McCain flubs another test, gets confused about his own energy policy

June 17, 2008

One need not be a policy wonk to be a good candidate and a capable president. But it’s not too much to ask that presidential nominees have at least a passing familiarity with their own proposals, especially those the candidate places enormous significance on.

Take John McCain, for example. The Republican nominee plans to emphasize his energy policy this week, and hosted a press conference near DC yesterday in which he was asked about a cap-and-trade policy.

QUESTION: The European Union has set mandatory targets on renewable energy. Is that something you would consider in a McCain administration? […]

MCCAIN: Sure. I believe in the cap-and-trade system, as you know. I would not at this time make those — impose a mandatory cap at this time. But I do believe that we have to establish targets for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions over time, and I think those can be met. [emphasis added]

McCain has been talking about a cap-and-trade system, and has even co-sponsored legislation to implement such a system, so I’d like to assume he knows what “cap and trade” means. But my assumption would be wrong.

Even if he was confused about the details, the name of the policy goes a long way in pointing to its meaning — there’s a “cap,” which necessarily points to a mandatory limit. That’s what a “cap” is.

But McCain’s confusion — are we still allowed to use “McCain” and “confused” in the same sentence, or did the media decide that’s inappropriate? — is not unusual on this issue. It’s possible he misspoke yesterday and/or forgot what he was talking about, but let’s not forget he also didn’t understand what a cap-and-trade system was earlier this year during a debate, and flubbed the same issue during a recent interview.

I’m trying to think of a charitable explanation for this. Nothing comes to mind.

On the one hand, we have the “hopelessly-confused” explanation, which hilzoy highlighted:

The best you can say for McCain, on this point, is that he is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. Not knowing what “mandatory cap” means, in this context, is like not knowing what a “strike” is in baseball. You might, if you wished, explain why you said you hoped your team got a lot of strikes by saying that you thought strikes were a good thing, like ‘striking gold’, or that you thought that ‘striking out’ indicated the beginning of a long journey around the bases, as in ‘striking out for the territories.’ That might even be what you meant. But if it were, that would show that you weren’t all that familiar with baseball.

On the other hand, it’s possible McCain does know what a cap-and-trade system is, and his remarks about the policy are intentionally deceptive. Kevin makes the case:

Is McCain confused again? Maybe, but more likely it’s just politics as usual, a way of being all things to all people. He wants credit for taking climate change seriously but he also wants credit for being business friendly, so he offers up a cap-and-trade plan and then insists that it doesn’t actually involve a cap. This is garden variety double talk, but he can get away with it because he knows that no one in the press corps will actually challenge him on an issue of substantive policy.

It’s tough to know for sure whether McCain is hopelessly confused or shamelessly dishonest, but given his remarks, I’m afraid it has to be one or the other (or perhaps, I suppose, a little of both).

And if this only applied to energy policy, it would merely be disappointing. But McCain has flubbed similar tests on everything from foreign policy to the economy, too. George W. Bush experienced similar problems eight years ago, but McCain is supposed to be a more serious, more accomplished candidate. He has, after all, been a member of Congress for a quarter-century, during which time McCain was in a position to learn a few things about national policy.

It’s hard to say whether voters will a) hear about McCain’s confusion; and b) hold it against him, but at this point, McCain is quickly approaching Bush-like levels of incoherence.

Maybe McCain can recycle this precious ditty from yesterday’s new rules thread.

I did not [say that] — that was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]

  • Perhaps the left could use: “illustrates an inability to articulate what he really means” as opposed to confused, liar, incoherent, (get the Thesaurus!!) That way it indicates that he’s just plain stupid as opposed to being senile or worse. People can relate to and forgive (up to a point) stupidity not so much to pointing a finger at an old , confused, war hero who needs help crossing a street which where all this going…

  • McClone’s been pandering to special interests for so long that he’s evidently lost all shame. Dishonest? Well, yeah, but he probably doesn’t see it that way. To him dishonesty is just politics as usual, as natural as breathing. That’s SOP for GOPers–if the American public ever understood that they planned to govern only for one per cent of Americans they’d never win any election.

  • Does anyone get the impression McCain sits on his Straight Talk Express bus and at his headquarters telling POW stories and pointing at Cindy saying, “Isn’t she something?” while his aids and staff write his policy statements? When called upon to answer questions he never seems to understand anything he’s talking about. When he delivers speeches his delivery seems to suggest he’s clueless as to understanding the content. He seems completely befuddled by and removed from his own campaign and policy.

    Its all very funny and ammusing until you stop and think he could very well win.

  • Maybe he sincerely believes in a voluntary cap? That is a familiar Republican position – that of course we need regulations, but the industry is smart enough to impose the regulations on itself. You know, the way foxes can be put in charge of henhouses and teenagers can be trusted with keys to expensive sports cars. Government-imposed rules about MONEY and POWER and other things that can potentially harm large swaths of the population are unconstitutional. Government-imposed rules about what goes on in doctors’ offices, bedrooms, church pews and such are precisely the sorts of things the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. Get with the program, Steve! What you need to learn, I think, is that rationality itself is unconstitutional. When I’m president, reason will be against the law.

  • If anyone in the MSM peruses this bog for any reason, please consider this (it might help you do your job, seriously):

    When McCain is misleading/acting confused/ out and out B.S.’ing you, and you don’t call him out on it, Do you know what McCain does?

    He smiles to himself and says “What a unch of f*cking chumps; I fooled ’em again.”

    Why does he think that to himself?

    Becaue, at that moment, you ARE – ALL OF YOU – ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF F*CKING CHUMPS.

    You’re letting Mr. Anything-but-Straight Talk McCain run you around the truth and straight into the line of B.S. du jour.

    Is he really fooling you? Do you see through his con game? What would be the greater insult, you not seeing through such nonsense, or you knowing BUT DOING NOTHING???

    At what point does the public’s right to know trump whatever precious little nickname McCain’s bestowed upon you. At what point do you stop being the PRE-Back to the Future George McFly, doing Biff Tannen’s homework for him & considering yourself lucky if he only takes your milk & gives you a wedgie, and start acting like the POST-Back to the Future George McFly, who understands that bullies & Alpha Dogs canhave their power taken way in an instant, especially when that power was unearned & abused?

    Seriously, what’ll it take?

  • CNN has been repeating for the last few days that McCain really is different from Bush. Their most common bullet point is climate change, and specifically the cap and trade policy. But both Bush and McCain say they think climate change is a problem, and and restrictions that might slow it down should be voluntary.

    But McCain’s strategy is to convince people that Bush was merely incompetent, while the “true conservatism” worldview is good. These stories undermine even the competence argument. That rather than age should be our focus. Toward that end, I would suggest using a thesaurus as stevio (2) suggests.

  • slappy magoo, the really embarrassing thing for the MSM, is that there are I don’t know how many reporters whose full-time job is to follow the McCain campaign around, asking questions in his trade mark total access milieu, and yet somehow never get around to asking him why it is that he seems to be unaware of the details of the few quasi-detailed policy plans that he has admitted to having, or why his many contradictory statements on almost every issue make his knowledge, judgement and experience superior to anyone else’s.

  • The question does not refer to Cap and Trade. The reporter asked about the European Union setting mandatory targets for renewable energy. Cap and Trade deals with CO2 emissions. McCain’s answer is completely irrelevant to the question asked, but so is the commentary.

  • Maybe he meant that caps are not “mandatory,” since polluters will have the legal right to exceed emission limits by purchasing credits or paying fines. Or maybe he is just a confused old coot (like me).

  • Maybe he sincerely believes in a voluntary cap? That is a familiar Republican position – that of course we need regulations, but the industry is smart enough to impose the regulations on itself. — PJ, @6

    That would be my guess, too. As far as the Repubs are concerned, the only thing that should be mandatory is a chastity belt for every female over 2 and under 82, but it’s hands off anything that might cut into a profit.

  • I’d say it’s just more Bush-speak. Line up a few Bush statements of equal veracity and play them over McCain’s grinning mug, then tell the viewer about McCain’s latest foray into bamboozleville.

    Keep it up, McCain. You’re not fooling enough of the people enough of the time, anymore.

    • Comments are closed.