McCain flips on affirmative action — or does he?

In John McCain’s interview with George Stephanopoulos yesterday, McCain was asked about an issue that he rarely talks about.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Opponents of affirmative action are trying to get a referendum on the ballot here that would do away with affirmative action. Do you support that?

MCCAIN: Yes, I do. I do not believe in quotas. But I have not seen the details of some of these proposals. But I’ve always opposed quotas.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the one here in Arizona you support.

MCCAIN: I support it, yes.

That McCain answered by talking about his opposition to “quotas” was, of course, ridiculous. “Quotas” and “affirmative action” are not the same thing, as McCain knows (or, at least, after 26 years in Congress, should know). But just as importantly, McCain’s position comes as something of a surprise, given that he used to take the opposite position, even having described ballot initiatives like the one this year in Arizona as “divisive.”

OK, so McCain flip-flopped. That’s hardly a shock; he does this all the time. What’s interesting, though, is that McCain may not actually know his own position on the issue.

After the interview aired, and Barack Obama expressed his “disappointment” with McCain’s response, CNN followed up with the McCain campaign directly. McCain’s spokesperson, Tucker Bounds, told CNN via a written statement, “John McCain has always been opposed to government-mandated hiring quotas…. He has long stood for the protection of civil rights and equal opportunity for all Americans.”

CNN’s report added, “But pressed about whether McCain indeed supports the Arizona initiative, the campaign would not answer.”

It’s not a trick question. In fact, this should be an easy one.

McCain just told a national television audience that he supports a ballot referendum in his own home state. Just 24 hours later, McCain’s campaign isn’t willing to say whether McCain articulated his own position properly, or even if that is his position.

What makes this especially interesting is the campaign’s recent track record on the disconnect between what McCain says out loud and what McCain’s position is.

This isn’t the first time that McCain campaign has indicated that the senator’s public statements about policy may not be his actual policy. After the Tax Policy Center released a report showing a $2.8 trillion gap between Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) public economic proposals and his advisers’ private assurances, top econ adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin told Slate that just because McCain says something publicly about a policy, “that doesn’t mean it’s official.”

Got that? If we want to better understand John McCain’s policies, we should overlook what John McCain says about his policies. McCain’s “official” positions don’t always come from McCain.

And how are voters to know the difference? When McCain announces a position, how is the public to know whether it’s “official” or one of the policies he doesn’t really mean?

That’s unclear, but I’m sure the McCain campaign will let us know.

Senator McCain and friends are doing their own Titanic, this is the point where the campaign rearranges the deck chairs every other day.

“Trollops and Children first!”

It’s getting hard to watch..

  • Did McCain’s campaign just say that it was they who ran the Senator, not the other way around? Who else would be able to officially decide McCain’s policies? This is, without a doubt, the most ineffectual campaigns ever run. Without the support of McCain’s base, by which I mean the most frequent passengers on the Straight Talk Express, those sprinkle-fetching stenographers of the fourth estate, he would have imploded far before now.

  • Can McCain hit 100 by Election Day? Besides 100 years in Iraq, another reason to call him McCentury!

  • Does anyone think that the McCain campaign will get him “programmed” to give the right responses during the debates? Or are the debates going to be a continuation of this spectacle – where McCain says something that completely contradicts his “campaign’s” position, and they spend the next few days walking his statements back to the positions he’s supposed to have?

    If they don’t have this straightened out by the debates, it’s going to become one weird cluster up on that stage and afterwards.

  • I guess McCain is hoping that another Cheney-type person will appoint themselves become the VP and make all those yucky decision things so he can go around blathering in generalities.

  • NonyNony: Honestly, I think McCain’s campaign is sliding into what I might call a “post-policy” campaign. If I’m right, McCain will have virtually no clearly stated positions on any issues by the time of the debates. He will get up in the debates and talk about conditions on the ground and telling congress to stop the bullshit. And he will repeatedly call Obama names. That’s it. No need for walkbacks because there are no policies to walk back.

  • “Does anyone think that the McCain campaign will get him “programmed” to give the right responses during the debates?”

    Oh, they’ll program him alright, but when he’ has to follow up…that’s when it will get interesting. His “programmed” responces will be clumsy and badly delivered (creepy smile as punctuation). Non programmed will be a freakfest of uncomfortable silence, blank stares, darting eyes the churlish dismissal. I think it might be really good.

  • The simple explanation:

    “Quotas” is GOP code for “affirmative action” and has been for a long time. Reason being that the latter is popular and the former isn’t. Just replace “quotas” with “affirmative action” and it all becomes clear.

  • John “Straight Talk” McCain has a few very simple policies to carry him through the remainder of this campaign:

    1. He’s John McCain.
    2. Although not sure exactly why, John McCain knows how to win wars.
    3. He’s not Barack Obama (see #1.)
    4. He is willing to adopt all of Obama’s policies regarding Iraq and say anything that anyone wants to hear so long as there’s only one opinion in the room, BUT, there’s one BIG difference: see #1 and #4.

  • McCain’s “official” positions don’t always come from McCain. — CB

    The obvious follow up to this statement is a question: Where *do* they come from, then? The Grand Ventriloquist Cheney, as before, or some other power source?

    Quite frankly, at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised by *anything*, however fantastical. Up to and including the theory (which I proposed a couple of days ago), that the McCain we’re seeing now is a troll baby substitute for the real one, whom the trolls have kidnapped and hid somewhere in the caves underground. His entire demeanor reminds me more and more of The Tales of Hoffmann and the “robot”, whose spring wasn’t wound tightly enough…

  • Just a question. Can you oppose a piece of legislation that you agree with in principle but disagree with how that piece of legislation goes about it?

    You would think that professional writers would be a bit less biased.

    Saying it is a flip-flop when he has not changed position based on his comments on one piece of legislation? Do a bit more research, his stance on this hasn’t changed. Affirmative action dose more to hurt then help minorities. Affirmative action tells minorities that they can not achieve something on there own so it must be given to them. Ask yourself is that truly equality? Affirmative action stands in the way of true equality by creating a legal requirement to not treat people equally. I know this is a tough subject. I am called a racist at first every time I talk about this. True equality means no one is different in the eyes of the law. Any law that treats people different based on race/sex should be removed.

    When I look around I do see some racism/sexism but I do not see anywhere the amount I am constantly told there is.

  • To: Just a question

    “Affirmative action tells minorities that they can not achieve something on there own so it must be given to them.”

    The answer to your question lies with your assumption as stated above.

    If the person that holds the power of making hiring/promotion/enrollment decisions is of one gender and race,
    what gurantee will the institution/company/government agency have that that person’s personal prejudices and stereotypes will be put aside when making
    hiring decisions? For instance, what if the hiring person has the above assumption as you do?

    Have you ever had an interview where the interviewer was not able to tell your race/gender without asking?

  • Our site takes a somewhat supportive view on affirmative action. But Senator McCain’s reflexive hostility does have its defenders. Thanks for adding your analysis to the blogging universe.

  • Comments are closed.