AJC report on McCain appearance at Chambliss rally ignored his criticism of Chambliss' "disgraceful" 2002 ad
SUMMARY: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Sen. John McCain appeared at a rally in support of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), but the article did not note that McCain reportedly criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign ad Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA).
In a November 14 article, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Sen. John McCain appeared at a rally the previous day in support of the re-election of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA). But unlike articles about the event by The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and USA Today, the Journal-Constitution article did not note that McCain previously reportedly criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign ad Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee highlighted McCain's comments in a web ad released November 11.
Chambliss' 2002 ad featured images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and asserted that Cleland -- a decorated Vietnam War veteran and triple amputee -- "says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves... Max Cleland is just misleading." In a July 3, 2003, article (accessed from the Nexis database), The Washington Post reported that McCain "denounced" the ad "[i]mmediately," and quoted his assertion: "I've never seen anything like that ad. ... Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield -- it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible."
From the November 13 AP article:
Democrats greeted McCain's arrival in Georgia with an Internet spot reviving remarks the Arizona senator made in condemning a tough ad Chambliss used in his 2002 campaign against Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a triple amputee wounded in Vietnam. The ad questioned Cleland's national security credentials and flashed a picture of Osama bin Laden.
"I've never seen anything like that ad," McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war, said in 2003. "Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield, it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible."
From the November 14 LA Times article:
In a video released this week, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee reminded voters that McCain once criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a 2002 Chambliss campaign ad that questioned the courage of then-opponent Max Cleland, a veteran who lost three limbs in Vietnam.
From the November 13 NY Times article:
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is spending its money reminding voters of Mr. Chambliss's attack on former Senator Max Cleland, the Democratic incumbent he defeated in 2002. The advertisement, still bitterly remembered in Democratic circles, showed pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and criticized Mr. Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, for voting against homeland security measures.
At the time, Mr. McCain was among those who defended Mr. Cleland, as the Democratic campaign committee's advertisement points out: ''I've never seen anything like that ad,'' Mr. McCain said. ''It's worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible.''
From the November 14 USA Today article:
The Martin campaign is trying to remind Georgia voters of McCain's condemnation of a television ad Chambliss aired in his successful 2002 race against then-senator Max Cleland, D-Ga. The ad questioned the national security expertise of Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam War veteran, and used images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. At the time, McCain called the ad "worse than disgraceful. It's reprehensible."
Another example of "selective amnesia" from the right......
But............... but............... MMfA........
That was the past.... this is now.... and right now we need to look forward not backwards... unless of course we are talking about the Clinton's or Obama's time spent in Indonesia when he was 4 years old or any democrat, liberal, or progressive or the few meetings with Bill Ayers.... blah.... blah.... blah...
Yah gotta wonder at a system that allows most of them to survive.
Welfare for republicans...
Whadda ya want? Absolute liberal perfection. Ya got 4 out of 5 news outlets to mention McCain's earlier criticism of the Chambliss ad, that's 80%, pretty good if ya ask me.
Getting the WHOLE STORY is a liberal concept? Well thanks, Tommy, we'll gladly take ownership of that standard. Your side can continue the tradition of low information.
No, looking at the glass as 20% empty instead of 80% full is a liberal concept.
So now your criticism of MMFA is that they should let one outlet slide if other outlets get it right? That makes no sense. You must have just been bored today.
SJ, MMFA can do whatever it wants, and I will comment on it. If you don't like it, tough.
I do like it. It allows us to point out how silly you are.
Looking at a glass that leaks 20% as a success is a conservative concept.
Whadda ya want? Absolute liberal perfection. Ya got 4 out of 5 news outlets to mention McCain's earlier criticism of the Chambliss ad, that's 80%, pretty good if ya ask me.
Tommy - would you consider it "pretty good" if your employer only paid you half the regular amount in every fifth paycheck? After all, the other four check were right, which meant they were correct 80% of the time.....
Journalists and media outlets should strive for 100% accuracy at all times. And when they make mistakes, they should make corrections and/or retractions as quickly as possible. Anything less is dereliction of suty on their part, IMHO.
I was just joking. I mean it's like MMFA went through a stack of newspapers and went "Aha!, I found one that doesn't report it the way we want, YEAH!" I thought my "whadda ya wants" indicated that, guess some people are way too serious, oh well.
If it makes you feel any better, Tommy, then I won't admit that I recognized the facetiousness of your comment...
I should of read further. You have confirmed that you just posted out of boredom.
I imagine Tommy at night talking in his sleep, muttering "Why is this here?" over and over again.
This is your second post, so far, telling me I must be bored. If that isn't rich, I don't what is.
I'm not bored. I'm amused in the same way a cat is amused by playing with a helpless mouse.
Well, since I don't mind be one of the only mice in a room full of cats, some even more inept than you, it's all cool. You keep on keepin' on being one of many, you need it.
Those who question MMFA's Questioner General are all the same?
A exclusive picture of tommy
Tommy,
MMFA's motto: If it's a slow news day, rehash old news. Red meat is red meat. :-)
This isn't old news.
but the article did not note that McCain reportedly criticized as "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" a campaign ad Chambliss used during his 2002 race against then-Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA).
Ah yes... MMFA can regurgitate it just like it was yesterday. which they did yesterday.
Exactly, and the condescending nature that MMFA exhibits when highlighting those on the right for their flip-flopping political allegiances. As if........
What do you consider to be the condescending part of MMFA's item?
I suspect it's nothing specific, just the fact that it exists is condescending.
Am I right?
That would about sum it up, politicians, all politicians, even precious Democrats, are notorious for dumping all over another politician during a campaign, and then palling around all cute and cozy the next. So what if the AJC didn't mention McCain's previous criticisms of Chambliss, it's old news as AA says, irrelevant, expected, nitpicking, and condescending.
McCain's campaign work for a "disgrace" seems newsworthy to me.
When did the article come out?
Pete,
I don't know to which article you are reffering. My cut and paste is from the blurb.
Uh, the article to which the blurb is referring. The same article that's identified and linked to in the sentence immediately preceding the sentence you cut and pasted your blurb from. The article THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ITEM.
I'll narrow it down to make it easier for you...
It came out some time between yesterday and tomorrow.
Don't make it too easy for him... here, anotheramerican, it's one of these - pick one:
Ham Sandwich
Dabney Coleman
Today
I think Barney had to use a Lifeline for this one.
Is this still a difficult concept for a handful of posters here? Old misinformation reported today is new. Without using hieroglyphics or puppets, I don't think it can be dumbed down any further.
Again, I thought you would get it. It is not the article that is old, it is MMFA bringing up something -not in the article- that happened eight years ago.
How can MMFA accuse this article of media bias because it did not include something that happened eight years ago? If you use that logic, why stop at eight years? MMFA could also argue everything that was ever written as an excuse to accuse every article of bias. After all, not one article written by anyone includes everything previously written associated with the article. To selectively pick out what you want and then accuse the article of media bias is laughable.
Can MMFA get any more ridiculous? I think not.
Yes, and let's call out some obscure media outlet for not mentioning how Joe Biden trashed Dick Cheney during the campaign and that just yesterday said what a gracious host and all around great guy he was for showing him the VP residence.
Politicians shift like aimless tornadoes, dredging up old wind from their past is old news.
Maybe you should tell Brent Bozell about that one. Meanwhile, MMFA will do its own thing.
And you've resuscitated yourself to return and complain whenever somebody doesn't mindlessly applaud every thread topic here.
Sorry, my ink pad has run out on rubberstamps.
Here's your rubberstamp:
"Obscure" Media Outlet in question:
Daily circulation: 327,000
Website traffic rank #2,453
Website hits per day: 257,335
You gotta admit, that's not bad for obscure.
And I gotta admit, I should have specified "relatively" obscure, when it comes to The Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and USA Today.
I would guess it ranks at the bottom of that pile.
Hey, Tommy, here's a question:
Where is the election being held?
(Answer: Georgia.)
Here's another question, just for kicks and giggles:
What is the largest city in Georgia?
(Answer: Atlanta.)
Here's a third question, because we're on a roll here:
What is the largest newspaper in Atlanta?
(Answer: the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.)
Now, let's put this all together, shall we?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is the largest newspaper in the state where this particular Senatorial runoff election is taking place.
It may seem obscure to you, looking down on Georgia from afar, but it is a relatively big player in this runoff election. And therefore, when this paper prints an article which (by omitting essential information) furthers the conservative agenda, it would seem quite rational for MMfA to post an article, alerting the world to said omission.
Tommy, move away from Barney Fife, He's infecting you with the stoopid.
Saxby Chambliss= Dirtbag
He's worst than a dirtbag. He aspires to become a dirtbag, because that would be an improvement.
Given McCain's recent voting record, t's not surprising that when filibuster power is at stake, politics will always trump loyalty to fellow veterans, even the most maimed among them.
McCain just wants to help out a fellow Republican, who thinks that Max Clelland should not be honored for his service because he's a Democrat. Since McCain and Chambliss both vote against Veteran's benefits, they have a strong bond.
Here's Saxby at his most recent campaign rally, warning of dangerous dangers and how much his election will keep Georgia natives safe from reality:
You got that illustration from the RNC, didn't you? I recognize it from their strategy pamphlet, as their target demographic.
I think that guy posts here, as a matter of fact.
You're both correct!!!
Actually, it's from a great site describing internet warriers. My favorite is troglodyte:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/troglodyte.htm
That is a great site! What a diverse bunch of warriors there. I love Big Cat, Jerk and Artful Dodger.
It makes you wonder what JohnnyMac and Barack are going to talk about next week and why.
Should The Mac had won you can believe Barack wouldn't even be an afterthought.
Hateful repugs like Chambliss (Shameless) need to go away. Good job by MM to stay on this story because of the impending runoff in Georgia. If Tommy and AA are bitching about this you know it's important.
Leaving out the attacks on two posters I like Tommy and AA, I agree that Chambliss is the worst of what came out of the 2002 hatefest created by Karl Rove. That is one person that needs to lose and lose big. Max Cleland a great person was smeared like no other. Shame on Chambliss, McCain and the media for not reporting what McCain said in 2002.
Being Republican means always having it both ways.
Despite the efforts by our president-elect to focus on his opponent's status as a hero, by supporting Saxby Chambliss "Maverick" McCain's legacy will be anything but heroic. He'll also be remembered for sacrificing simple decency for party politics, for putting party first and country last. Sadly, he proves himself to be a hypocrite. His support for Chambliss would have been totally inexplicable had he not prepared us for yet another foolish choice with the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate! That he lost by only 6 percentage points is a tribute either to the generosity of the American spirit or the stupidity of a large (but, thank God) minority of the American electorate.
I have not much knowledge about Sen. Chambliss.
That he is an incumbent, a Republican, from Georgia, and fighting for re-election does tell a lot about him, his tactics and supporters however.
I guess that there is a statute of limitations on "disgraceful" and "reprehensible" in the bizarro Repub World.
Some people here don't realize that the Senator from Georgia is still the same man that he was then and Max Cleland is still a triple amputee...but Sen. McCain was a POW who deserved to be president because he was tortured. By comparison, Cleland is still being tortured. Disgraceful and reprehensible mean the same as they did in 2002. And Sen. Chambliss you are still both.
There are still a lot of vets who are angry at John Kerry for speaking out against the Vietnam war. No statute there, apparently. And disgracefully enough, these vets think their anger is the honorable position. Wish they would all read Brigadier General Smedley Butler's little book "War is a Racket."