SOMEWHERE in NORTHERN IOWA — The unthinkable has happened. Senator John McCain met a question, while sitting with reporters on his bus as it rumbled through Iowa today, that he couldn’t – or perhaps wouldn’t – answer.
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.
The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.
His press secretary, Brian Jones, later reported that Mr. McCain had a record of voting against using government money to finance the distribution of condoms.
All this took place on the second day of the reprise of the “Straight Talk Express” bus trips that Mr. McCain made a central part of his campaign in 2000. It also comes as Mr. McCain has eagerly been trying to ease strains with social conservatives in the party who, for the most part, do not support using government money to pay for condoms.
A transcript of the encounter follows. (Weaver is John Weaver, his senior adviser, and Brian is Mr. Jones, his press secretary):
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.”
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.”
This went on for a few more moments until a reporter from the Chicago Tribune broke in and asked Mr. McCain about the weight of a pig that he saw at the Iowa State Fair last year.
This is the epitome of many modern politicians–saddled by their own lack of knowledge and their adherence to “policy positions” not of their own devising.
I would like a candidate to speak from her or his own mind. I can accept someone admitting to a lack of knowledge. I do not accept a candidate asking an aide what his own position is on an issue.
It seems John McCain has decided to abstain from independent thinking, which will hopefully prevent his spread during election season.
And this is the type of mentality the right-wingers want?? GOD help us all if he's elected.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention/
On November 29, 2002 on CNN’s Late Edition, Sen. McCain said, "We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies....I don’t think it’s easy, but I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."In contrast, Obama made a prominent speech around the same time, October 2, 2002, in which he said, "But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al-Qaeda." Obama correctly foresaw the consequences of the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history. McCain won't even support vets after the bloodletting? Which candidate do you think is more "naive on foreign policy and not as qualified to lead the military?"
Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama's victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support.
Mr Obama is expected to speak to Mr Clinton for the first time since he won the nomination in the next few days, but campaign insiders say that the former president's future campaign role is a "sticking point" in peace talks with Mrs Clinton's aides.
The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.
A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my ass" in return for his support.
A second source said that the former president has kept his distance because he still does not believe Mr Obama can win the election.
Mr Clinton last week issued a tepid statement, through a spokesman, in which he said he "is obviously committed to doing whatever he can and is asked to do to ensure Senator Obama is the next president of the United States ."
Mr Obama was more effusive at his unity event with Mrs Clinton on Friday, speaking fondly of the absent former president, who attended Nelson Mandela's birthday celebrations in London instead. The candidate told the crowd: "I know how much we need both Bill and Hillary Clinton as a party. They have done so much great work. We need them badly."
But his aides said he has so far concentrated on cementing relations with Mrs Clinton first. They say they are content to let relations with Mr Clinton thaw gradually.
It has long been known that Mr Clinton is angry at the way his own reputation was tarnished during the primary battle when several of his comments were interpreted as racist.
But his lingering fury has shocked his friends. The Democrat told the Telegraph: "He's been angry for a while. But everyone thought he would get over it. He hasn't. I've spoken to a couple of people who he's been in contact with and he is mad as hell.
"He's saying he's not going to reach out, that Obama has to come to him. One person told me that Bill said Obama would have to quote kiss my ass close quote, if he wants his support.
"You can't talk like that about Obama - he's the nominee of your party, not some house boy you can order around.
"Hillary's just getting on with it and so should Bill."
Another Democrat said that despite polls showing Mr Obama with a healthy lead over Republican John McCain, Mr Clinton doesn't think he can win.
The party strategist, who was allied to one of the early rivals to Mr Obama and the former First Lady, said Mr Clinton was "very unhopeful" about the nominee's prospects in November.
"Bill Clinton knows the party will unite behind Obama, but he is telling people he doesn't believe Obama can win round voting groups, especially working-class whites, in the swing states," the strategist said.
"He just doesn't think Obama will be able to connect with the voters he needs."
Joe Klein, the author of Primary Colours, a fictionalised account of Mr Clinton's 1992 election, who has known the former president for 20 years, said he also heard that he was "very, very bitter", from people who have spoken with him.
"It's time for him to get over it or go off and do his charitable work. He knows the rules of the road. What's going on now is kind of strange. I think his behaviour is really, really shocking."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/
Let's do a little comparison here:
Senator Obama's combined adjusted gross income for 2007 was: $4,139,965.00
Senator Clinton's combined adjusted gross income for 2007 was: $109,200,000.00 est.
The Clintons' estimated 2007 total income includes, among other items:
Senator Clinton's salary $150,200
Senator Clinton's book royalties $152,864
President Clinton's pension $186,600
President Clinton's book income $4,434,446
President Clinton's speeches $10,145,000
Partnership income $2,750,000
Advisor income from InfoUSA $400,000
Income from savings accounts $485,000
Investment income from Blind Trust $3,515,000
(The partnership, speeches and investment income above are estimated figures)
Looks like they are still waiting to receive information related to partnership
income, including investments made by the Trustees of their Blind Trust. The Blind
Trust was unblinded on April 27, 2007 and the assets, with the exception of U.S. treasury
notes and federal bonds, were sold on May 11, 2007. The tax information in this release
is based upon the best estimates of the Clintons' tax attorney.
Dubai's 'Boycott Israel' Sheik Funded Bill Clinton
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/2/121350.shtml
And someone else going to pay off her campaign debt?? That is total arrogancy!!
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - As Barack Obama broadens his outreach to evangelical voters, one of the movement's biggest names, James Dobson, accuses the likely Democratic presidential nominee of distorting the Bible and pushing a "fruitcake interpretation" of the Constitution.
The criticism, to be aired Tuesday on Dobson's Focus on the Family radio program, comes shortly after an Obama aide suggested a meeting at the organization's headquarters here, said Tom Minnery, senior vice president for government and public policy at Focus on the Family.
The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.
"Even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?" Obama said. "Would we go with James Dobson's or Al Sharpton's?" referring to the civil rights leader.
Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
"Folks haven't been reading their Bibles," Obama said.
Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus' teachings in the New Testament.
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said.
"... He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama
Maybe the Republicans need to buy stock in throat lozenges since they do so much screaming. Read on to see what all the hullaboo is about. Such hypocrites!!
http://www.politicalbase.com/profile/Mark%20Nickolas/blog/&blogId=2590
McCain's Big Oil Lobbyists
Number
Name of Lobbyist
Campaign Role
Firm or Company
Oil Clients
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
[Senate Lobbying Disclosure Database]
Cindy McCain is again hitting back at Michele Obama for a snippet of a speech that Michele gave about being 'proud of her country.' I've heard this snippet over and over again and I've also heard directly from the horses mouth what she meant by the comment.
Seems Cindy McCain doesn't know why she would say she wasn't proud of her country. Now let me ask you this Mrs. McCain. Are you sure you're ready for the Obama surrogates to begin airing your dirty laundry---which by far is more interesting to the voting public than words of Michele's speech that were taken out of context.
The MSM said you had been vetted in 2000 during your husband's previous bid for the presidency. Well there are millions of new voters who have NOT been privvy to this vetting. If it was up to me, I would have had it spread all over the Web. I'm a 7th generation Arizona native so I know alot about you and your hubby. I believe it's necessary for this current generation to also see your past exploited all over the news just like you and your husband have done to the Obama's.
By the way Mrs. McCain---how are those cookies coming??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnhmByYxEIo
That's what happens when a bunch of people are controlled by the Clinton's. Most worked in the Clinton administration and had the 'yellow streak' running down their backs.
This is a slap to Senator Obama and his hard fought battle. Hillary's whining got the DNC to meet and make changes to MI and FLA. Hillary constantly whined during the debates..."how come I get the first question all the time?"
I hope this comes back to bite the democrats in the ass. I'm changing to independent and NOT voting------PERIOD!!!
A picture is worth a thousand words!
Than reporting on Liz Trotta's vitriolic statement about "knocing off both if we could"....speaking of Senator Obama and Osama Bin Laden. This contemptible and outrageous statement should be reported to every news media in the free world.
I'm exremely disappointed in the way KO and Abrams viewed this verbal carnage by trivalizing it. Keith Olbermann thought talked more about the 'toilet' problems in space. Dan Abrams is a complete moron. He should have stuck to being a lawyer. He didn't even show the complete tape. He only reported about Liz Trotta getting Senator Obama's name correct. Some kind of outrage!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0
I find the words so difficult to come out right now---I'm in shock, I want to cry, I want to scream and most importantly I want to shout to the mountain tops that WE as Obama supporters will not stand for this sort of vulgar news being reported from FOX news or their employees.
I am spending all night and all day for however long it takes---to get this video out to every state in the union. It's enough that Hillary gives a lame excuse for her latest gaffe (I don't buy it!!) and hopefully by Monday the MSM will be all over it like flies on poop!
Well this latest one from FOX NEWS and their news correspondent Liz Trotta has got to be the 'icing on the cake.'
Please help me to get the video out to the entire world. Let them know what type of "unfair" and "unbalanced" program FOX NEWS really is. Liz Trotta is now branded as a piranha and should be dealt with in a severe manner that shows the entire country that WE will NOT tolerate this sort of behavior.
This is a "Fierce Urgency of NOW!!" Thank you!!
You can find the story located in the link below:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/25/15389/8576/115/522617
The last time Puerto Rico played a starring role in mainland politics---the summer of 1999, when President Bill Clinton drew sharp criticism by offering clemency to 16 imprisoned Puerto Rican nationalists who belonged to an organization responsible for more than 100 bombings in the U.S. and Puerto Rico between 1974 and 1983.
At the time, Clinton was accused of attempting to curry favor with the large Puerto Rican community in New York, where Hillary Rodham Clinton was preparing to run for an open Senate seat. In response, the Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly passed a resolution stating, “President Clinton should not have offered or granted clemency to the FALN terrorists.” The political backlash proved severe enough that Mrs. Clinton, then the first lady, ended up publicly opposing her husband’s offer, saying she had nothing to do with it.
Yet for all the controversy surrounding the episode, nary a word is heard about it as Clinton and Barack Obama battle for the 63 delegates at stake in Puerto Rico’s primary.
"It’s a highly charged issue, but it has not been an issue in Puerto Rico [this year] because it is pretty far back and there has been a desire to get past that conflict,” said Kenneth McClintock, president of the Senate in Puerto Rico and co-chairman of Clinton’s campaign there.
A lot of people in Puerto Rico do not support what those people did, but they do believe the lengthy sentences were unjust. So they would rather just not talk about it. Nor would the Democratic candidates, neither of whom would have much to gain by revisiting the controversy.
In Clinton’s case, it would serve as a reminder of an episode she would rather forget. Back then, she was whipsawed between Puerto Rican leaders who were angered by her opposition to clemency and Republicans who viewed the clemency offer as a crass political maneuver designed to benefit her impending Senate campaign.
Asked to comment on the role the clemency affair might have in the Puerto Rico primary, Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker sidestepped the issue.
"Puerto Ricans share the concerns of all voters---turning this economy around, keeping our neighborhoods safe and providing quality health care to every Puerto Rican,” he wrote in an e-mail. “They know Hillary has the strength and experience to deliver real solutions to the challenges facing Puerto Rico.”
But Obama supporters in Puerto Rico have turned the Clinton administration record against Hillary Clinton, noting that former President Clinton cut tax credits to companies that do business in Puerto Rico---a move that some say hurt the local economy.
Puerto Rican Clinton supporters also cite Bill Clinton’s creation of the Community Oriented Policing Services program, which provided funding for many new police officers in Puerto Rico. Hillary Clinton has pledged to restore COPS funding cut by President Bush.
In the spring of 2007 Bill Clinton visited Puerto Rico on Hillary’s behalf, and earned $250,000 from their politicians.
He was planned to visit Luis Lloréns Torres residential housing. It should be known that all of the people who live there are extremely poor, needless to say that it is a high crime area. Bill Clinton’s "three strikes and you’re out" policy not only meant that the criminal would lose his or her own liberty, but the ENTIRE family would have to move out of the residence and locate elsewhere. Guess what? Most of the victims of that policy in Puerto Rico were in Lloréns Torres.
Then, he was supposed to visit the "Asociación de Industriales", an association of industry investors in Puerto Rico. Well ... they deeply resent the fact that despite their advice, Clinton eliminated all the benefits of Section 936 in Puerto Rico. The members of the Asociación de Industriales suffered heavy losses as manufactures in Puerto Rico located elsewhere.Following that unfortunate event, he was supposed to visit Barceloneta, the municipality that suffered most of Clinton’s elimination of Section 936. Its poverty rate increases as more manufacturing industries keep locating overseas.
What does Clinton promise? That if his wife becomes President, she will reinstate the benefits to attract more American capital to Puerto Rico. Of course, this is nothing less than deception. Everyone who looks at the global economy knows that to place such incentives to benefit Puerto Rico alone would go against the best interests of NAFTA and other free trade treaties with Latin American countries.
The only way Puerto Rico could do this is if eventually Congress gives it power to establish treaties world wide, contract those ships that we want, and establish commerce throughout the region, trade with the U.S., trade with European countries, trade with Asia, and so on. In other words, the only possible incentive for Puerto Ricans is to be able to have as much political and economic powers we can, either in the form of a sovereign free association with the U.S. (which is recognized by International Law), or independence.
To hope that in our current status, Hillary or any candidate to the presidency will give us any incentives to attract American capital, is like waiting for Christ’s Second Coming: people always say it’s close, and he doesn’t arrive.
FINALLY!!!! Someone has fired back at Hillary Clinton! A million thank you's to Keith Olbermann for finally having the kajones to voice his opinion on Senator Clinton's ghastly statement referencing to Robert Kennedy's assassination in June.
I don't buy Hillary's "apology" just like the numeorus others she'd made and got away with throughout this campaign.
Her words still send chills up my spine. I, like millions of others across the nation, remember that awful day in 1968 so vividly. It was a horrible time and a devastation we all will not soon forget.
I will wait and see how the Clinton camp handles this latest blunder. Enough is enough!
