It’s hard to tell from the transcript, but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that his answer was to the policy question in general and not the factual question in particular.
You may not have heard that McCain recently took time out from planning to save us from al-Queda while simultaneously lowering our taxes, in order to weigh in on the minutiae of another public health matter - namely vaccination (at a Texas town hall meeting last month).
*McCain said, per ABC News’ Bret Hovell, that “It’s indisputable that (autism) is on the rise amongst children, the question is what’s causing it. And we go back and forth and there’s strong evidence that indicates that it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”
McCain said there’s “divided scientific opinion” on the matter, with “many on the other side that are credible scientists that are saying that’s not the cause of it.”
The established medical community is not as divided as McCain made it sound, however. Overwhelmingly the “credible scientists,” at least as the government and the medical establishment so ordain them, side against McCain’s view."*
Apparently McCain thinks it is his business to trash an invaluable public health program - though his chief purpose in making boneheaded statements about immunization may be an appeal to Ron Paul supporters, many of whom endorse their Leader’s position against mandatory vaccination.
Perhaps, but the next bit goes like this:
Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”
Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it.
The questioner is trying to get him to acknowledge that contraception does in fact help stop the spread of HIV, but McCain persists with his line that he doesn’t know enough to say, a stance that strains credibility. Maybe he’s trying to seem uninformed as a way to maneuver out of answering a direct, factual question that would undermine the logic behind his support of an abstinence-only policy in Africa. In any case, ignorant (and arguably idiotic) v. gutless dodging-- neither interpretation casts him in a positive light IMO.
First of all, of course I know McCain and Stockdale have “certain things in common.” Fucking DUH. Wanna tell me why the fuck should I care about their shared military honors (and horrors) with respect to what bumbling fools they both look like when asked simple questions? It’s completely irrelevant.
I couldn’t care less what “social issues” he’s up on or not up on. When he was asked what his position was, he said, “I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it in the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is. . .” Sorry, but that’s a goddamn idiotic fucking response.
And he was asked, “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?” It’s a question about taxpayer money, which is one of the things you say he’s spent his career working on. He should have a fucking answer.
Again, not about what his opinion is, it’s about the fact that he doesn’t even know what his own position is. He had to ask someone to find out!
It used to be that Republicans were generally fiscal conservatives. Ever since Reagan (I think) they’ve been fiscal and social conservatives. So while the fiscal conservatives might have no problem with gay marriage, the social conservatives get all up in arms about it. When we do send assistance to Africa, for example, the social conservatives will stipulate that the assistance cannot include information on birth control or preventing the spread of STDs. Never mind that a great many problems in Africa could be eased if the spread of STDs, especially HIV, slowed down.
Similarly, the Democrats used to be fiscally liberal, but socially conservative. That changed some decades ago, which is a big part of the reason why Texas is now mostly a Republican state.
Do we have a knee-slapping, hysterical-laughter smiley around here someplace?
You’re really winding us up with this, right? You’re being ironic, surely? Jesus, Sam, i know it’s likely that we’re going to disagree on many (most?) political issues, but i’ve always believed you to be someone who at least has a passing acquaintance with the facts. There is just no way that anyone can argue with a straight face that the current crop of conservatives dominating the American political landscape really believe that such things are none of the government’s business.
And here’s the response one reporter received when he asked the McCain campaign about this issue, just a couple of months after the story linked by the OP:
Yep, sure sounds like a guy who doesn’t think the Feds should have anything to do with sex education.
They’ve also managed to be the type of “fiscal conservatives” who rack up spending and deficits that would get a Democrat crucified.
I think he’s realized that people are asking him real questions and that he’s conflicted between his new “conservative” base and what’s left of his intelligence.
Those are some great speeches. All the guys come off really well, even Quayle. He was forceful, direct, spoke very well and projected great confidence. So did Gore, who also looked like Christopher Reeve and had an imposing physical presence. Why do people always say Gore is a boring speaker? I think he did a great job there. And Stockdale came off as honest, heartfelt and likable. I mean, he was an old man, stuff like putting his glasses on and taking pauses is acceptable when you’re that old.
The moderator was also great.
You have to take note of the formulation of Sam Stone’s critique. He’s made a political calculation that he’s willing to throw any reasonable knowledge of domestic political issues on McCain’s part under the bus so long as we leave standing his “expertise” in foreign policy and defense.
Of course, the fact that McCain is ignorant of basic facts in the latter area is exactly why he’d like to shore up agreement on them. If people start to notice things like the “Iran is training al Queda” bit, they might start saying, “Wait, perhaps singing ‘Bomb bomb Iran’ is a less than intelligent thing to do as regards foreign policy.”
I don’t think McCain is the kind of stupid that Republicans like W is or Dan Quayle was. I think he’s the lacking integrity, gutless, poorly thought out policies and plans, corrupt kind that most of the other Republicans are.
On the other hand, I hope that Mr. Moto puffed out his chest as much when the criticisms of McCain were not that he was stupid, but that he was crazy-angry and a race-traitor.
In fairness to McCain, HIV never came up in his high-school health class, and he probably hasn’t had sex since after the AIDS crisis hit. And politicians never tend to have much interest in understanding the finer points of whatever they’re trying to stamp out, whether it be conservatives and condoms, or liberals and guns. To him it’s a moral position, so facts really would never have had much occasion to enter into it. I don’t care for it, but it’s sorta standard procedure for a politician; you can’t really compare him to those of us who were in mid-adolescence when AIDS awareness was just hitting full swing.
What I do find sort of creepy is how McCain seems to be gunning for Bush’s sloppy seconds. “I dunno, I probably agree with whatever the president says.” WTF? I thought McCain was supposed to provide an alternative for the republicans who actually get that Bush is a corrupt, incompetent jerk… not actually catering to those who still LIKE him.
I bet they covered The Black Plague in pretty good detail, though.
Hey, just because I was a teen back in the days when just about all serious STDs were cured with a shot of penicillin (the 70s)(and boy, does anyone remember the first herpes outcry?) doesn’t mean that I don’t take notice of all the nasties that are floating around out there. Sure, I’m monogamous. However, I’m married to a human male, and while I’m pretty sure he’d never cheat on me, there’s always that one opportunity that he might not be able to pass up. Besides that, I have a daughter. I considered it my duty as her parent to have a decent knowledge of STDs and other problems that she might encounter.
Even if someone’s celibate, HIV/AIDS is a huge problem that affects humanity as a whole. Anyone who wants to be involved in the public sphere should know this, no matter what his/her stance is on sex.
If McCain would say flat out “I have no position of people’s sexual behavior because it is none of the government’s damned business”, I’d have more respect for him.
He won’t, because that would drive a wedge between him and some of the factions he’s currently fellating.
“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have other ones.” Groucho Marx
He really respects doctor Tom Coburn?
They probably covered salmonella from eating undercooked dinosaur meat.
Thanks. Things make more sense now.
I agree. I’d have much more respect for the Republican party as a whole if they were consistent in their small government belief. I’d probably even agree with it for the most part.
McCain is certainly not an idiot, and he most certainly is not ignorant in regard to condoms and HIV. But if he doesn’t continue to lick George Bush’s boots and kiss the ass of the religious right at every opportunity, he’ll lose continued support. So waffling is the order of the day.
I happen to share that opinion strongly. I’m just pointing out that if your public sphere consists of pandering to people who think they’ll never get AIDS because it only affects godless liberals, and that the answer is firmer abstinence-only education, why would they know anything whatsoever about other forms of HIV prevention? If you think (for example) that drugs are an abomination, why would you know that marijuana is safer than any other drug and a better candidate for decriminalization? I’d be surprised to see any conservative candidate give a better answer than McCain. It’s just not what they do.
Don’t get me wrong, I think McCain’s a dingdong like the rest of the Republican slate this election cycle, but I just have trouble working up any outrage over this pitting. If a Democrat had flubbed this line of questioning, I’d be significantly more pissed.
To the contrary, anyone would, who watched his debate performance and knew little else about him; which would be a “fair” judgment under the circumstances.