obama. They don't take that reason as meaningful, therefore the charge stands.
What part of this is unclear?
So your argument is because some voters may see any vote against the troop funding as bad, they are going to vote for McCain over Obama because the article isn't talking about McCain's votes against? You can't be serious with that convoluted nonsense?
That's your problem, your overanalyze everything to some ridiculoun nth degree just to argue with me. Wow....
No, I don't accept your senseless premise, or your argument, try it with someone else.
Who exactly do you think Palin was trying to appeal to when she made the comment in the first place?
Why is it a "problem" to point out that you can't speak for all readers, that different people have different viewpoints and that affects how they'll take the article? It's a discussion forum, we're having a discussion. Nothing to complain about.
I am only speaking for myself, you are the one who is trying to speak to how you think reader's will react to some all or nothing troop funding scenario you have invented just to argue with me.
And you do it because this article is completely fair and gives Obama's votes against that troop funding in complete context, and MMFA is whining off base for even highlighting this article, and you can't defend it being here.
"I am only speaking for myself, you are the one who is trying to speak to how you think reader's will react to some all or nothing troop funding scenario you have invented just to argue with me."
That's a lie:"The article's author reports on her claims, and then shoots it down by putting it in context, Bingo - Palin is shown to be spinning at best, intentionally leaving out the vote's context just to make Obama look bad. The reader certainly gets that."
As for my motivations, I'm pointing it out because it's a reason to include more information. Since there's no reason to exclude that information, by your own admission, my point stands.
McCain's vote on the same issue warrents mention.
That bit always seems to get left out. I wonder how much play the $150K of campaign money they've spent on Gov Palin's wardrobe will get. Probably not as much as Edwards' $400 haircut. Which he (eventually) paid for out of his own pocket.
Well they did say it would be going to charity
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
The Sarah Palin fight song!
Add to that the $13,200 in makeup they spent on her just in September, and finish it off with the fact that they spend twice as much per month on McCains' makeup, and what you have here folks is pure arrogance! You could provide a year of healthcare to 20 Americans for that. You could pay the yearly salary of 5 joe the plumbers for that. Yeah, they are just like us middle class voters...
Campaigns spend a lot of money. I have no problem with that. The thing that really bugs me about this is that when the Edwards haircut flap first started the complaint was that he'd used campaign funds for this expensive haircut. A vocal minority (the Republican party and the MSM) didn't think that's what campaign contributions were for and blew it up in to a big scandel. Now we have McPalin spending what? 400 times that amount? and it barely makes a blip on the MSM's radar. And McCain basically said it's nobodies business how he spends his campaign money.
I read today that Palin may be liable for the taxes on her "gift". The spree was originally paid for by a "contributor" and supposedly the "contributor" will be reimbursed from the RNC.
Clothing purchased, that will only be used for work, is not taxable. But the clothes can't be worn for any other reason. An example in the article was that if she were to wear an outfit, purchased by the RNC to lunch with her husband, it would not be deductible.
The RNC allegedly also picked up the tab for a bill at a store named "Pacifier" which only sells baby items.
I know that Joes the Imaginary Plumbers probably don't have a problem with this but Worrierking the anti-American has a big problem with it.
I don't know why people can't get this right.
Obama voted against the funding of the war because ther was no time table stipulation in the bill. McCain voted against the bill that HAD a time table. There were two different bills. Reid and Pelosi and other Dems (including Obama) wanted the time table and they did not get it.
Politicians can not and should not have a voice in dictating war policy. Congress can barely run themselves, let alone a war.
I don't think anybody here is having trouble "getting it right", it's only the media that's got it screwed up.
Politicians can not and should not have a voice in dictating war policy(Suppat)
Who should dictate war policy? If you don't think anybody should 'dictate" it, who should be involved in seting it?
I should have said Congress and not Politicians.