Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Want a politician who has actually thought about important issues and can express a thoughtful opinion on them without having their staffers tell them what they think? John McCain ain't your guy. Just look at the report of this exchange when he was asked about whether condoms should be distributed to help prevent the spread of HIV:
Did he support the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V.?What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain's aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain's side.
Here's the actual transcript:
Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"Mr. McCain: "Well I think it's a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes - and I was just reading the thing he wrote- that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn't succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I'm not very wise on it."
(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)
Mr. McCain: "I haven't thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don't know if I would use taxpayers' money for it."
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."
Did i mention that this conversation took place aboard the McCain tour bus, which they are calling the Straight Talk Express? Another irony meter shot to hell.
Comments
About a decade ago McCain was someone who I thought had the makings of a good president. I am at a loss to describe what has happened to him since that time. He seems to waffle on everything and know little about himself anymore.
Posted by: GH | March 20, 2007 9:49 AM
My favorite part of the exchange:
"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."
Seriously, asking your staffer to find out what your position is? Come on!
Posted by: Brian D | March 20, 2007 9:53 AM
Maybe it's you.
Posted by: Ted | March 20, 2007 10:28 AM
Haha, maybe but I don't think so. At one time he seemed to have fresh ideas and speak his mind. Now he defers to others and has nothing new to offer. Thats when he is not seemingly pandering to the polls of the day.
Posted by: GH | March 20, 2007 10:32 AM
McCain doesn't know if contraceptives helps to stop HIV?! Ignorance or, more likely, struggling to find an answer that won't upset the political base he's wooing?
Posted by: Phobos | March 20, 2007 12:55 PM
Phobos, it's definitely the second. The entire thing was just McCain not knowing how to answer the questions and not piss off the religious right. Everyone with a brain knows that the ridiculous abstinence policy is killing people, but McCain needs the people who'd rather see Africans die than have protected sex to elect him. I'm just glad that he's so transparent and idiotic now that he'll almost certainly lose.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | March 20, 2007 2:11 PM
Anyone who cites Coburn (presumably Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma) as an authority for his views on AIDS/HIV, condoms, and sex education should be shot. But before being shot, he should be made to serve five years in an African orphanage for AIDS infected orphans. Oh, and citing Coburn as a guide automatically disqualifies him from any further consideration for the presidency.
Posted by: Keanus | March 20, 2007 3:46 PM
"I never got a question about it before."
"You've stumped me."
"I've never gotten into these issues before."
Let me get this straight.
He's been in Congress since 1982. He's been in the Senate since 1986. He ran for President in 2000.
And this is the first time he's considered the question of what the U.S. government should and should not do to help stop the spread of HIV?
That, just by itself, makes him grotesquely unqualified to be President. Heck, it makes him grotesquely unqualified to be in the Senate.
Of course, I don't think that's what's really going on. I don't think it's the first time he's considered this question. I just think it's the first time he's considered this question since he decided to start sucking the dick of the religious right. I think Stuart hit the nail on the head.
But the fact that he thinks "Gee, I haven't really thought about this before" is a remotely valid response to the question "What should the U.S. government do to help stop the spread of HIV?" proves, beyond any doubt, that he is not qualified to be dogcatcher, much less a Senator, and much much less a President.
Posted by: Greta Christina | March 20, 2007 4:29 PM
McCain sorta backpedals during the interview, first seeming to acknowledge that promoting condom use can reduce the spread of AIDS and then later saying that he doesn't know. Big deal.
There does not seem to be any consensus among public health experts regarding which policy has the greater effect in reducing the spread of AIDS, promoting abstinence or promoting condom use. Both seem to be somewhat effective, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Jason | March 20, 2007 5:14 PM
There does not seem to be any consensus among public health experts regarding which policy has the greater effect in reducing the spread of AIDS, promoting abstinence or promoting condom use. Both seem to be somewhat effective, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, the advocates of abstinence-promotion would LOUDLY disagree with this: they consider ANY attempt to "make sin safe" -- including education and contraceptive-distribution -- to be an encouragement of promiscuity, and thus contrary to their "abstinence-only" message. This is why abtsinence-promotion has been such a disaster wherever it is practiced -- especially in the huge number of situations where the sex isn't always consensual. According to that lot -- Ellen Sauerbrey being among the worst, as Assistant Secretary of State for Refugee Affairs, IIRC -- condoms are contrary to their message, and therefore cannot be tolerated.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 20, 2007 5:24 PM
Actually, the advocates of abstinence-promotion would LOUDLY disagree with this: they consider ANY attempt to "make sin safe" -- including education and contraceptive-distribution -- to be an encouragement of promiscuity, and thus contrary to their "abstinence-only" message.
Some proponents of an abstinence-only policy might do that, but, obviously, not all proponents of abstinence oppose other all other policies for reducing the spread of AIDS.
This is why abtsinence-promotion has been such a disaster wherever it is practiced --
Really? You mean like in Uganda?
Posted by: Jason | March 20, 2007 5:31 PM
Yes, we do mean like in Uganda. Please tell us why we're wrong.
A responsible poster would have povided a direct link in their original post, rather than baiting.
And you're missing the point. McCain is a flip-flopping waffler of the first order, and his inability to elaborate any further on his position proves it. If he was unsure, he could simply have said, "I've reviewed the conflicting evidence and I'm still unsure as to the best approach." Instead, he just dicked around not committing himself to anything which of course makes it easier to say later that he didn't change his opinion, since he never had one in the first place.
Posted by: chris | March 20, 2007 6:06 PM
GH, as to what happened to McCain, you might check out the story in Reason magazine (available at reason.com, I don't have the exact URL). The story suggests and I agree that McCain has always had a mixture of views on policy that never quite fit any category. Some, like opposition to pork, are compatible with individual liberty, but many others are not.
Posted by: Stephen | March 20, 2007 6:12 PM
chris,
Yes, we do mean like in Uganda. Please tell us why we're wrong.
Abstinence promotion has not been a disaster in Uganda,
A responsible poster would have povided a direct link in their original post, rather than baiting.
No, a responsible poster would not have made the claim that abstinence promotion has been a disaster wherever it is practiced without bothering to find out whether or not the claim is true.
Posted by: Jason | March 20, 2007 6:14 PM
chris,
And you're missing the point. McCain is a flip-flopping waffler of the first order,
In that case, so is every other candidate for president. John Kerry was an especially clear example. It's pretty much inevitable given the need for such candidates to appeal to as many people as possible.
Posted by: Jason | March 20, 2007 6:19 PM
I think the question may be do we really need another president that suppresses science results for politics.
Your example of Uganda is odd; I can't tell if you're maintaining that abstinence-promotion is disproportionately successful relative to other measures.
This link at Frontline has good coverage of ABC and the backstory.
There's also some discussion of condom programs that are pretty successful.
Also, at HRW
And another link from the washington compost
In MY opinion he should have said, "It's on a case-by-case basis. As US President I would demand that each country provide the US with a census of their virgins, so that we can decide how to allocate the funding."
Posted by: Ted | March 20, 2007 8:52 PM
Ted,
Your example of Uganda is odd; I can't tell if you're maintaining that abstinence-promotion is disproportionately successful relative to other measures.
I don't know why you can't tell. Raging Bee claimed that abstinence promotion has been a"disaster" wherever it has been practised. In response to this claim, I cited AIDS policy in Uganda as an example of abstinence promotion that has not been a disaster.
I am not sure what you think your Frontline quote or your other links have to do with this question. None of them say that promoting abstinence has had any adverse effect at all on reducing the spread of AIDS, let alone that it has been a "disaster." As I suggested before, there is no consensus among public health experts on which component of Uganda's three-pronged "ABC" policy (Abstinence, Be faithful, and use a Condom) has been most effective at reducing AIDS infections, but no reputable authority is claiming that promoting abstinence is a "disaster."
Posted by: Jason | March 20, 2007 9:24 PM
GH writes:
He spent the last six years kissing George Bush's ass, in order to curry favor with the GOP base. And they hate him for it. That has to be hard on a politician.
Posted by: Russell | March 20, 2007 10:35 PM
That is exactly the point, "there is no consensus among public health experts on which component of Uganda's three-pronged "ABC" policy . . .has been most effective." In spite of the previous posters possibly over statement of the effect of Abstinence-only policies, there is absolutly no reason to eliminate the C in that policy.
Eliminating the C is what the people McCain is shamelessly pandering to with this absurd performance want to do.
The worst part is, if you read the rest of the article, some other member of the press traveling with McCain proceeded to let him off the hook by asking a question about a pig the senator had seen. A responsible press would have continued to "press" the senator for a clear explaination of his sudden ignorance about the way condoms work.
Posted by: ratel | March 20, 2007 10:54 PM
herbalife ürünleri
Posted by: herbalife ürünleri | April 11, 2011 4:09 PM