In an interview with ABC correspondent and former Clinton campaigner George Stephanopoulos, McCain stumbled quite a bit. First, he reversed his opinion on affirmative action; however, let's be honest here. It was a reversal from a position he held ten years ago. That's a long period of time, and it's not politically irresponsible to change a position over the course of ten years. Personally, I don't think this really counts as a screw up.
However, take a look at this excerpt from the transcript:
MCCAIN: I'm running for president of the United States, because I want to help with family values. And I think that family values are important, when we have two parent -- families that are of parents that are the traditional family.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But there are several hundred thousand children in the country who don't have a home. And if a gay couple wants to adopt them, what's wrong with that?
MCCAIN: I am for the values that two parent families, the traditional family represents.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you're against gay adoption.
MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent.
The implication is clear, but it's always annoying (and, in my humble opinion, irresponsible) when a candidate refuses to state their position on an issue.
Earlier in the interview, Stephanopoulos referenced McCain's comments last Saturday that sixteen months was "a pretty good timetable" for withdrawal from Iraq (link here if you want to watch it). McCain denied having used the word "timetable."
MCCAIN: But it is a -- it is not a date. I want to make it very clear to you, it is not a date. It's conditions on the ground.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you shouldn't have used the word timetable.
MCCAIN: Pardon me?
STEPHANOPOULOS: You shouldn't have used the word timetable.
MCCAIN: I didn't use the word timetable. That I did -- if I did...
STEPHANOPOULOS: "Well, it's a pretty good timetable."
MCCAIN: Oh, well, look. Anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground. Anything is good.
Note that, during a January 30th debate with Mitt Romney, McCain lashed out at Romney for using the word "timetable."
Next, I want to point out something that, while not a contradiction or hypocritical statement, is patently ridiculous. Stephanopoulos talks to McCain about the economy, and McCain brings up the frequently-maligned "gas tax" holiday:
MCCAIN: There are many steps that can be taken absolutely, including the gas tax holiday. Everybody -- everybody...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Not a single economist in the country said it'd work.
MCCAIN: Yes. And there's no economist in the country that knows very well the low-income American who drives the furthest, in the oldest automobile, that sometimes can't even afford to go to work.
That's his explanation as to why no economists like the gas tax holiday - because they haven't met the everyman, the little guy, the humble small-town folks who drive old cars. This is an insane defense; what effect would economists meeting such people have on their assessment of the gas tax holiday? Meeting people who struggle with gas prices has no effect on whether or not an economic policy will be effective. McCain is pandering shamelessly, rather than supporting a sound economic policy. Inexcusable.
But, the two continued chatting:
STEPHANOPOULOS: But they all say that that's...
MCCAIN: And they haven't met...
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... not who's (ph) going to get the benefit. The oil companies, the gas companies are going to absorb...
MCCAIN: You know, they..
STEPHANOPOULOS: ... any reduction.
MCCAIN: ... they say that. But one, it didn't happen before, and two, we wouldn't let it happen. We wouldn't let it -- Americans wouldn't let them absorb that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How would you prevent that?
MCCAIN: We would make them shamed into it. We, of course, know how to -- American public opinion. And we would penalize them, if necessary. But they wouldn't. They would pass it on.
McCain's argument here seems to be that, because the economy is in such a downturn, gas companies wouldn't think of keeping the savings from the holiday to themselves. No, that'd be unethical. It's obvious that they would pass those savings on to the consumer, and if they didn't, we'd "shame" them into it (we all know how concerned big oil is with their public image).
~~~
All of these gaffes point out certain flaws in McCain as a candidate. Attacking use of the word "timetable," then using it himself, then forgetting that he used it? Senility. Refusing to flatly state his stance on gay adoption? Irresponsibility as a candidate (how can a voter make an educated vote if they don't know their candidates' stance on all the issues they deem important?). Canceling a visit to a military base due to campaign restrictions, then criticizing Obama for doing the same, then denying that he would ever do such a thing? Hypocrisy at worst; forgetfulness (and senility) at best.