In a memorable moment early this year, John McCain had to admit to a reporter that he had no idea what his position on contraceptives is, but "I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it." Igor at the Wonk Room fills you in (via) and it turns out that yes, indeed, McCain shares Bush's extreme views on the subject -- lots of abstinence education (something he perhaps could have used during his first marriage) and no funding for anything else.
« Requests Thread | Main | Big Doctor Strikes Again »
McCain and Contraceptives
18 Jun 2008 03:21 pm
Comments (23)
"I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."
That reeks of devastating ad bait.
Perhaps he could have used abstinence education during his first marriage?
Yglesias, what the hell are you talking about?
I'm not gonna defend the guy bailing on an injured wife who supported him all those years in captivity. He was a cad of the worst type.
But denigrating the man's children is beyond the pale.
Have some class, Yglesias.
Have some freaking class.
He said it early last year. Seriously Matt, the careless mistakes/laziness start to add up after a while.
Gee. John McCain supports an extreme right wingnut viewpoint that has been discredited. Well knock me over with a feather.
But denigrating the man's children is beyond the pale.
He's not denigrating the man's children. He's denigrating John McCain's habit of cheating on his disabled first wife (to the extent of chasing his second wife-to-be around the country for six months while still married to his first).
Please tell me that "I'm sure I support the president's policies on it" is on video somewhere.
Can you imagine that ad? Just run down every issue...
*start ad*
"The war in Iraq..."
McCain: "I'm sure I support the president's policies on it"
"Torture..."
McCain: "I'm sure I support the president's policies on it"
"The environment..."
McCain: "I'm sure I support the president's policies on it"
... and so on.
Not so good when the president has 20-some percent approval ratings, huh?
"I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."
That reeks of devastating ad bait.
Seriously, is there a clip of this?
With regard to McCain & abstinence education during his first marriage:
I suspect southpaw's right, but I absolutely see where the earlier critic's coming from, and Matt's guilty of some very artless phrasing here. After reading "abstinence education (something he perhaps could have used during his first marriage)," I realized after some consideration this was probably meant as a crack about McCain's adultery, but abstinence education is generally--and, indeed, here--discussed in terms of whether it's a viable alternative to contraception, i.e. how to avoid having children. So it's very understandable how it might at first seem Matt's saying McCain should have taken better care to avoid having children in his first marriage.
Awfully hard to run away from Bush when you blindly agree with him on every position...
http://www.political-buzz.com/
I think this post and the corresponding links should be required reading for every Hillary supporter who say they are for women's rights but will now back McCain.
Matt may be inartful, but the point is that McCain's life has not been one of abstinence, and he may not be "too old." as one commenter suggests. What ever happened to Vicki Iseman, anyway?
Then there's this suggestion that neither of the McCains is fussy about monogamy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-stark/the-coming-storm-or-why-m_b_107148.html
McCain is a hypocrite, and no friend to women. That's the point.
Saying McCain needed abstinence education is just a nice way of saying he should have used a rubber.
That is a disgusting way to talk about a father, and is without a doubt bringing his children into it, which is shameful and classless.
It's the kind of thing Yglesias would call out if NRO wrote it about Obama no doubt. But since he doesn't like McCain, he's happy to go personal on him in the most awful way.
Look, we need to stop the personal attacks on both sides, not just on the right.
Yglesias needs to grow up. The Atlantic is a class publication, and it deserves more from it's bloggers.
Saying McCain needed abstinence education is just a nice way of saying he should have used a rubber.
Does the stick up your ass have a stick up its ass?
Go ahead daveNYC, keep up with the personal attacks. Real classy.
Weak-minded folks who can't even respond to the issue ain't gonna bother this commenter.
I'm not sure if George Bush snorting coke off of a hooker's keister and John McCain coming back from VietNam and banging broads two at a time while married to his crippled now ex-wife qualifies them to determine whether or not abstinence education is a bang-up idea.
I have @ 250 contacts in my "hotmail" contact list. Not a one of them under 40 years old was a virgin before marriage.
People, including (obviously) McCain and Bush, have premarital sex. Why on earth would anyone vote into office someone who is so removed from reality that the only sex education they'd be willing to fund is for abstinence?
Unless you are a complete and total bible-banger, you're not going to remain abstinent before marriage - and most bible bangers aren't going to remain abstinent before marriage either (or will get divorced as a result of marrying some shmoe at 20 years old just to get some Bible-approved tail, only to decide by age 22 that sex with the first person you hop in the sack with usually stinks. Is it any wonder that the divorce rate of evangelicals is so high?
I agree this isn't artful.
The parenthetical (something he perhaps could have used...) is directly describing abstinence-only education. Which is saying he should have kept it in his pants.
If the post had said, McCain's position on contraception (something he perhaps ....), then I would agree more with all of the outrage.
As it is, it is a cheap shot, but I don't think it brings his children's existence into it.
Your concern is noted, Tonto.
I've got no problem with people criticizing Matt, but his meaning here is clear. Anyone with a baseline understanding of how McCain conducted himself during his first marriage could reasonably conclude that more sexual propriety was called for. Inartfully phrased? Sure. Impacting anyone's children? Not in the slightest.
Yeah, not super-well phrased, but I don't see it as an attack on McCain's kids. Rather, just a comment on McCain's own checkered past.
Yeah, not super-well phrased, but I don't see it as an attack on McCain's kids. Rather, just a comment on McCain's own checkered past.
Harry was just crying crocodile tears. The meaning of Yglesias's expression was obvious. Twisting the meaning to something else is just SOP for the Republicans. I bet Harry grew up listening to Limbaugh do this so now he thinks that this kind of crap is just the way things are done.
A charitable interpretation, which I think is the way to go, would certainly not be that Yglesias thinks McCain's children shouldn't exist. But, that's how I read it the first time and without a generous interpretation I think that's what the words actually do suggest.
Comments closed July 02, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
All McCain had to say was, "At my age, it is not an issue."
Posted by Bob Oso | June 18, 2008 3:36 PM