McCain now claims that
Wow.
Y’know before, when I said I might vote McCain over HRC, if she was the nominee?
Scratch that.
He has to be responding to the recent case that the DoJ decided to cave on concerning thimerisol. It’s not a definitive judgement but I know when my reporters have been calling HHS and CDC all week they’ve been stonewalled by communications guys shitting bricks.
That’s on par with 9/11 truthers. Hope he gets called on it.
Disgusting to see a politician pass along potentially harmful folk wisdom to whore out a few more votes, but I guess that’s actually fairly typical.
There are a lot of folks out there who believe the same things. You would THINK that a politician would have decent people around him to make him at least marginally better informed than the most people. Pretty sad…
-XT
Why does he have to be responding to that case? Couldn’t he just have talking out of his hat?
He’s a politician in an election year…he is definitely going to be keeping a ear out for issues like this he can respond to that will strike a cord with prospective voters. He didn’t just randomly pick this issue to start rambling on about it.
I’m just disappointed in his choice of STAFF actually…someone should have a clue and advise him about this kind of stuff. Obviously not…
-XT
Because the second sentence of the article says he was responding to that case.
As if embracing Reverend Hagee wasn’t enough to qualify for this thread …
Sounds like he did just that. How many prospective voters are passionately interested in the causes of autism?
No doubt. However, he probably lost most of the informed voters out there who are going to see this as either A) Grandstanding for naked political gain or B) Sheer stupidity that indicates that not only does McCain not have a clue but his staff doesn’t either…which is more worrying to me personally.
If I was ever considering voting for the man this would probably put the kibosh on it alone…I hate this kind of stupidity in those who supposedly are serving us…
-XT
Why oh why would someone post such speculation without reading the article, (or even my own humble post), not even the whole article, just down to sentence number two. Simply cast your eyes upon sentence one, then divert them downwords a mere quarter inch. Then you may start sentences with words like “it sounds like he…” and in fact know what it does in fact sound like. He was in fact answering a direct question about the recent themiresol case, as Johnathon Chance sepeculated (though why oh why did he speculate, when he merely…etc etc), and not just rambling:
Of course that doesn’t really excuse McCain from being wrong. Especially as the last few months have seen studies come out that really put the last nail in the coffin of the thimerosal causes autism theory.
No, it says he was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with autism, “who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims…”
In the quoted remarks, McCain never mentions the case.
If he were talking about the case, rather than trying to comfort the mother with his own autism theories, would he not have mentioned the case?
Umm…I don’t really see the difference between “responding to the case” and “responding to a question about the case”. But whatever, I’m not really looking to get into a semantic argument over it, if you say you perceive a difference, I’ll take your word for it.
It was enough for me. I’m one of those Catholics. Uh huh. Yeah. Lost a vote.
Because in your world politicians always directly address the questions they are asked?
In my world, that sort of “straight talk” is so rare as to be virtually nonexistent.