# McCain Watch

• News
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
With the heated Democratic Primary, John McCain escaped the kind of media scrutiny that was given to Obama and Clinton. What did the mainstream media miss or pay little attention to?

McCain is way behind in superdelegates.

Alfi
Ya but he's way ahead on age :)

Ya but he's way ahead on age :)
The mainstream media failed to miss that one.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The McCain campaign and supporters have been trying to make the case that McCain is radically different from Bush. But they rarely back this up with anything substantive, and rarely get taken to task for the lack of substance.

Here's a summary of an analysis performed by Congressional Quarterly (requires subscription) where "CQ tries to determine what the president personally, as distinct from other administration officials, does and does not want in the way of legislative action. This is done by analyzing his messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents. "

This is how often McCain voted for/against issues that Bush has supported:

Code:
[b]Year Support Oppose[/b]
2008*   100% 	 0%
2007** 	95% 	 5%
2006 	89% 	11%
2005 	77% 	23%
2004 	92% 	 8%
2003 	91% 	 9%
2002 	90% 	10%
2001 	91% 	 9%

In 2005, McCain most "maverick" year (where he agreed with the President only 77% of the time) in recent times, he describe himself thusly, on Meet the Press:
John McCain said:
No. No. I--the fact is that I'm different but the fact is that I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I've been totally in agreement and support of President Bush. So have we had some disagreements on some issues, the bulk--particularly domestic issues? Yes. But I will argue my conservative record voting with anyone's, and I will also submit that my support for President Bush has been active and very impassioned on issues that are important to the American people. And I'm particularly talking about the war on terror, the war in Iraq, national security, national defense, support of men and women in the military, fiscal discipline, a number of other issues. So I strongly disagree with any assertion that I've been more at odds with the president of the United States than I have been in agreement with him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8245636/

* Includes votes cast until May 15
** Notable to keep in mind that during this period, McCain has been the most absent senator in the Senate, missing more votes than "Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, who suffered a brain hemorrhage in December 2006 and was unable to return to the Senate until fall of last year."

Last edited by a moderator:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
The mainstream media failed to miss that one.
Actually, while there have been numerous mentions of his age, there has been little or no substantive discussion of how his age ought to be a factor in determining his suitability for the position of President.

McCain is still going to have to explain this:

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

chemisttree
Homework Helper
Gold Member
This has got to be a new PF low. An entire thread devoted to trolling for negative stories about McCain...

Last edited:
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
This has got to be a new PF low. An entire thread devoted to trolling for negative stories about McCain...
The OP says nothing about negative stories. Are you suggesting that there are no positive stories about McCain, or is this just a new PF low in reading comprehension?

Last edited:
berkeman
Mentor
The OP says nothing about negative stories. Are you suggesting that there are no positive stories about McCain, or is this just a new PF low in reading comprehension?

Take it easy, guys. Gokul, the OP does imply looking for negative issues. It says there was a lack of scrutiny, what did we miss.

This thread does seem appropriate for P&WA, IMO. But there's no need to start any personal bickering. Thread's being watched, obviously.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Take it easy, guys. Gokul, the OP does imply looking for negative issues. It says there was a lack of scrutiny, what did we miss.
I didn't realize that scrutiny carried a necessarily negative connotation. There is absolutely no requirement that we only talk about negative issues. All issues of relevance to a Presidential bid, whether positive, negative or neither, may be raised here and discussed so long as they were mostly glossed over or ignored by the media. People should feel free to talk about good things that came out of the McCain campaign that were mostly omitted by the media because the spotlight was on the show put up by the Dems.

Last edited:
russ_watters
Mentor
With the heated Democratic Primary, John McCain escaped the kind of media scrutiny that was given to Obama and Clinton. What did the mainstream media miss or pay little attention to?
McCain kept a low profile, so there wasn't much for them to see or miss. Now that he's talking again, they'll have the opportunity to pick on him.

The biggest change from two weeks ago isn't that McCain is no longer a mute, it is that now the candidates can attack each other across party lines, which makes some of the issues different. Ie, Hillary couldn't exactly attack Obama for being too liberal, but McCain can. Huckabee wouldn't have attacked McCain for cozying up to lobbyists, but Obama is.

russ_watters
Mentor
I didn't realize that scrutiny carried a necessarily negative connotation. There is absolutely no requirement that we only talk about negative issues.
Cmon, Gokul, no one buys that - but berkeman's right, that alone doesn't make this a bad thread, it just makes the potential for it to get out of hand.

Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
McCain kept a low profile, so there wasn't much for them to see or miss. Now that he's talking again, they'll have the opportunity to pick on him.

The biggest change from two weeks ago isn't that McCain is no longer a mute, it is that now the candidates can attack each other across party lines, which makes some of the issues different. Ie, Hillary couldn't exactly attack Obama for being too liberal, but McCain can. Huckabee wouldn't have attacked McCain for cozying up to lobbyists, but Obama is.
I agree, McCain could cruise under the radar because Clinton and Obama were busy going at each other, and of course, the media exploited that.

Now McCain and Obama are out in front, and when they go at each other, the media will exploit that. They are both career politicians now, although McCains has 14+ years more experience, overall, and 20+ more years experience at the federal level.

McCain retired from the Navy in 1981 and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona in 1982. After serving two terms, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election in 1992, 1998, and 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, . . . . Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998, and again in 2002. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

Obama was sworn in as a US senator on January 4, 2005, after being elected in Nov 2004.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
McCain kept a low profile, so there wasn't much for them to see or miss.
But he also ran a very decent Primary compared to say, Romney. But again, there wasn't much debate about the Republican Primary because of the attention on the other side.

The biggest change from two weeks ago isn't that McCain is no longer a mute, it is that now the candidates can attack each other across party lines, which makes some of the issues different. Ie, Hillary couldn't exactly attack Obama for being too liberal, but McCain can. Huckabee wouldn't have attacked McCain for cozying up to lobbyists, but Obama is.
But the thread is not really about what happens now. It is more about what happened during the Primary season that was missed. McCain had to run a particularly difficult Primary because he was at the same time trying to be the Conservative, the Maverick, the Hawk, the Critic of the Iraq War planning and the one to bring real change to Washington.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Cmon, Gokul, no one buys that - but berkeman's right, that alone doesn't make this a bad thread, it just makes the potential for it to get out of hand.
Russ, I think the thread is perfectly legitimate to make, and if it does get out of hand, I'm sure it will meet the end it deserves.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08097/870634-176.stm [Broken]
McCain economic advisers come with baggage
Sunday, April 06, 2008
By Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- One of them helped deregulate the financial services industries in the 1990s, and now sits in the corporate suites of Swiss banking giant UBS, which Tuesday announced \$19 billion in investment losses tied to the crumbling U.S. real estate market.

The other pushed one of the most aggressive and controversial mergers of the technology boom, then was sacked by the disenchanted board of Hewlett-Packard.

cont...

Last edited by a moderator:
Evo
Mentor