Mark Sanford's Mental Recession

Just remember to accuse John McCain of being like Bush is to slander his war service or something. Anyways, he's Wolf Blitzer talking to McCain surrogate Mark Sanford:

BLITZER: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports?

SANFORD: Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television. Take, for instance the contrast on NAFTA. I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from.

Ooops! I'm not really sure what Sanford's trying to say here about NAFTA but there's no contrast there. There once upon a time was a substantial contrast on tax policy, but in order to win the nomination and court the GOP sociopathic donor base he's no firmly pledged himself to not only continue but intensify the Bush course on tax policy.

Comments

I'm not watching much tv lately, so will someone please explain to me why these gaffes aren't killing McCain?

Dow tanking. Gas over $4.

His economic adviser calls US "a nation of whiners." Barack follows up with a hilarious speech that portrays McCain himself as sharing this psychobabble approach to our problems.

Another surrogate says, um, no, I can't think of any way that McCain would change current Republican economic policy.

To me, these sound like big ol' banana peels. Why are we only leading by 4%?

Posted by Ted | July 13, 2008 5:23 PM

I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television.

You don't say.

Posted by Jake | July 13, 2008 5:24 PM

They don't call him McBush or McSame for nothing.

Posted by Rich | July 13, 2008 5:52 PM

Time to strike him off the potential vp list. Can't bs on tv.

Posted by Morg | July 13, 2008 6:04 PM

I saw this live and I can tell you that the transcript does not do it justice. It MUST be seen to be believed....

Posted by Keith | July 13, 2008 6:39 PM

Here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nNSMZKv_A

Posted by keith | July 13, 2008 6:44 PM

Any chance McCain's inconsistencies, especially tacking to the right, happen because he's trying to win an election? And then if he wins he'll go back to being the McCain of old and do whatever he wants. And then not run in 2012?

Posted by Andrew Fly | July 13, 2008 7:24 PM

"he's Wolf Blitzer"

He is?

Try another "re" in there, Matt.

Fly: Why wouldn't he run in 2012 if his current strategy of being both clueless and a flip-flopper gets him elected this year? It's not like the electorate is going to remember.

Ted: "Why are we only leading by 4%?"

I think we need to realize now that virtually anybody can become President of the US if he's anointed by the Powers That Be and the MSM (who are controlled by the Powers That Be.)

Obama can't win this unless his lead extends to perhaps 15-20% - which will never happen as long as the bulk of the electorate are getting their opinions of things from the MSM. The MSM will make sure that Obama's lead stays under 5-10% by spinning everything that happens in the campaigns.

Bush will attack Iran in October, McCain will get a ten percent bounce in the polls from the usual public reaction to a US war and win the election.

It's that simple. That's been the plan for years now. Josh Bolton said it in 2006: "The Dems will lose over Iran." I thought they'd do it in 2006 but that wasn't the plan. Had they tried it then, they might have gained in the Senate and House, but would have lost the Presidency in 2008 as the Iran war turned bad. So the plan was always to wait until 2008 and then either win the Presidency or tie the hands of the incoming President with a new war.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 13, 2008 7:59 PM

It is a bit funnier to watch it in its entirety. Sanford first spends about 30 seconds not being able to say anything in which McCain differs from Bush regarding economic policy. Then he finally mentions NAFTA, but draws contrasts with Obama (not Bush). THen Wolf says, "But you contrasted NAFTA with Obama. In terms of NAFTA, McCain and Bush are on the same page, right?" And Sanford responds in the affirmative. In other words, McCain economic policies are the same as Bush's. Priceless clip.

Posted by Jim E. | July 13, 2008 8:04 PM

"I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from."

So basically, Sanford is saying that even if Bush and McCain have the same economic policies, the "bigger issue" is "credibility" and "consistency." Except, Bush is the one who has been consistent -- McCain arrived at some of these positions only recently.

It's funny -- clearly, McCain surrogates must know that he has flip-flopped all over the place. But in their brains, that gets turned into McCain's "consistency" or "resolve" or whatever synonym they choose to use. Why do they do this -- it shows that they know McCain has a glaring weakness but also builds it up as a really important factor in determining who's best equipped to be president? I guess it has worked before.

Posted by Ryan | July 13, 2008 8:07 PM

Live, it was priceless. Dead air, in between his face getting red and the hem-haw reflex kicking in. Empty people, empty minds, empty souls.

When he said 'Drawing a blank here' I bellowed aloud in some Celtic knowing ancient angst release....and nearly fell on the floor in Sunday morning laughter. Empty worthless GOP.

Posted by SouthernWreck | July 13, 2008 9:42 PM

Wow, Blitzer actually nailed him down on his inability to articulate a single difference. Interesting.

Posted by DTM | July 13, 2008 10:06 PM

I actually think there is at least one difference between Bush and McCain's economic policies. McCain thinks a gas tax holiday would help boost the slowing economy, whereas I don't think the Bush administration has endorsed that idea.

There may also be some tax differences, but I don't know enough of how Bush stands on some of McCain's ideas to say for sure: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

Posted by S.P. Gass | July 13, 2008 10:22 PM

I didn't think it possible, but McCain seems dumber on the economy than Bush. So McCain might actually turn out to be worse than Bush if he ever got the chance.

Posted by cm | July 13, 2008 10:57 PM

McCain and Bush do disagree on tax policy.

Bush is for doing away with the estate tax while McCain isn't. This is a huge difference. The difference is hundreds of billions.

McCain is also much more conservative on spending issues than Bush.

McCain would veto far more wasteful spending bills than Bush.

Posted by Seth | July 14, 2008 1:11 AM

McCain has experience with the economy.

McCain was chairman of the commerce committee.

The best thing the Obama campaign has done is present Obama who has no economic background as being able to deal with the economy.

Obama was trained as a lawyer not a governor.

Obama has no business backgground.

Obama has no executive experience dealing with the economy like Bill Clinton had when he was governor.

Obama himself admits he is terrible with numbers.

Obama said 57 states.

Obama said 10,000 people died in a tornado in kansas.

Obama said 100 million died in burma.

Obama was trained as a lawyer. He doesn't have the skill sets to be proficient in economic matters or the experience.

Somehow McCain who was the chairman of the commerce committee which dealt with every economic issue is less qualified than Obama who has no experience in the economic background or executive experience. Obama hasn't been on any committees dealing with the economy.

Obama went to law school he didn't go to business school. He isn't good with economic policy.

He has flip flopped all over the place on how he would uses taxes for social security. Telling an Iowa voter he was against any cap for social security. He clearly didn't know what he was talking about because he later flip floppped.

Posted by Seth | July 14, 2008 1:17 AM

Wow. Heh. It reminds me of the Onion TV -- specifically, the "In The Know" show about how global petroleum markets would react to Umaru Yar'Adua's election to the presidency of Nigeria.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_situation_in_nigeria

Posted by Julian Elson | July 14, 2008 4:24 AM

Seth, the only thing that matters for the US economy right now is NOT starting a war with Iran.

Bush will. McCain will if Bush doesn't. Obama may or may not - it's not a certainty with him, although I think he's dumb enough to do it if his stupid "diplomacy" fails, which it will.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 14, 2008 5:22 AM

This is great and all, because Sanford concedes the point that Bush's economic policies are shit, and then goes on to not be able to differentiate between Bush and McCain's policies. But really, other than being a neat gotcha moment... who cares?

Posted by socctty | July 14, 2008 9:51 AM

This is great and all, because Sanford concedes the point that Bush's economic policies are shit, and then goes on to not be able to differentiate between Bush and McCain's policies. But really, other than being a neat gotcha moment... who cares?

Posted by socctty | July 14, 2008 9:52 AM

McCain and Bush do disagree on tax policy.

Bush is for doing away with the estate tax while McCain isn't. This is a huge difference. The difference is hundreds of billions.

McCain is also much more conservative on spending issues than Bush.

McCain would veto far more wasteful spending bills than Bush.

That's hilarious. McCain wants to make permanent the tax cuts that Bush has already enacted--but they disagre on tax policy?

Let's not hold up someone who thinks killing Iraqis will save America money as a fighter against wasteful spending.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 14, 2008 10:38 AM

Ted asks:

I'm not watching much tv lately, so will someone please explain to me why these gaffes aren't killing McCain?

I think the answer is in the first part of your question. These gaffes aren't killing McCain on television.

It reminds me of the metaphor about the Berlin Wall:

Speck by speck, it will fall.

Posted by Brad Eleven | July 15, 2008 4:27 PM