(Update) McCain's "A Woman's 'Health'" Air Quotes: The Major Gaffe
I've been watching the post-debate coverage and Chris Matthews just dwelled in some length on this huge, huge mistake by McCain. He thinks there will be much back-tracking on this comment in the next few days. I agree.
If there is one moment that shows McCain's complete lack of compassion and understanding, this is it.
update - Thanks for the recs! It's not looking good for John on this key issue, and this is just the beginning of the response. Here are a few excellent columns in today's press on the subject:
Nancy Keenan - Mocking Women's Health and Losing Their Votes (With "Air Quotes")
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-keenan/mocking-womens-health-and_b_135251.html
Cecile Richards - McCain Said Women's Health is "Extreme"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cecile-richards/mccain-says-womens-health_b_135205.html
Judy Muller - McCain's Debate Air Quotes Badly "Misfired"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-muller/mccains-debate-air-quotes_b_135296.html
Hi Astral,
I'm sure you meant compassion, and I totally agree. McCain's contempt for Obama seems to include anyone, including pregnant women, who are not in his ideological tent.
October 16, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love the edit function! Thanks.
October 16, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The guy lacks "tact". And we all know how a lack of tact has worked out for the U.S. for the past 8 years especially in terms of diplomacy.
October 16, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree... here's the transcript of that section of the debate from CNN (emphasis added):
October 16, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has been a big topic on the post-debate coverage on CNN and MSNBC. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow have really been hammering McCain over it.
The other thing that is getting a lot of attention is McCain's out-of-control facial expressions the whole evening. One journalist counted over 3,000 eye blinks (there's a clip on Huffington Post).
The post-debate spin is centering around McCain's visual appearance. He's sunk.
October 16, 2008 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
At one point I asked my husband if McCain was sending Morse Code with his blinking...
October 16, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much like the Nixon Kennedy debate, if you had listened on the radio, you might have thought McCain won the night. But, alas for McCain, the TV made us witnesses to every single one of his glaringly unflattering facial expressions... that open contempt... simply not Presidential.
McCain looked half cocked, ready to explode.
October 16, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I watched on CNN while we were chatting, and the split-screen ws devastating for McCain. YouTube, Huffington Post, and many others are already crammed with "Angry McCain", "Blinking McCain", etc., edits. In three weeks, I will start to feel some pity for the man, but until then...
October 16, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taken to the other extreme, its even worse. My wife who is Japanese and not too good with English commented on how McCain looked like a cartoon character with all the facial reactions.
October 16, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
My wife is a Filipina and she made PRECISELY the same observation.
October 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, McCain, because we all know that "health" means the doctor can say any kind of health concern. What good is a law that includes "health" of the mother right? Then you republicans would not have any physical control over the bodies of 1/2 of the American population.
F**king (!@#$)
October 16, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
And that back-tracking is going to make McPalin look decisive.
Not.
October 16, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooooooooooooo that comment of his just pissed me off. What a little pig that man is!
October 16, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't all the right to lifers go work on a suicide hotline or something? Oh silly me, I forgot, that would require a heart and compassion for people who are here among us.
Wow don't get me started.
October 16, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't quite catch this the first time since I was multitasking, but the second time I saw it was quite appalling.
I'm a guy, and I'm sure abortion is different for guys and gals. I consider myself more on the pro-life side and was once very firmly pro-life, but the issue has never meant much to me. And I simply couldn't be a single-issue voter on it--then I'd vote for mostly Republicans, which would be dumb. Rape, incest, and life endangerment are instances where I don't care so much what the mother does, and I would support advising people to choose life in situations that are not the aforementioned three. I'd also be in favor of making adoption a lot easier. At the end of the day though, Roe v. Wade was the right thing to do, but I'd really want more steps in place to reduce abortion.
With that said, McCain is a tool. To show no compassion to those who actually have had their lives endangered (which I'm sure is a significant amount) is disgusting. Abortion is a terrible thing, but I think many of us (as Obama tried to do tonight) can find some agreement on the issue. However, McCain didn't realize that the first 70 minutes of his anger didn't resonate with Americans very well...
October 16, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a young woman, I am going to have to take exception to a few of your statements about abortion. You state that you are a guy who leans "pro-life" and that views on abortion may be different for guys and gals. Try VERY different. As a man, no one is trying to take away your right to privacy or trying to determine how many children you should have or trying to make reproductive decisions for you.
To me, the argument that women should "choose life" or adoption except in cases of rape or incest or life endangerment doesn't hold for a variety of reasons. What if a woman is financially unable to take care of a baby? What if a woman simply doesn't want children?
The adoption argument conveniently leaves out the fact that the woman would still be carrying the baby for nine months. If she's poor and can't afford the baby, who is going to pay for her prenatal care? Pregnancy is stressful enough if you want to have the baby. Imagine pregnancy for a woman who does not want to have a baby. Women should not be forced to have children if they don't want to. Moreover, women should not have to justify why they don't want children. The government isn't asking people to justify why they want to give birth. Women who don't want to give birth - for whatever reaon - should have that same courtesy.
You state that "abortion is a terrible thing." I have to unequivocally disagree. Abortion may be a difficult decision for some women to make, but that does not make it "terrible." Despite what conservatives say, women who have abortions aren't all driven to suicide by feelings of guilt. They don't think of themselves as selfish murderers. Abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure. It does not need to have morality or the stigma of words like "terrible" ascribed to it.
I must add that I am "pro-life" as well and I hate how conservatives and opponents of choice have co-opted this term. I'm against senseless wars and the hideous death penalty. I'm for universal health care and decreasing crime and improving education (including comprehensive sex education that decreases unwanted pregnancies). I'm for stem cell research and more affordable childcare and longer paid maternity/paternity leave. Opponents of choice are often quite concerned with fetuses, not so much with the children or their parents after the birth. People who are truly "pro-life" would concentrate on improving the quality of life of the people on this Earth. They would not be trying to legislate the reproductive decisions of half this country's population.
October 16, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and disagree with some of your points, but I do want to clear up some things I said earlier. I'll admit that I'm not an expert on the abortion issue, and while I do have an opinion on it, it does not affect my vote much, if at all.
Your last paragraph is very spot-on, though. The whole term "pro-life" is ridiculous, and I'm for most everything you said. The right wing wants it absolutely their way, but have they taken any steps to at least stop abortion? Not really--in fact, since Roe v. Wade, more abortions have occurred under Republican administrations.
I am not just concerned about fetuses, though. I obviously want the quality of life for all improved, but I think as many as possible should at least have that chance. I understand income is an issue; this is why I would like to see adoption expanded somehow. And I understand your concern about paying for healthcare--assistance should certainly be an option (if not paying for all of it). I really don't know what has been done, or how much all of it would cost--if it costs more than we can afford, maybe it wouldn't be worth it. But we can at least, as Obama said, find a common ground rather than appoint judges to lay down absolutes.
I strongly support stemcell research because of the potential it has. With pregnancy, however, I see it as an issue of respnosibility. If you're going to engage in sex, the consequences of an "accident" should be considered. I'm not carrying the kid, but I have no problem helping the child in any way possible once it is born. I personally just wouldn't feel comfortable convincing the woman I impregnated to abort the fetus. Yes, conservatives may exaggerate the guilt factor, but it is certainly there. I think it is a terrible thing when a life that is created has to be destroyed, and I personally don't get why "just not wanting to have kids" is a valid excuse. In the end, I disagree with the decision, but I do my best to refrain from judging.
By the way, I am far from religious. I do have morals--I think about these things a fair amount and I don't live by a holy book that I claim is right no matter what you or anyone else says. I've almost always realized that abortion is here to stay, and I said Roe v. Wade is the right thing to do. My pro-life stance is more of a personal one than one I'd want to mandate. The very last thing we need is dangerous back-alley abortion procedures, and for McCain to do what he did in last night's debate is quite detestable. However, I do value life and improving the quality of it, and we should do this without the constant bickering from both sides (a lot more from the right, of course). It just personally annoys me when I'm called an extremist on the issue when I think I'm quite far from that. Not saying you did, but I have been before.
October 16, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say you see pregnancy as a matter of "responsibilty." In certain instances, abortion is the moral and responsible choice. In the end, what is the better situation: a woman who chooses to have an abortion or a child neglected because his mother couldn't take care of him/her emotionally or financially? In addition, an accidental pregnancy is not always the result of "irresponsibility." Sometimes birth control fails. Not allowing abortions because a woman had consensual sex is an extreme way of punishing women who choose to have sex.
You say you wouldn't feel comfortable telling a woman you impregnated to have an abortion. That's why it's HER choice, not yours or the government's. Hers and hers alone.
Moreover, I happen to believe that just not wanting to have kids IS a valid reason for getting an abortion. Is there something inherently selfish about choosing not to be a parent? Why should someone else decide how many children a woman has? Another woman's choice to have an abortion has absolutely no negative impact on my life.
There are also instances where a woman decides to have an abortion after previously giving birth. Who is to say that a woman should have 3 kids she can't adequately support as opposed to 2 or 1? Is she selfish? What if a woman is in an abusive relationship and knows that having a child would only complicate matters?
You say that it "is a terrible thing when a life that is created has to be destroyed." Abortion is NOT murder or the destruction of a life. I think it is very shortsighted of you to imply that. What about the possibility of destroying a pregnant woman's life by forcing her to carry to term? What about illnesses that develop late in pregnancy? On another note, the fact that some women might feel guilty after the fact is not reason enough to deny choice to all women or to justify being anti-choice. Think of the alternative: imagine the mental health of a pregnant woman who isn't allowed to have an abortion as she preferred.
You say that you spend a lot of time thinking about these things. But the fact remains that you will never get pregnant, ever. You will never have to go through childbirth. It is simple for you to suggest adoption when it's not your body. Childbirth is a lot safer than it was years ago, but there are still health concerns (minor and major, physical and mental) to consider when giving birth. There are plenty of children right now waiting to be adopted. What's stopping people from adopting these children?
October 16, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink