Some great moments away from the teleprompter: McCain Edition!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS.

"I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past," he stammered as he looked to his communications director. "I'm sure I'm opposed to government funding."

Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence, like President Bush wants?

"I think I support the president's present policy," he said, tentatively.

More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?

A long pause.

A stern look.

"I've never gotten into these issues or thought much about them," he said, almost crying uncle.

Linky. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/campaign-trail/2007/03/mccain_is_stumped_on_the_stump.html)

"There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice," she observed.

When McCain was asked for his position on the issue, he said--with a nervous laugh-"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue."

The reporter pressed. "But apparently you've voted against--"

"I don't know what I voted," McCain said.


The reporter explained that McCain voted against a bill in 2003 that would have required health insurance companies to cover prescription birth control. "Is that still your position?" she persisted.

During the awkward exchange, with several lengthy pauses, McCain said he had no immediate knowledge of the vote. "I've cast thousands of votes in the Senate," McCain said, then continued: "I will respond to--it's a, it's a..."

"Delicate issue," the reporter offered, to a relieved laugh from McCain.

"I don't usually duck an issue, but I'm--I'll try to get back to you," he explained.

Linky. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/mccain-squirms-when-asked_n_111798.html)

The video in that link is rather funny. Of course, it is Huffington, but it is mostly just quoting.

So McCain sucks both in front of the teleprompter and away from it, and conveniently forgets his position on controversial issues for the Right base. Future Commander In Chief material?

[CFLarsen]

Would you rather have your politicians rattle off a teleprompter at all times?

[quixotecoyote]

Having some idea of what their own position is on major hot button issues (or basic health knowledge) without a script in front of them would be nice.

[CFLarsen]

Having some idea of what their own position is on major hot button issues (or basic health knowledge) without a script in front of them would be nice.

They have teleprompters because they know that if they stutter for one second, that is what will be broadcast - not their views on the matter.

Don't blame the politicians. Blame those who won't give them time to explain what they mean, and who ridicule them for something that has nothing to do with their political platform.

When people start thinking a fumbling politican is more interesting than the political solutions he offers, or are more focused on one-liners because they can't be bothered with actually understanding what kind of society the politician wants, they end up with a circus instead of politics.

[quixotecoyote]

They have teleprompters because they know that if they stutter for one second, that is what will be broadcast - not their views on the matter.

Don't blame the politicians. Blame those who won't give them time to explain what they mean, and who ridicule them for something that has nothing to do with their political platform.

When people start thinking a fumbling politican is more interesting than the political solutions he offers, or are more focused on one-liners because they can't be bothered with actually understanding what kind of society the politician wants, they end up with a circus instead of politics.

I completely agree. I just wonder why you chose to post that here, in response to a situation that does not resemble that description at all.

[CFLarsen]

I completely agree. I just wonder why you chose to post that here, in response to a situation that does not resemble that description at all.

Why not?

[SezMe]

I can feel for politicians, especially those going for, or in high office. If they stay on message, the media complain that they just rattling off the talking points. If they go off script and say ANYTHING unusual, out-of-line, or remotely controversial, it gets featured on the 11 o'clock news. If they do stay in-line, there is no news at all.

[Brainster]

The whole effort to compare birth control to erectile dysfunction is hilarious. Getting pregnant is not yet, despite the best efforts of some feminists, considered a medical problem that can be cured.

[Gurdur]

... Don't blame the politicians. ....


Um?

"I don't know what I voted," McCain said.


Um? Kinda says it all, don't it now?

[Gurdur]

... Getting pregnant is not yet, despite the best efforts of some feminists, considered a medical problem that can be cured.


Morning-After pill?

[CFLarsen]

Um? Kinda says it all, don't it now?

Why? Do you have any idea how many bills politicians vote for?

[Gurdur]

Why? Do you have any idea how many bills politicians vote for?


That is a fair enough point, and I agree with you on an overall way; but the other point is, McCain is on the campaign trail, and really, he should keep himself reminded himself of at least what he voted on all the important bills. He just looks vacant as a result; and between you and me, I think McCain is fairly vacant, all ambition and little substance.

I'm not turning this into an attack on all politicians, I agree with you on your basic points, I'm just saying McCain is far from an ideal of competence, especially in a situation (being on the campaign trail) where an above-normal level of competence is needed.

Quayle never lived down his own gaffes; McCain is in danger of the same. Up till now, the USA media have given McCain a free ride, not confronting him about his myriad twists and turns on policies. That may change now, and that would be good if it did change; McCain makes a weathercock look far too rigid in direction. And then we get back to the quoted gaffe of McCain's; my point there is that with his inconstancy, it's hardly surprising he can't remember what he voted.

[CFLarsen]

That is a fair enough point, and I agree with you on an overall way; but the other point is, McCain is on the campaign trail, and really, he should keep himself reminded himself of at least what he voted on all the important bills. He just looks vacant as a result; and between you and me, I think McCain is fairly vacant, all ambition and little substance.

I'm not turning this into an attack on all politicians, I agree with you on your basic points, I'm just saying McCain is far from an ideal of competence, especially in a situation (being on the campaign trail) where an above-normal level of competence is needed.

Quayle never lived down his own gaffes; McCain is in danger of the same. Up till now, the USA media have given McCain a free ride, not confronting him about his myriad twists and turns on policies. That may change now, and that would be good if it did change; McCain makes a weathercock look far too rigid in direction. And then we get back to the quoted gaffe of McCain's; my point there is that with his inconstancy, it's hardly surprising he can't remember what he voted.

What is an "important" bill? Whether Viagra should be covered or not?

I think you just made my point for me. :)

[Gurdur]

What is an "important" bill? Whether Viagra should be covered or not?


Whatever the electorate thinks important.

I think you just made my point for me. :)


Possibly, though I would disagree.

[CFLarsen]

Whatever the electorate thinks important.

The electorate doesn't decide what the media reports to the public.

[chipmunk stew]

The whole effort to compare birth control to erectile dysfunction is hilarious. Getting pregnant is not yet, despite the best efforts of some feminists, considered a medical problem that can be cured.
The point is, the reporter explained what the bill contained and what his vote was, then asked if he still took the same position. I'll have to get back to you doesn't cut it. Does he support medical coverage for birth control or not? He shouldn't have to consult with his advisers to find out what he does or doesn't support.

[WildCat]

And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Since when do contraceptives prevent AIDS?

[chipmunk stew]

Linky. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/campaign-trail/2007/03/mccain_is_stumped_on_the_stump.html)

Linky. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/09/mccain-squirms-when-asked_n_111798.html)

The video in that link is rather funny. Of course, it is Huffington, but it is mostly just quoting.

So McCain sucks both in front of the teleprompter and away from it, and conveniently forgets his position on controversial issues for the Right base. Future Commander In Chief material?
He didn't have a teleprompter so he used a Leibeprompter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6GBdyws5YU):

McCain: "Well, it's common knowledge, and has been reported in the media that Al Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known, and it's unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The situation is dramatically improved, but I also want to emphasis time and again Al Qaeda is on the run but they are not defeated."

Joe Lieberman takes McCain by the arm and mumbles in his ear: "You said that the Iranians were training Al Qaeda, but you meant they were training extremists."

McCain: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists. Not Al Qaeda. Not Al Qaeda. I'm sorry."

[chipmunk stew]

Since when do contraceptives prevent AIDS?
Condoms are contraceptives.

[Puppycow]

The whole effort to compare birth control to erectile dysfunction is hilarious. Getting pregnant is not yet, despite the best efforts of some feminists, considered a medical problem that can be cured.

I suppose you have a point.

"There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control medication. Those women would like a choice,"

Sounds like maybe they have a choice according to what she's saying. She didn't say ALL health insurance plans will cover Viagra but won't cover birth-control.

It strikes me that a free market would solve that particular problem, but birth control isn't exactly the kind of thing insurace is meant for. Insurance is meant for negative things you don't plan on having happen, but that might happen. Birth control is something you plan on using in advance.

Also, health insurance probably covers many things that are particular to women, which don't affect men.

I would prefer publically provided national insurance that does not cover either Viagra or birth control. Just essential no-frills things. And maybe things that have positive externalities, like vaccines.

Economists have looked at the issue of private health insurance, and from a utilitatian POV, it just isn't as good as a public system.

[quixotecoyote]

Why not?

The lack of similar characteristics.

[pgwenthold]

In terms of "knowing what you voted for," if you vote based on what you believe then you shouldn't have any problems recalling your vote. For example, if you believe that birth control should be required to be covered by health plans, and voted for it, then you wouldn't have any problem answering the question, "How did you vote for the bill that required birth control be covered by health plans."

Now, given that bills can get complicated, you have to watch for someone trying to trip you up. For example, when someone says, "You say you support requiring health plans to cover birth control, but in 1997, you voted against a bill that would have done that." you are right to come back after them with, "What else was in that bill?" Maybe the bill also contained a section that required sacrificing the first born male child, too, and that was why you voted against it?

Anytime in the course of lawmaking, you are going to have to compromise and vote for some individual things you oppose because they are part of package that you overall support, and vice versa.

[CFLarsen]

The lack of similar characteristics.

Exactly the same.

[ZirconBlue]

With regard to the legitimacy of insurance not covering oral contraceptives, it's probably worth pointing out that contraception is not the only reason that women use "the pill". They may also be prescribed to reduce painful menstrual cramps, for example.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The whole effort to compare birth control to erectile dysfunction is hilarious. Getting pregnant is not yet, despite the best efforts of some feminists, considered a medical problem that can be cured.

Um, "erectile dysfunction" is a medical problem?

:p

[NotJesus]

Exactly the same.

No. Not at all. You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick and, as usual, you won't let it go. This isn't about McCain pausing while he speaks, or stumbling over his words or showing other normal signs of being away from the teleprompter. This is about McCain's complete inability to articulate *any position at all* on an issue which is important to many people, and which he has voted on in the past.

Don't blame the politicians. Blame those who won't give them time to explain what they mean...

He had all the time in the world but all he could do was stammer and look panicky at the thought of having to actually explain anything.

[quixotecoyote]

Exactly the same.

If you interpret the first situation to mean "drumstick" and the second situation to mean "drumstick" then yes, you are correct. Otherwise, no.

[Donal]

All the time in the world?

Also, what exactly did the bills in question say? Were there riders attached? Can a man grow and change his mind?

Because one of the things a lot of you attack W for is his stubbornness and refusal to admit he's wrong.

[gdnp]

Um, "erectile dysfunction" is a medical problem?

:p

Is this a joke or a serious question?

Of course erectile dysfunction is a medical problem.

McCain, unfortunately, suffers from Electile dysfunction (http://www.lpstuff.com/shop/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=353). The Libertarian party claims to have the cure.

Talk about woo medicine...

[gdnp]

All the time in the world?

Also, what exactly did the bills in question say? Were there riders attached? Can a man grow and change his mind?

Because one of the things a lot of you attack W for is his stubbornness and refusal to admit he's wrong.

Of course a man can grow and change his mind. All he had to say is "I support a government mandate that health insurance plans cover birth control" or "I think the free market should decide whether health insurance plans cover birth control". Or he could have said "there are complex issues here of fairness and burdensome government regulation that I have not fully thought through and I will get back to you".

No one here is attacking his stance--they can't, because he did not express one. He is being attacked for his inability to state his position without someone telling him what his position is.

[CFLarsen]

No. Not at all. You've got hold of the wrong end of the stick and, as usual, you won't let it go. This isn't about McCain pausing while he speaks, or stumbling over his words or showing other normal signs of being away from the teleprompter. This is about McCain's complete inability to articulate *any position at all* on an issue which is important to many people, and which he has voted on in the past.

It may be important to some people, but clearly, it wasn't to him.

And if you expect a politician to remember every vote he ever cast, you are way too naive.

He had all the time in the world but all he could do was stammer and look panicky at the thought of having to actually explain anything.

But he was not allowed to have "all the time in the world" - was he? He said he would go back and check, instead of just mouthing off something. But that was bad, too.

[NotJesus]

It may be important to some people, but clearly, it wasn't to him.

"Vote for McCain. He doesn't really give a sh*t."


And if you expect a politician to remember every vote he ever cast, you are way too naive.

I suspect he does remember but wanted to avoid taking a stand. But maybe I'm just being naive again.


But he was not allowed to have "all the time in the world" - was he? He said he would go back and check, instead of just mouthing off something. But that was bad, too.

After checking, expect his answer to remain, "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue."

[Donal]

Of course a man can grow and change his mind. All he had to say is "I support a government mandate that health insurance plans cover birth control" or "I think the free market should decide whether health insurance plans cover birth control". Or he could have said "there are complex issues here of fairness and burdensome government regulation that I have not fully thought through and I will get back to you".

No one here is attacking his stance--they can't, because he did not express one. He is being attacked for his inability to state his position without someone telling him what his position is.

Why was he where this question was asked? Was he expected to be able to break down every issue on his platform right then and there?

Do you really think a politician is going to make a statement regarding policy without consulting his advisers?

[gdnp]

Why was he where this question was asked?

Don't know. If he had stated "that is off topic. next question" I would have had no problem.

Was he expected to be able to break down every issue on his platform right then and there?I don't even know if this issue is on his platform. Probably isn't. He may think the issue trivial and not worth his time. If so, those who find it important may vote against him.

Do you really think a politician is going to make a statement regarding policy without consulting his advisers?
I expect politicians who don't have an immediate answer to a question to be able to respond in a way that convinces me that their votes are derived from core beliefs and that if they have not already done so that they will thoughtfully consider the issue. Checking with his staff to see how he previously voted does not give me this assurance.

To me, the big question comes down to this: the presidency is a demanding job, one which requires energy, vision, diplomatic skills, leadership ability, management ability, judgment, and intelligence. IMHO Carter was smart but failed on leadership, management, and vision; Reagan had leadership and vision but failed in judgment, intelligence, and energy; Bush I lacked vision and judgment; Clinton lacked the judgment to keep his pants on. Dubya lacks intelligence, judgment, vision, diplomacy, management: just about everything, which is why I think his administration has been such a spectacular failure.

So what about McCain? Graduating 5th from the bottom of his class implies a certain lack of intelligence or energy or both. Not having a grasp on an issue of importance to many women says he either doesn't care or he doesn't have the intellectual capacity to have analyzed this issue with all his competing obligations. Neither conclusion is going to make him more likely to win my vote.

[pgwenthold]

And if you expect a politician to remember every vote he ever cast, you are way too naive.



As I wrote above, if politicians would vote based on their positions as opposed to voting politically, there would be no problem recalling how you voted on an issue, provided it had come up.

However, in this case, the problem is not that McCain didn't know how he voted. He didn't even know his position on the issue!!!

(given the nature of the political process, sometimes you will have to vote against somethings you support, because they are part of a bigger package that you overall oppose; the question wouldn't have tripped him up if he could have answered it)

[CFLarsen]

"Vote for McCain. He doesn't really give a sh*t."

I seriously doubt that. But if you expect your politicians to be solely interested in what you personally find important, then you don't want the country to be governed for the greater good of all the people; you want the country to be governed for the greater good of you, personally.

I suspect he does remember but wanted to avoid taking a stand. But maybe I'm just being naive again.

But if he has already taken a stand, why look like a fool to the media - and you? Why not simply say what he voted and be done with it?

After checking, expect his answer to remain, "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue."

It's as if you want to attack McCain whatever he does.

As I wrote above, if politicians would vote based on their positions as opposed to voting politically, there would be no problem recalling how you voted on an issue, provided it had come up.

If politicians always and only vote based on their positions, there would be no politics. You would have trenches instead. You wouldn't have a parliamentary system - you would have a dictatorship.

However, in this case, the problem is not that McCain didn't know how he voted. He didn't even know his position on the issue!!!

(given the nature of the political process, sometimes you will have to vote against somethings you support, because they are part of a bigger package that you overall oppose; the question wouldn't have tripped him up if he could have answered it)

Yes, they are part of the bigger package. And therein lies the rub.

What if he had voted Yes to one small part of a larger package, in order for the larger package to go through, but had to vote No to the same small part, this time of a different larger package?

Would he be a flip-flopper - or a skilled politician who gets results through compromise?

[pgwenthold]

What if he had voted Yes to one small part of a larger package, in order for the larger package to go through, but had to vote No to the same small part, this time of a different larger package?

Would he be a flip-flopper - or a skilled politician who gets results through compromise?

Again I say, read what I wrote above. I covered that. He says, this is my position. If someone says, why did you vote against it? The answer is easy, "What else was in that bill? I voted against that bill because, although it did this good thing, it also did this, which I found to be unacceptable."

Of course, McCain isn't getting flak here because of how he voted, but because he doesn't even know his position on the issue!

Actually, I doubt that is true. I think he knows very well his position on that issue. He just wouldn't say it because then everyone else would know it just as well...and it isn't flattering.

[CFLarsen]

Actually, I doubt that is true. I think he knows very well his position on that issue. He just wouldn't say it because then everyone else would know it just as well...and it isn't flattering.

Then, you are saying that McCain thinks that nobody will go back and check what he had said earlier.

That's not a very believable scenario.

[chipmunk stew]

Then, you are saying that McCain thinks that nobody will go back and check what he had said earlier.

That's not a very believable scenario.
The reporter TOLD HIM what his vote was, and TOLD HIM what the vote contained. The reporter then ASKED HIM, whether or not he supports medical coverage for birth control TODAY.

There are a million ways to answer that question without painting yourself into a corner that do not require a huddle with your advisers. I expect my president to be willing and able to answer simple questions from the press, even if their answers are not always entirely satisfying.

[Gurdur]

You're being kinda ridiculous on this one, CF Larsen, with all respect.

[CFLarsen]

I really don't see what is so wrong with a politician saying "Let me check on that".

I mean....we are skeptics if we do the same.

[pgwenthold]

I really don't see what is so wrong with a politician saying "Let me check on that".

It depends on the question. If the question is, "How did you vote on this?" then that would make sense.

If the question is, "Do you support this?" then "Let me check" does NOT make sense.

He has to check with an adviser to find out whether he supports an issue or not?

[CFLarsen]

It depends on the question. If the question is, "How did you vote on this?" then that would make sense.

If the question is, "Do you support this?" then "Let me check" does NOT make sense.

He has to check with an adviser to find out whether he supports an issue or not?

Why not?

Do you think politicians have a crystal-clear opinion about everything in the world?

Do you have a crystal-clear opinion about everything in the world?