Question is Too Tough
Man, don't you love being back into Presidential politics? They're really hitting the candidate-wannabes with some hard questions.
Here's John McCain yesterday:
If all goes as planned, any tenth grader from any MCPS high school after this year will be able to tell you: condoms significantly reduce the risk of infection with sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS, but only abstinence provides a hundred percent protection.
Is McCain so uninformed that he doesn't know that (is it even possible to be that uninformed?), or is he just another weaselly weasel who's afraid of the Family Blah Blah groups?
You know the answer to that. No adult could really be this stupid.
Here's John McCain yesterday:
Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”
Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”
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. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”
Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”
If all goes as planned, any tenth grader from any MCPS high school after this year will be able to tell you: condoms significantly reduce the risk of infection with sexually transmitted infections including HIV/AIDS, but only abstinence provides a hundred percent protection.
Is McCain so uninformed that he doesn't know that (is it even possible to be that uninformed?), or is he just another weaselly weasel who's afraid of the Family Blah Blah groups?
You know the answer to that. No adult could really be this stupid.
posted by JimK at 10:41 AM
8 Comments:
weasel, for sure
Is McCain uniformed or weaselly? That's easy.
McCain is W squared, he's a weaselly weasel.
The Straight Talk Express facade, followed by the I-am-W's-#1-supporter facade, and then back to the Straight Talk Express facade again demonstrates McCain is the ultimate flip flopper.
It was a Salon reporter who asked the question about contraception funding for Africa. Salon reports:
...Then came a question McCain was not expecting. Would he support taxpayer funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS?
Initially he said he would support a program that provided abstinence education, while providing contraception in those places where abstinence was not being followed. He said his major counselor on the subject was Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a conservative doctor who has taken a particular interest in sexually transmitted diseases and has frequently opposed contraception distribution.
The conversation moved on. But a couple of minutes later, McCain grew concerned. He turned to the Salon reporter who asked the question and said he may want to revise his answer. "Let me think about it a little bit. I had not ...," he trailed off. "I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money"
Suddenly the straight talk became halting and confused. "We are on the Straight Talk Express," he admitted, before equivocating. "I'm not informed enough on it. Let me find out ... I'm sure I have taken a position on it in the past ... I have to find out my position on it ... I am sure I am opposed to government funding. I am sure I support the president's policy on it."
He asked his aides to search for a position paper Coburn had written on the topic. But it could not be found. A second reporter asked if McCain believed that condoms prevent the spread of AIDS, an easy statement of fact. But McCain did not immediately answer.
"Theoretically, it is like a lot of issues -- there is no magic bullet," said a third reporter, trying to help out the candidate. "Everything will have a marginal effect."
"The question is not whether I support contraception," McCain attempted. "The question is whether I support government funding of it."
But McCain did not have an answer. His aides promised one will be forthcoming.
Update: After some research, McCain's staff just tried to end the confusion. "He's consistently voted agaist taxpayer funded contraception programs," says Brian Jones, McCain's communications director.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/03/16/mccain/index.html
McCain does not support federal funding for contraception programs to slow the spread of AIDS in Africa, apparently prefering that money be spent on anti-retroviral (ARV) therapy instead. In 2000, ARV cost approximately $2,000.00 per life-year while HIV/AIDS prevention cost from less than $4.00 to "$213.66 per life-year...The full set of prevention interventions would save roughly 100 times as many life years as ARV therapy."
http://big.berkeley.edu/HIVFINAL2.PDF
Pharmaceutical companies are big GOP contributors. They gave campaign contributions more than 2 to 1 to GOP candidates over Democratic candidates in 2004.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/drugs/2005-04-25-drug-lobby-cover_x.htm
And let's not forget his flip flop on Bob Jones University, which has raced from the 16th century to 21st century in 6 short years.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/31/john-mccains-views-on-bob-jones-university-then-and-now/
Twice married McCain might be "straight" but he is no straight talker. He's a flip flopper.
This post has been removed by the author.
Relax, McCain is NOT going to be the GOP candidate. I know I would not vote for him even if Sen. Clinton were the Democratic candidate (one, don't think he has the temperment, and two, he was the McCain that sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" in complete violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution).
And actually, I'd vote for stupid as he has *never* struck me as very bright or with it.
Now ask someone like Romney that question and I bet you would find a weasel...
Orin said ...actually, I'd vote for stupid as he has *never* struck me as very bright or with it.
If you voted for Dumbya, you already did.
Orin said ...actually, I'd vote for stupid as he has *never* struck me as very bright or with it.
Aunt Bea writes,
If you voted for Dumbya, you already did.
Actually, as I recall, I didn't want to vote for Bush, but when he selected the "Dark Lord" as his VP I knew he had to be brighter than that guy who "invented" the internet and "discovered" (and this is the same person that enrolled in and dropped out of law and divinity school - and people have the nerve to call his opponent in 2000 dumb...well, at least he finished and received an MBA).
Bush didn't select Cheney; Cheney selected Cheney.
If at this point tou truly believe that Bush And Cheney are more in line with your libertarian ethos than any serious Democratic candidate today or in the past six years, then 'you're really living in a cocoon.
Dana writes,
If at this point tou truly believe that Bush And Cheney are more in line with your libertarian ethos than any serious Democratic candidate today or in the past six years, then 'you're really living in a cocoon.
Sadly, yes...let's see the candidates the Democrats have put up. Gore? Please, he wants to introduce more, much more government into our private lives, up to and including what kind of light bulbs we can use in our home. Then there was Kerry...need I really say more? A more statist "liberal" one could hardly find.
Now, I don't know as much as I would like about Obama, but Sen. Clinton? Goodness, I think parkridge47 on YouTube summed her up quite accurately as "Big Sister" ever eager about how to convince us all that her vision of a national nanny state will make everyone happier.
Ok, give me the name of a Democrat, any Democrat, that will step forward in favor of a little less govt.
Post a Comment
<< Home