John McCain on Condoms

[Ebowed]

The 'maverick' Senator on HIV/AIDS...

McCain is stumped on the stump

It's not often that a reporter stumps John McCain. But it happened Friday, and it was a telling moment for the Republican presidential contender.

The bus had been rolling for a half-hour and McCain was holding court on everything from Iraq to college basketball. ("Who woulda thought? VCU," he exclaimed upon boarding.) And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS.

"I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past," he stammered as he looked to his communications director. "I'm sure I'm opposed to government funding."

Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence, like President Bush wants?

"I think I support the president's present policy," he said, tentatively.

More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?

A long pause.

A stern look.

"I've never gotten into these issues or thought much about them," he said, almost crying uncle. "Obviously, we all want to stop the spread of AIDS. Everybody wants to do that. What's the most viable way of doing that?"

Well? The reporters asked?

In a last ditch attempt to rescue himself, McCain told an aide to go get a briefing paper prepared by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a doctor, who he said has been advising him on "these issues." But the aide couldn't find the briefing paper. "We've lost it," McCain mumbled.

"Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives. He then said he'd look into it for the reporters, who finally let him off the hook and moved onto other subjects again.

-- Michael D. Shear

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/campaign-trail/2007/03/mccain_is_stumped_on_the_stump.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

The 'maverick' Senator on HIV/AIDS...

McCain is stumped on the stump

It's not often that a reporter stumps John McCain. But it happened Friday, and it was a telling moment for the Republican presidential contender.

The bus had been rolling for a half-hour and McCain was holding court on everything from Iraq to college basketball. ("Who woulda thought? VCU," he exclaimed upon boarding.) And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS.

"I'm sure I've taken a position on it in the past," he stammered as he looked to his communications director. "I'm sure I'm opposed to government funding."

Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence, like President Bush wants?

"I think I support the president's present policy," he said, tentatively.

More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?

A long pause.

A stern look.

"I've never gotten into these issues or thought much about them," he said, almost crying uncle. "Obviously, we all want to stop the spread of AIDS. Everybody wants to do that. What's the most viable way of doing that?"

Well? The reporters asked?

In a last ditch attempt to rescue himself, McCain told an aide to go get a briefing paper prepared by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, a doctor, who he said has been advising him on "these issues." But the aide couldn't find the briefing paper. "We've lost it," McCain mumbled.

"Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives. He then said he'd look into it for the reporters, who finally let him off the hook and moved onto other subjects again.

-- Michael D. Shear

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/campaign-trail/2007/03/mccain_is_stumped_on_the_stump.html

This is a first.

Usually McCain has a vitrolic opinion about everything.

Doesn't mean he knows anything.

[Stranger in a strange land]

this is pretty embarassing. IIRC, I think even the Catholic Church now supports condom distribution in Africa to fight AIDS (or at least no longer actively opposes it)

[TheresNoMoney]

Kind of sad that a Republican nowadays can't admit that condoms help prevent AIDS because it will piss off the base.

[YRABNNRM]

Welcome to March 2007!

[minionofmidas]

Welcome to the jokes that are the American Political System, the Republican Party, and the American Media.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Kind of sad that a Republican nowadays can't admit that condoms help prevent AIDS because it will piss off the base.

Being a Republican who is willing to deal with reality is a bit like being trapped in a cage.  You may have a little wiggle room, but it's always hard to move the bars on the cage.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So McCain isn't willing to make an uninformed statement on something.

Isn't this a good thing?

Since when do we expect our candidates to think they are omniscient?

[bullmoose88]

So McCain isn't willing to make an uninformed statement on something.

Isn't this a good thing?

Since when do we expect our candidates to think they are omniscient?

I think its a shame, as Don and Scoonie pointed out, that our presumptive nominee can't just say, Condoms are a good thing, generally speaking.

[minionofmidas]

So McCain isn't willing to make an uninformed statement on something.

Well, it's extremely telling that he isn't informed on the issue.

[Gabu]

So McCain isn't willing to make an uninformed statement on something.

Isn't this a good thing?

Since when do we expect our candidates to think they are omniscient?

Not omniscient, but it takes a real special someone to not be able to just come out and say "yes, condoms do help prevent the spread of STDs".

[Gustaf]

So McCain isn't willing to make an uninformed statement on something.

Isn't this a good thing?

Since when do we expect our candidates to think they are omniscient?

Not omniscient, but it takes a real special someone to not be able to just come out and say "yes, condoms do help prevent the spread of STDs".

Special someone as in Republican presidential candidate?

[minionofmidas]

So McCain isn't willing to make an uninformed statement on something.

Isn't this a good thing?

Since when do we expect our candidates to think they are omniscient?

Not omniscient, but it takes a real special someone to not be able to just come out and say "yes, condoms do help prevent the spread of STDs".

Special someone as in Republican presidential candidate?

Fixed.

[Person Man]

Eh Heh. A radical who can't even make up his mind? The Straight-Talk express is off its wheels.

[Lief 🗽]

"I don't know what my opinions are. Could some please tell me what my good friend REPUBLICAN EXTREMIST #8 thinks?"

[True Democrat]

Who cares about condoms?  We don't want to encourage promiscuity.  Maybe sexual diseases are just nature's way of punishing the sexually immoral.

Remember when AIDS was punishing homosexuality?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Hmm, doesn't it just show that Mc Cain has no ideas to what answering the question because he didn't know what he should answer?

If yes, it would just reveals that, on this issue, Mc Cain has more a vote-catching position than a strong one.

Or, he has really no ideas on the issue. Concerning a 71 years old Republican politician, this would be strange.

Maybe sexual diseases are just nature's way of punishing the sexually immoral.

And maybe they are not. Maybe this is just a random of the nature we have to deal with.

If ever what you say was right, nature don't have the same comportment with moral according to different epochs and different regions. I've never heard speaking about sexual diseases concerning just homosexuals neither in the Antic Greece nor concerning the nobles of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey, around 1400 to 1900), both of them used to practice homosexuality, and there are maybe others trough times and regions about who I don't think here for who homosexuality was normal and who hasn't been touched by disease because of this.

[Person Man]

Hmm, doesn't it just show that Mc Cain has no ideas to what answering the question because he didn't know what he should answer?

If yes, it would just reveals that, on this issue, Mc Cain has more a vote-catching position than a strong one.

Or, he has really no ideas on the issue. Concerning a 71 years old Republican politician, this would be strange.

Maybe sexual diseases are just nature's way of punishing the sexually immoral.

And maybe they are not. Maybe this is just a random of the nature we have to deal with.

If ever what you say was right, nature don't have the same comportment with moral according to different epochs and different regions. I've never heard speaking about sexual diseases concerning just homosexuals neither in the Antic Greece nor concerning the nobles of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey, around 1400 to 1900), both of them used to practice homosexuality, and there are maybe others trough times and regions about who I don't think here for who homosexuality was normal and who hasn't been touched by disease because of this.

Maybe Europeans are on to something. Maybe we in America do overthink certain things. That doesn't mean we should put our guard down, but we shouldn't be making arguments for argument's sake.

[The Hack Hater]

Who cares about condoms?  We don't want to encourage promiscuity.  Maybe sexual diseases are just nature's way of punishing the sexually immoral.

Let's stick to the real issues.

Plenty of people will try it anyway. Lack of knowledge only ends up making people more curious in the end, and encourages them to be more reckless.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

we shouldn't be making arguments for argument's sake.

If that's for me, I'm curious to know where did you find it in my words...?

Lack of knowledge only ends up making people more curious in the end, and encourages them to be more reckless.

I like such words and I think they really have to be spread, otherwise...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

we shouldn't be making arguments for argument's sake.

If that's for me, I'm curious to know where did you find it in my words...?

I guess you said it concerning Antic Greece, and Ottoman nobles.

If that's it, well, ok, as I'm not a specialized in this epochs historian, and as I was not there, I can't affirm that.

So, as this argument can't be totally verified, I may should have not taken it, I can acknowledge this.

Hmm, OK, to have a fully clear and more useful as possible debate concerning this:

Maybe sexual diseases are just nature's way of punishing the sexually immoral.

I'll just say again that:

Maybe that are just randoms of the nature we have to deal with...

And that:

As no one know, no one can't affirm...

And I will add:

By studying History, we can say that the moral has not been, and is not, always the same through epochs and regions...