Does John McCain Know What He's Talking About? (And Who Cares?)
In a NYT front-pager, Elisabeth Bumiller declares:
Perhaps Mr. McCain's biggest departure from the president is on climate change. Mr. McCain has called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, unlike Mr. Bush, who says such limits would be bad for the economy. Mr. McCain also supports a "cap and trade" system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide by either reducing emissions on their own or by buying credits from more efficient producers.
So McCain the Maverick puts in his mandatory appearance. That's the prevailing mainstream story line even as the Straight Talk Express's wheels come off. But meanwhile, paying attention to the Real McCain, the alert Hilary Bok, aka Hilzoy, quotes McCain speaking at a Monday press conference...
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.
Hilzoy is relentless:
But McCain's policy does include mandatory caps on emissions of the sort the EU has. There are basically three explanations for what McCain said: (1) He is lying about his own policy; (2) He doesn't know what his own policy is; (3) He doesn't know either what the EU system involves, or what the term 'mandatory caps' means. Personally, I prefer some combination of options 2 and 3, which imply that McCain is completely unfamiliar with what is supposed to be one of his signature issues. But any of the three are damning, albeit in different ways.
So McCain is against "a mandatory cap." He's said so before. That's like being against "white snow." Still, his website says he's for caps. Bumiller, looking for "Mr. McCain's biggest departure from the president," missed McCain's not-so-fancy footwork. She wasn't the only reporter who paid no attention to McCain's peculiar locution. More from Hilzoy:
You might think that a mistake like this might be worth covering. But if you did, you'd disagree with most of the mainstream media. I checked about twenty five newspapers, ran a Google News search on "McCain AND energy" and "McCain AND 'cap and trade'", and read all the results (and there were a lot of them; McCain gave a press conference on energy yesterday and is giving an energy speech today.) Outside blogs and web-based media like Politico, I did not find a single story that so much as mentioned this. And even Politico, which did catch the gaffe on Jonathan Martin's blog, went on to post a story about McCain and energy that mentioned some stuff from his press conference, but did not mention this.
People, is it mandatory not to notice that McCain is talking through his cap?

















Just great. Voluntary cap and trade. Brilliant.
This nonsense is increasingly becoming a regular policy plank for these sham Republicans. They're not against regulation, nor for deregulation. Heavens no.
The new Republican party is for voluntary regulation. All the voluntary regulation you want.
Whole different thing.
June 17, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.
January 18, 2011 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
I agree with you that it's 2) and 3). The longer this campaign goes on, the more obvious it is how incredibly confused McCain is on everything.
I also think he's stuck in between a rock and a hard place in his desire to appeal to independents and republicans. It shows everywhere.
I'm leaning more and more to the view that this man has no place he can all home.
June 17, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran,
Strongly agree. Further, what it shows most plainly is that the conservative is not the mainstream that the comfortably deregulated infotainment industry would have us all presume. The desires of the electorate are essentially liberal, but the word is still used to connote all manner of negativity in our national discourse. Go figure.
June 18, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone should ask McCain why anyone would waste the money to buy someone else's carbon emissions reduction successes if it were not mandatory to stay under a cap? Instead of spending the money, they should rationally just bust the cap and forget about it.
McCain was speaking from his gut. He has spent his adult life, starting at least as early as Annapolis and probably earlier avoiding doing what others told him to do. He'll push the limit on Anything that is mandatory and feel proud he did it. That's his personal history. I'd bet that when he fills out his tax returns he takes every questionable deduction he can find on the bet that no one will dare audit him. But he won't quite go into things that are out-and-out fraudulent. McCain hates rules that apply to him, and lacking empathy like so many conservative Republicans, expects absolutely everyone else to feel the same.
June 18, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!
Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube converter
December 20, 2010 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Typically Brian Williams on 17 June MSNBC evening news led off with a report on 'McCain's new environmental plans' to be followed by those of 'the other side' - (the 'other side' being those of Obama who was just endorsed by Nobel Prize winner Al Gore).
Needless to say I hit the off button after that, not needing to hear a highly paid corporate executive masquerading as a news reporter, on a mission to indoctrinate viewers with the idea McCain is anything but another Republican flim-flam man.
June 18, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently in the traditional media it is. But the traditional media is run by CEO's who are out of touch but still in power. (See the part of David Kurtz' report starting at "Interestingly, the disconnect between publishers and journalists..." and going to the end.)
Having watched in both Houston and Dallas when the more powerful Newspaper bought out the less powerful one and shut it down after the Reagan administration stopped enforcing Anti-Trust and encouraged newspapers to establish local monopolies, the current inability of American newspapers to compete with other media is no surprise. It's like Detroit against the Japanese cars. The Japanese market was and remains highly competitive. Detroit ceased to be, so Detroit lost its flexibility and the Japanese (with much better long term product-market strategy) have spent the last four decades doing better than Detroit on cars.
The conservative movement, together with the competition of personality-based TV "journalism," can be blamed in large part for the collapse of the American newspapers.
Now the newspaper CEO's have their heads so far up the conservatives' asses they can't recognize that they are no longer operating a competitive business model. Politics has replaced profit-based business models. That's the effect of the conservative movement, the Reagan Revolution, and Newt Gingrich's Congress.
They don't DARE recognize that McCain is talking through his hat. That would be admitting they were incompetent CEO's - and they are. If they actually tried to operate like they were in a competitive new market (and with the internet, they are) they would have to admit they don't have a clue how to make effective strategic decisions. Do you realize how very difficult it is for a CEO to admit that he is incompetent? They can't do that.
The newspaper CEO's are tied to politics instead of economics because they have more control in politics (primarily during a Republican administration.) But economically and technologically they are in a declining industry.
Is it any real surprise that the CEO's in the news papers are tied to McCain? Of course they don't dare admit he's talking through his cap. McCain is all they have!
The personality-driven sound bytes of TV so-called journalism is a very different kettle of fish, but they, too, are feeling the effects of technological competition and advertising decline. They too find that political control of their economic environment is more certain and a lot easier than directly fighting their competitors economically.
June 18, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its great that McCain promotes "cap and trade" or "spend and spew" as it is more aptly called.
Tell the conservatives, "Great Idea!" "If someone wants to polute near you they just have to make a deal with the federal government and spend enough and they can spew what ever they want all over your land." "Even better - if they grant negative rights - then some rich environmentalist company can buy zero polution right for your area and farmers will have to put exhaust equipment on their cows."
"What a great country, the central government controls everything... why did we leave Russia Natasha?"
June 18, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"spend and spew" is preferable to George Bush's policy here in Texas when he was Governor. Then his policy was "Voluntary Compliance."
The idea was that it was too expensive for existing plants to upgrade on a government schedule to reduce emissions, so they would be grandfathered in and would "voluntarily" include emissions-reducing upgrades when they did routine maintenance. This was the plan by the conservative (then Democrat run) Texas State Legislature in the 70's when they finally started implementing environmental legislation, and it was good enough for Bush when he was elected Governor to the singly weakest Governorship in the U.S. (Both the Speaker of the House and the Lt. Governor as President of the state Senator have more power than the governor.)
Forty years later none of those industries have reduced their toxic emissions a bit on the voluntary basis. Bush, upon taking office in 1994, immediately arbitrarily killed the contracts (issued under Ann Richards) that would implement the tighter controls on car emissions. Bush's actions cost the Texas government millions of dollars in breach-of-contract lawsuits as well as continued increases in degradation of the air we breathe here.
At least "spend and spew" would have put some cap on the toxic emissions here. As it is, things are much worse now than they were in 1994 when Bush became Governor. No Surprise, I guess. Every job Bush has ever had he left in worse shape than when he took it.
As an aside, I see no reason to believe that the very similar narcissistic rebellious screw-up son-of-privilege John McCain would be any different in the Presidency. Peas in a pod.
June 18, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I HATE not having a preview feature!!
Bush was elected Texas Governor in 1994. The environmental laws were passed forty years ago and were (properly) under attack when Bush was elected governor. He prevented any effective improvement of those laws. Fort Worth-Dallas (better city first), Houston, and San Antonio are all currently having severe and predictable air problems that were not necessary but were voluntarily accepted by the Conservatives in the past.
A government for an urban nation that is ineffective or too small unnecessarily kills a lot of people. America is no longer made up of Thomas Jefferson's yeoman farmers, nor are denizens of the suburbs yeoman farmers. They are just urban residents who won't accept the restrictions of living in the city in exchange for the benefits.
June 18, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forcing industry to limit their emissions of pollutants is ridiculous. Unemployed people in the 1980s will be cursing us !!!
Oh. I thought this was 1970.
Never mind.
June 18, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
1970 America? Or today's China?
One price of China's recent economic development is that China now puts out more industrial CO2 than the previous leading economy, the U.S.
June 18, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
We need to hit him hard on this issue. It undermines almost every part of his candidacy(straight talk anyone) and further ties him to Bush's complete incompetence while at the same time enhancing the perception that he's an old man who's losing it. This is a gimme and should be hammered away at relentlessly by Obama.
June 18, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain has lost a noticeable bit of mental acuity over the last four years. I became convinced of that today.
No, not because of his mandatory-voluntary emissions-cap gaffe. He could slip that noose with something like, "No, caps are not mandatory. If you buy carbon credits, you can exceed the cap." The MSM wouldn't blink an eye.
Rather, it was the social-security bamboozlement video that Josh put together for TPMtv. It contrasted McCain's current repudiation of SS privatization with his 2004 boosterism for exactly that.
Take a look at McCain's 2004 performance. The clip occurs about 3:35 into the vid.
Doesn't McCain seem hugely more animated, alert, and mentally sharp than he does today?
I didn't form this conjecture and go looking for evidence. It caught me by surprise. The degree of difference between the McCains of four years ago and today is so striking that it kinda jolted me.
If you see it the same way as I did, you might wonder if McCain's senescence could really become an issue. One factor to consider is the the strength of the P-C strictures that rule in many places. (Others might phrase that less cynically.)
I'm inclined to recall the NY Senate race of 1980. Alfonse D'Amato beat incumbent Jacob Javits in the Republican primary, due in large measure to Javits's affliction with Lou Gherig's disease -- a neurological disease that severely compromises cognitive function. (Javits ran anyway on the Liberal Party line and split the liberal vote with Democrat Liz Holtzman, handing Senator Pothole the plurality win.)
Now, Javits's impairment was much greater than McCain's current rash of senior moments. But it is a relevant precedent.
Dunno how all this is gonna play out. (Duh!) I think I'll keep watching.
June 18, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I've noticed this too. I first started noticing it a few months ago. I've actually wondered how he'll make it through the campaign, but then I remembered W.
June 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be the diciest of all of Obama's challenges: How do you hold McCain accountable for his many gaffes and misstatements (which to an honest citizen under ordinary circumstances represents a kind of incoherence about one's own position) in the relative absence of media support and scrutiny, and without looking like an ageist?
June 18, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
It shouldn't appear ageist to point out basic errors and inconsistencies in what your opponent is saying. McCain's problem isn't that he's too old to be President, its that he's too dumb. As long as Obama resists the urge to shout when talking to him, he should be OK.
June 18, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Todd, there are voluntary cap and trade schemes--most notably the Chicago Climate Exchange. Participation is voluntary, but if you participate you agree to meet binding reductions. There are at least 200 companies participating.
These statements by McCain clearly require clarification. But it is not very useful to just toss out his statements as those of a raging madman.
A better question is to push him to describe how his plan would function in practice.
June 18, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Crowmeat,
Interesting conjecture, but the website makes clear that voluntary caps are not the kind he has in mind:
June 18, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
bag suppliers
bags factory.
August 26, 2010 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
religious sect may degenerate into a political faction,' wrote James Madison, but the new American nation would nevertheless be protected against the ungovernable combination of religious fervor and political power as long as the Constitution prohibited the federal government from establishing any particular creed as preeminent.
Egitim | Chat
March 1, 2011 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madison believed that we should have separation of church and state throughout the land, federal and local. There was a fascinating moment during the congressional debate over what became the First Amendment. How could the beloved First Amendment be harmful to religion?
Huntington feared that it would overturn or interfere with Connecticut’s approach, which was to have state-supported religion.
Chat | Chat
March 1, 2011 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v server 2008, iscsi san performance
April 8, 2011 5:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
April 30, 2011 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
auto transport, car shipping, car transport, car transportation, vehicle shipping, auto transport.
April 30, 2011 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of db2 high availability
May 4, 2011 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink