KHOW's Silverman omitted McCain's own words in touting him as a "moderate"
Summary: Co-host Craig Silverman of 630 KHOW-AM repeated the talking point that Sen. John McCain is a "moderate," claiming that he has "been willing to buck the Republican establishment." In fact, McCain himself has stated, "My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative," and he has promised voters "a clearly conservative approach to governing."
On the May 5 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, co-host Craig Silverman claimed that Republicans "have a moderate candidate in John McCain, a guy who's been willing to buck the Republican establishment." However, Silverman did not address McCain's comments during a February 7 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in which McCain stated, "My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstream conservative." McCain also said in the speech: "If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for president, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing," as Media Matters for America has noted.
Media Matters has further noted that respected studies of McCain's voting records have ranked him among the most conservative members of the Senate during the current and the two previous Congresses. Moreover, the American Conservative Union (ACU) gave McCain a rating of 80 in 2007, as well as a lifetime rating of 82.16, on a scale of zero to a "perfect" 100.
Silverman also stated that McCain was "[w]illing in the past, and a lot of us still believe it's his true sentiment, to call [out] the wacky preachers on the right." Silverman referred specifically to statements McCain reportedly made criticizing 700 Club co-host Pat Robertson and others who, according to Silverman, asserted that "God was punishing us on 9-11 for licentiousness and sin." However, Silverman did not mention that McCain actively solicited televangelist John Hagee's endorsement in the 2008 presidential race, despite Hagee's derogatory statements about Islam, women, and homosexuality. When asked on the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos whether it was "a mistake to solicit and accept" Hagee's endorsement, McCain answered, "Oh, probably. Sure," but still went on to say he was "glad to have his endorsement," as Media Matters pointed out.
Silverman and co-host Dan Caplis were discussing whether the Democratic Party will "come together" after the primary season.
From the May 5 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:
CAPLIS: We have some interesting poll results today; really want to dig into with you. But one number that stays very high is the number of Clinton supporters who say they are not gonna support Obama. And obviously that number is gonna go down significantly after Obama is the nominee and wounds have time to heal, et cetera. But it starts so high, if any -- if any, you know, decent chunk of those folks stick to it, Obama doesn't have a prayer. And I think you're gonna get at least a decent amount of those people who say, "Naw, it was her turn; our shot for the first woman president, he's young, he's got a future, this was her last pop, he took it away from her," and they're not gonna like it a bit.
SILVERMAN: Well, here's the thing: I would say, wishful thinking. After all, wasn't there a Newsweek cover two or three months ago, "There Will Be Blood," showing all the right-wing talkers who hated John McCain, and they'll never come together, and the Republican Party is roiled with dissension? Well, the Republican Party came together. Now, will the Democratic Party come together as easily? I think it could be more difficult. Beyond that, you guys have a moderate candidate in John McCain, a guy who's been willing to buck the Republican establishment. Willing in the past, and a lot of us still believe it's his true sentiment, to call the wacky preachers on the right -- and Lord knows there are a lot of wacky preachers on the right, Frank Rich in The New York Times wrote an excellent column about that. Rather than Reverend Wright being replayed, how about Pat Robertson, who every Republican candidate wanted his endorsement? He said that God was punishing us on 9-11 for licentiousness and sin. Katrina too, with Falwell, Robertson, and a host of others on the right.
But it's hard to put that on John McCain; yes, he accepts their endorsement now, but eight years ago he talked about them with derision, as "agents of intolerance." So that's one reason why this Democratic rift won't be as easily repaired, because you guys nominated a Republican that isn't as conservative as a lot of people in your party would like, and that's why he has a good chance of winning in what should otherwise be a Democratic year.
In characterizing McCain as a "moderate," Silverman did not mention that McCain has promised "a clearly conservative approach to governing" and that McCain's voting record in the current and two previous Congresses is solidly conservative. According to its website, the ACU "tracks a wide variety of issues before Congress, ranging from taxes to spending and national security to abortion ... in order to obtain a balanced, comprehensive picture of an individual member's ideological predisposition based upon recorded records." The ACU further notes, "The purpose of the 'Rating' is to inform the public, in as unbiased a method as possible, exactly where individual Senators and Members of the House stand on the ideological spectrum from liberal to conservative."
Further, in contrast with Silverman's assertion that McCain has been "willing to buck the Republican establishment," Media Matters repeatedly has documented that McCain has abandoned his previous support for comprehensive immigration reform legislation to more closely align himself with the base of the Republican Party, and conservatives have noted McCain's rightward shift on the issue with approval. McCain also has reversed his position on taxes to more closely align himself with the mainstream of his party.
Later in the broadcast, Silverman said, "[T]he bottom line is, Hagee to McCain is not the same as Wright to Obama," before stating that McCain "accepted the support of these right-wing religious people":
SILVERMAN: Yeah, he's [Obama's] got a problem. And a lot of people are saying that it is unfair, and the Frank Rich column in The New York Times was the good one, showing how many wacky right-wing preachers are out there. And a lot of people emailed me that column. Look, I read Frank Rich usually at about 10 o'clock on Saturday night, when The New York Times post it. There are a lot of good points, but the bottom line is, Hagee to McCain is not the same as Wright to Obama. McCain did not go to Hagee's church. McCain, even though now he's accepted the support of these right-wing religious people, the people who said we brought, in effect, 9-11 on ourselves and Katrina because of sinful behavior. That was ridiculous and wrong-headed, just like Reverend Wright. But John McCain is not joined at the hip the way Barack Obama is with Reverend Wright.
Silverman, however, omitted that McCain actively solicited Hagee's endorsement.
—C.H.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (8) Show
1 - 8 |
Alright, I followed the links, and I see no where that Sen. McCain said that he went out and "solicited" Rev. Hagee's endorsement. I do see where George used that word in a question about the accepted endorsement in an interview with Sen. McCain and he didn't specifically address the issue of solicitation, but did state the accepting the endorsement was a "...probably a mistake...".
To read between the line on this matter is no different than reading between the lines on Sen. Obama and his affiliation with Rev. Wright and putting the beliefs and sentaments that Rev. Wright believs into Sen. Obama's mind. No difference.
Rev. Hagee is on the record as stating McCain sought his endorsement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/23/magazine/23wwln-q4-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hagee&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Sen. McCain is on the record as acknowledging that he sought Rev. Hagee's endorsement:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804210001
Bill Menezes
Editorial Director
Colorado Media Matters
Got it MITTGO. At this point it is a meaningless argument. Barack has won in Indiana and overwhelmingly in NC. "Sliverman" is a quack, a taliking head toady for the odious cockroach Caplis who's moth eaten commentary has run it's course.
I fail to see the problem here. If it's Silverman's opinion that McCain is a moderate, so be it. I happen to consider myself a moderate, and while I think McCain is to the right of me I also believe he is more moderate than every other candidate from the Republican side.
It seems that the the right-wing definition of moderate is someone who makes a show of "bucking" the Republican Party only to pander to the extremist wing of the party by flip-flopping and embracing practically every nutty initiative advanced by that extremist wing.
I think you have a good point NATE. That does not change my mind concerning Sliverman who is "joined at the hip" with Caplis as McCain is joined at the hip with Fallwell, Parsley, and Hagee. Obama put the Wright issue behind him and his campaign. "My friends" McCain has not concerning the odious bigoted likes of Hagee. Of the two, Wright and Hagee, the lesser of two evils is Wright who does have something valid to say about America's problems with slavery and racism. Hagee has nothing of value or substance to say in my opinion. The voters of Indiana and North Carolina didn't buy the Limbaugh garbage or the media's noise over Obama's ties to Wright. Mr. Magoo and the "my friends" express is headed for a major derailment in November.
Off topic, Re-create ‘68, Dan Caplis style…part 1 of 2
Dan is Re-creating 1968 to fit his idealized world, as usual. Dan seems intent on bringing up for the entire year, until the democratic national convention here, that his dad was a cop in front of the Chicago Hilton during the riots that ensued. I have little doubt that Dan’s dad was a fair, good cop, but Dan takes it to another level. First he says his dad never told any ‘war stories’, but Dan heard from other officers about the ‘bags of blood’ and ‘fake blood’ that was brought by the protestors and poured on themselves to display to the media. Dan also added that feces were thrown on the cops from the hotel in the stories he heard. Why the cops would take it out on demonstrators in the street if they were pelted with feces from a hotel, and not raiding the hotel, is interesting enough. But Dan has now changed his story, to say his dad actually and DIRECTLY talked about the bags of blood. Was Dan lying at first, or is he lying now about his father’s statements? Dan gives the lame and usual disclaimer, saying that some cops may have beaten demonstrators, etc., but as always it is a dodge in minimizing the reality—a staple in Dan’s deception. Many reputable books have been written about these incidents, and often allude to the fact that the cops were under orders to beat the protestors. There is even the interesting point, even used as a defense of cops, that if the cops were so brutal, why weren’t there any deaths? The amazing answer given by cops is that the cops were so professional and methodical in beating protestors, as they were under orders, and their orders included not killing anyone. If Dan’s dad didn’t beat protestors, was he defying orders, and how would his fellow cops react? I’ve read nothing about bags of blood or fake blood, including in the Frank Kusch book ‘Battleground Chicago’ that revolves around actual statements from Chicago cops and interviewing cops from the time. From the Kusch book:
Page 136, Quote: “Specific Instructions”: Although the consensus has been that a “large minority” of officers “lost control” of themselves during that week, police apologists claim that at worst, and handful of officers “may have overreacted” in their efforts to protect delegates and party leaders from demonstrators. When pressed with evidence, however, several former officers acknowledge that, in fact, neither picture is true. They admit that something much more “uniform” took place that summer on the streets of the Windy City. “Let’s face it;, we knew we were supposed to thump the crap out of them, to teach them not to mess with ‘Daly’s City,’” says former cop Marlin Rowden. “We did it right across the board,--evenly, a good whacking, but just short of causing lasting damage, so none of us would lose our pension. I know this; lots of guys know thing but won’t admit it. And you know, so many of the guys hated those long-haired kids, they jumped at the chance to get at them.” Officer Tim Markosky agrees, adding, “That’s why there were few commanders telling the members to stop. Only those who began to realize how bad it would look under the glare of TV lights were telling members to back off. The rest were letting it happen. I was a controlled and sanctioned mayhem.” (Continued, JMO)Re-create ‘68, Dan Caplis style…part 2 of 2
Kusch book continued, quote: “These officers are certainly not alone in expressing this view, says Hank Peterson: “I think that this was planned from the beginning. I don’t want to point a finger at anyone directly, and not necessarily any commanders, but it was no secret that the city—I mean boss Daley,--wanted to see the situation where we were going to beat the hell out of demonstrators. He wanted it to happen, I was sure of it then, and thirty years later, I’m still sure. Although I can’t prove it, people in power wanted it to happened just like it did” There is no question in the minds of cops such as Edward Nochowny that they were strongly encouraged to be ruthless with the protestors and not let them disrupt convention proceedings. They also know that they were not following normally approved police procedure. “We were supposed to hit them….We broke the rules. One of our rules was always allowing people to have an avenue of escape, to disperse, and we didn’t always do that, so that was clearly wrong. It was certainly the case outside the Hilton when the window caved in. Before that, the guys used mace pretty freely, and that broke another rule; we had them trapped and we punished them. It’s drilled into us that punishment is decided by the courts not cops. So we failed there, but it’s a bit understandable, I think given the circumstances. We knew what we had to do. And that was to knock them around every chance we had.” Unquote.
And Dan’s father was in the middle of it. And Dan may want to change his story to ‘jars of blood’ anyway, as that would sound a lot more likely and accurate in 1968. If demonstrators are such ‘mangy losers’, then and now, I find it interesting that they thought to bring ‘bags of blood’ along, anyway. Dan may also want to remember that the journalists and photojournalists were also being beaten, so it would be hard for protestor/actors to stage the fake blood scene Dan purports they wanted to promote—the audience was being beaten, too. Dan’s story is changing, and so are the times, and the time is passed to throw his father under the bus by continuing to bring up or slant what happened in front of the Conrad Hilton. This isn’t about Dan’s father, this is about Dan and his abuse of airwaves, as always.
I’m not insulting your father, Dan, I believe you have with your constant implausible musings about 1968 Chicago, so save your indignation drama and threat of violence this time, unlike what you did with Spagnuolo. Caplis called his father a victim of the demonstrators. Dan has called his parents ‘pioneers’ in the civil rights movement—no really. Under any circumstance, it is hard to believe Dan’s father lived up to that lofty label while doing his job in front of the Hilton. Re-create 68, indeed. Just my opinion.1 - 20 |