The only explanation I can think of for this is that McCain somehow confused Spanish prime minister Jose Zapatero with Emiliano Zapata, the Mexican revolutionary. Since Zapata died in 1919, this is not a very easy mistake to make.
Although I am doubly amused that the interviewer said "I'm talking about the President of Spain," considering that the Spain doesn't even have a President.
The "only explanation?" Really? I read Marc Ambinder's post you linked to and it doesn't seem like the "only explanation," though it certainly is a possible one.
Yeah, but have you actually LISTENED to the English interview?
Because it sure sounds like he just didn't hear the word "Spain". And the lady has an accent and mumbles a little.
On the other hand, his campaign spinning the remarks as genuine anti-Zapatero sentiment and then backtracking is rilly rilly stoopid.
But I think the English blogosphere has swallowed the Spanish version of this story which is distorted because they heard the Spanish version of the interview--which doesn't convey the lack of clarity on the interviewer's part.
The papers this morning (and mccain) are going on about the evils of short selling. How about a post discussing whether or not this is actually causing a problem, for your economically illiterate readers (like me!)?
Back in the day, McCain and Zapata probably knew each other. We all know people with Alzheimer's still keep their long-term memories, but can't remember what happened 5 minutes ago. Zing...
Come to think of it; having no short-term memory would explain A LOT of McCain's recent actions...
The "only" explanation? Seriously? You've never gotten tongue-tied, never confused one person for another? If that's the criterion for having Alzheimer's, then I guess I'd better start scoping out retirement homes. Should have started when I was 20, for that matter.
Throwing out an Alzheimer's speculation is a completely unwarranted cheap shot at McCain.
Yes he clearly is. The man can barely remember anything. Every time someone calls his name, he looks around confused, jerking his head from side to side.
It's a legimitate question. But yes I think he's not as sharp as he used to be. This was clear as far back as his "Sunni-Shi'ia" mix-up seven months ago. After Lieberman corrected him, McCain still seemed confused.
He constantly pauses to search his memory, seems mildly confused as to where he is and has trouble remembering what his position on certain issues is.
His mental facilities are slowing down. It happens. Especially to someone his age. The presidency would be too much for him.
I don't buy the "Spain doesn't have a president" defense. (1) Zapatero's title is in fact "president of the government" and (2) McCain didn't even try to correct / get clarification by saying "Don't you mean the PM of Spain?"
Addendum: Feel free to mock McCain for being in his seventies. You'll never get old, and you'll never known anybody who's old. So go ahead with that. You'll never be on the other end of that stick.
Polls show, the people most concerned about McCain's age: older people.
"Older Americans are a group that, percentagewise, almost always turns out to vote more heavily than the electorate as a whole. McCain will need them firmly in his corner on Election Day.
Unfortunately for McCain, however, older voters also tend to worry more about the age issue than other voters.
"For younger voters, old age is an abstraction," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "For senior citizens, old age is a reality. In 1996, that difference hurt Dole with senior voters, but didn't seem to matter to voters under 30."
This is going to be the one time in history when I am actually more charitable to John McCain than Megan is. But after listening to the English version of the interview, and then a day later hearing the McCain camp's explanation, I think it is very likely that he in fact did know what he was talking about, knew who Zapatero is, and that he was trying to avoid shifting the policy onn not meeting the Spanish president.
To clarify the comments made by John Thacker and Matt B:
1) Unlike many countries who have a head of state is known by the title of "President", Spain is a monarchy. There is no such person as the "President of Spain", and any reference to such a person is incorrect.
2) In common with other parliamentary democracies, Spain's head of government is correctly called in English by the title "Prime Minister".
3) For various historical reasons the correct title in Spanish is "Presidente del Gobierno", which is commonly shorted in Spanish simply to "Presidente". This routinely causes confusion among both English speakers and Spanish speakers who assume that this means the correct title in English is "President". It is not.
Historical note: Jeb Bush visited Spain in 2003. He speaks both Spanish and English and as such he of course knew what "Presidente del Gobierno" meant - and being a bright sort he reasoned that if Spain had a president it must be a republic. He therefore took time to thank the "President of the Spanish Republic" in a speech. One noted Spanish historian called his error "grotesque" and an "insult to Spain". A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.
I think the cheeriest possible explanation is that he couldn't hear or understand the question at all, and was just saying stuff that he hoped was apposite rather than getting her to repeat it again, loudly and slowly. That isn't senility, but I do have to say that it's not a strategy for dealing with failures to communicate that fills me with confidence.
3) For various historical reasons the correct title in Spanish is "Presidente del Gobierno", which is commonly shorted in Spanish simply to "Presidente". This routinely causes confusion among both English speakers and Spanish speakers who assume that this means the correct title in English is "President". It is not.
Even so, if a journalist is asking you about a high-ranking muckity-muck in Spain named Zapatero, how had is it to figure that she's talking about the PM? Or at least get an inkling and ask for confirmation (see my original second point). I think in 1st grade reading class these thing were called "Context Clues."
If a Spainish journalist had mistakenly asked Zapatero about "American Prime Minister Cheney," I would hope that Z would do a double take instead of rambling about meeting English leaders or something.
I'm no McCain fan, but it's clear to me from hearing the English version of the interview that he just had problems hearing the questions. When the reporter asked "What about Europe?" he thought she was asking "What about you?" so he replied "What about me, what?"
I don't understand the campaign's response at all, though.
The interviewer has stated that she thinks he was dodging, rather than confused. Possible, b/c McCain's standard dodge is to make a joke and I doubt any joke he knows would have been anything other than totally inappropriate.
I also thought of the Zapatista Army. Perhaps he thuoght she was asking if he's meet with Subcommander Marcos. That would actually fit pretty well with how he answered and could be considered a (very slightly) germane question in light of his views on Georgia. Does the interviewer have any connection to southern Mexican?
Yeah, listening to the English interview (way more informative than the one with the Spanish translations dubbed over it), she pronounced Zapatero's full name in Spanish, and I think McCain got tangled up there and thought she was asking about Calderon in Mexico.
When he realized he was confused, it sounded to me like he backed into a prepared position--that generic phrase he repeated twice about being willing to meet with our friends and those who support democracy and all that. That seemed enough like a smart technique for politicians in potentially hard interviews that I plan to look around and see if I can catch other examples of it being used.
What I heard didn't sound at all like an intentional evasion. It sounded like confusion, probably caused by the change from Latin America to Spain and the interviewer's accent. (Though she surely pronounced Zapatero's name correctly, even though that probably made it harder for McCain to hear it correctly.) Among other things, McCain apparently said he would meet with Zapatero in an interview in April, and endless refusal to meet with Zapatero out of annoyance at Spain's pullout from Iraq makes zero sense. (Though I don't suppose I should use that standard to predict our future policy toward Cuba....)
Why cite back nonsense to defend against a nonsense attack? Just makes the McCain side seem stupid.
McCain (clearly, to me) either misheard or misunderstood what was being asked or was trying to duck teh question and slipped into boilerplate. Totally understandable. The campaign's response was weird, but probably born of a desire to respond very quickley and w/o time to talk to JM or anyone who actually heard the interview.
But bringing up "my muslim faith"--a part of a discussion where BO was stating that JM was not bringing up nonsense about BO being muslim--is worse than asking the question of whether JM was confused (which, as I said, I don't think he was). And anyone being honest knows that 57 "states" was an easy slip from refering to the 57 primary voting jurisdictions--you want to acknowledge everyone, but what the hell do you call a group of voting bodies that includes "democrats abroad", guam, DC and 50 states among others. I've never heard the "new penna" thing, so I don't know if that's the same kind of stupid or a legit gaffe.
I'm sorry, but you're just being willfully ignorant or daft if you really think there's any parity at all between "57 states" and whatever McCain possibly thought here.
For one, we don't actually know what he thought. Either: he didn't know who the guy was and figured he'd wing it assuming it was another Latin America leader, he couldn't understand the interviewer and was too proud to ask her to clarify and decided to wing it, or he knew exactly what he was saying and decided to piss on Spain for no apparent reason other than because Bush doesn't like Spain.
Now, assuming it was one of the first two, instead of just correcting themselves later (we'd all understand a fast-talking accented interviewer excuse), they dig down and refuse to admit a mistake and recklessly antagonize a NATO ally...for what? Their own pride?
Obama, on the other hand, said 57 instead of 47 but everyone knew exactly what he meant.
Along similar lines, looking as the transcript it occurs to me we she said "president of Spain" he thought the said president McCain. I'm sure both candidates are very fond of the idea of hearing their name after the word "president". He does seem to have confused him with some anti-US South American before this however.
The Spain thing bothers me less than his support for banning short selling, though I suppose Obama favors that too (just guessing, but it's the normal thing for politicians). This is what I don't get about the left--why does anybody favor giving people whose main talent is getting elected more power to make major decisions about our lives? Isn't it just a bit inconsistent to say "people like McCain, Bush, X, ... are dolts" and then advocate giving government--which will inevitably be run by those very dolts or others a lot like them at least half the time--more to do?
"The Spain thing bothers me less than his support for banning short selling, though I suppose Obama favors that too (just guessing, but it's the normal thing for politicians). This is what I don't get about the left--why does anybody favor giving people whose main talent is getting elected more power to make major decisions about our lives?"
Well, mostly because we have to elect *someone*. I don't think Obama knows enough about what's going here to offer a reasonable opinion, so his position is basically "these are the smartest economic minds in the country, if they say this is necessary to fix it, I trust their judgment." McCain, on the other hand, seems to say whatever he's told to say, with extreme firmness. Remember the "no bailout ever for AIG" the day before?
So, basically, since we do in fact have to have someone in charge, the "left" in this case favors the smartest person who will presumably use the most prudent judgment and the best, most reasonable advisors. Nobody's perfect, but some of us do like to be advocates for the best option among the available options.
Okay, okay, we get the message. You voted for Bush and have felt burnt by your choice, and now you want revenge on the GOP. I've only ever voted for Dubya in a primary, but am still perceived as an ardent Bushie for not hating him -- go figure.
Whatever.
Don't know if you're in any mood to do requests, but I've got one: Where do you stand on the strong dollar vs. weak dollar divide? I invoice in euros (full disclosure) so I like my dollar mooshy. Were I a latte-lapping liberal eager for cheap wine at Club Med or cheap cafe visits in chic international hotspots, I might feel different. Or maybe not.
My sense is that a weak dollar could help us erode some national debt (inflate it away) while boosting domestic industrial production. I think this would potentially reduce the anti-trade sentiment in the country, and it would potentially cut the urge for protectionism. Yet the thought of eroding the value of my own savings is not so attractive, I do admit.
Ooh. This did get a little long -- no threadjack intended...
Parroting some of the commentators above I sort of figured he conflated Zapatero and the modern Zapatistas led by Subcomandante Marcos. What ever happened it was a mistake, but the bigger mistake was the next day when the McCain campaign doubled-down on the mistake knowing full well it was just a mistake. That says a lot about McCain and the way he would run the country whereas the misstatement was just a misstatement.
I remember watching something where the presidential candidates told their favorite movies, and McCain's was Viva Zapata. So he must know what that it.
I recommend a parallel example. Your child has just been diagnosed with a heart abnormality that will require surgery. You are in a position to choose between two surgeons. One of them is very old, and you've had a couple conversations with him that make you suspect the possibility of some age-related decline in mental function. The other is young, energetic, but has rather less experience doing this kind of surgery than you'd like.
Should you consider the possibility that the old man is losing some of his sharpness in your decision? Or would that be wrong or evil or mean, somehow? Because I absolutely would think about that and weigh it into my decision, and I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it.
The presidency is probably a much harder and more stressful job than cardiac surgery. (Though I'm pretty sure the average cardiac surgeon is quite a bit smarter than the average president.) The stakes are a lot higher than just one child. So I think we ought to weigh that possibility into our thinking when choosing a president. It's every bit as reasonable as considering the amount of experience Obama has.
Is there anyone who's made an honest attempt to assess this? My sense is that McCain is able to handle on-the-fly questions in verbal interviews quite well, which suggests that he's probably mentally okay, but I really know very little about what this kind of mental decline would look like.
Maybe McCain just couldn't hear the question. If he kept asking "What? What? I can't hear you," everyone would act like he was poor Admiral Stockdale and bring up the age issue anyway. This way, he has a chance of getting the question right (but he didn't).
Heck, I am in my 30s and can barely hear people in crowded restaurants. I do EXACTLY the same thing I think McCain did - try to answer questions based on what I THINK the question is. My wife loves that.
"He totally confused Zapatero with Zapata. That's the only explination"
This is the same mentality that leads to the "my muslim faith" being considered a slip. IF McCain confused Zapatero with anything, it was with the Zapatistas of SubCom Marcos, not Zapata himself. He misheard (intentionally or accidentally) and went with boilerplate rather than ask for a clarification--typical senatorial behavior, much as Biden would do in the same situation. The real cock-up was the campaign's response.
The McCain I didn't mind has long since vanished, having been replaced by an uninteresting Republican walking talking point. He's vanished these last several months into a mist of standard nonsense.
That charitable view having been aired, the simplest explanation for his comments is that he simply wasn't listening to the interviewer, and was operating from a script based on what he thought she was talking about and on what he thought she would say next. He simply wasn't listening, didn't care to start, and responded to things that actually were not said. Either way, he comes off unthoughtful (again), which is cause enough for concern.
As a psychiatrist, I have thought that McCain was showing frightening signs of cognitive impairment throughout this campaign, and every colleague I have spoken to agrees. He is forgetful, misuses common words without catching himself (like using "oversight" as a verb),answers questions with generic, platitudinous statements which he simply repeats if pressed for specifics, contradicts himself from one day to the next without apparent awareness (though I suppose this could be a campaign tactic), and lately is sometimes out and out incoherent. I hope to God that the debate format does not allow the candidates to simply give rehearsed answers, but presses them on their thinking. Of course we should not casually label McCain as demented, but we cannot afford to dismiss the idea either. What more important issue could there possibly be? Especially with Gov. Palin next in line?
Oh, come on, you have to have something better than that. EVERYONE (mild exagerration) uses "impact" as a verb and we may just be emerging from the long sports commentary nightmare of "on-tracked" as a verb. It's probably just stupid staffers using stupid neologisms that McCain picked up on.
Or (Occam alert!) he meant oversee and just kept going rather than correcting a meaningless mistake.
You need something better than that.
Oh, and to be clear, there was never any doubt I was voting for Obama, but my vote won't really count, anyway, here in Illinois.
If you listen to the interview in English, it's clear that he misheard the question. The interviewer repeats the question about meeting with Zapatero and McCain goes on about "Latin America" and "the Hemisphere." This is totally understandable-- she has a strong Spanish accent, she drops the ends of some words so that "What about Europe?" sounds like "What about you?", she talks fast, the interview was over the phone.
So anyone could forgive McCain mishearing the question. Why the campaign put out its ridiculous explanation is a mystery.
Keep swinging!! Its good to hit a politician in the face for being so insipid as to not be able to understand a Spanish accent. Thats all it is which is further evidence that McCain is not living in the now. The guys is a senator from Arizona. You can find someone with a Spanish accent anywhere in Arizona. Its not just Phoenix, its Sun city to Tempe, to Flagstaff.
To top it off, instead of just saying "I'm sorry miss with this phone connection I can't understand your accent, so I have no idea who you're asking me about." Or something to that effect. He gave a statement so elusive its right up there with William J. Clinton and "IS".
He is forgetful, misuses common words without catching himself (like using "oversight" as a verb),answers questions with generic, platitudinous statements which he simply repeats if pressed for specifics, contradicts himself from one day to the next without apparent awareness (though I suppose this could be a campaign tactic), and lately is sometimes out and out incoherent.
By this standard, all politicians, including Obama, show signs of cognitive impairment. We ask our politicians to solve the world's problems in 30 second sound bites, and then complain when they are incoherent and contradictory.
This is funny, but the headline is unfunny. It's just ageism. We know you don't like McCain, you don't need to dig it in with unfunny attacks. It was just a funny gaff, nothing more.
McCain had just been talking about latin america beforehand.
McCain was dodging the question because Zapatero is a far left wing nut who goes around wearing a palestinian flag and bashing Israel.
Bush has never met with Zapatero. He came out and endorsed Kerry in the last election.
McCain was ducking the question and went back to talking about latin america and how he has dealt with other leaders. Just right before he had been talking about latin america on chavez and morales.
He ducked a question and you in the left wing blogosphere take it out of context and twist it a hundred ways.
First of all he was on a phone interview with a lady with a heavy accent.
McArdle doesn't care that Biden thinks Palin is the Lt governor.
McArdle why aren't you asking if Joe Biden is senile? He called Palin and really thought she was the Lt governor.
But McArdle won't go after Biden because he is a democrat.
You've gone off the deep end. I don't like McCain either but Zapatero and Zapata have something in common - uh, they're very similar sounding names. And alzheimer's is the only explanation you can think of?
What is it with bloggers going nutty when they join The Atlantic?
"Well, mostly because we have to elect *someone*.
I don't think Obama knows enough about what's going here to offer a reasonable opinion, so his position is basically "these are the smartest economic minds in the country, if they say this is necessary to fix it, I trust their judgment." McCain, on the other hand, seems to say whatever he's told to say, with extreme firmness. Remember the "no bailout ever for AIG" the day before?
So, basically, since we do in fact have to have someone in charge, the "left" in this case favors the smartest person who will presumably use the most prudent judgment and the best, most reasonable advisors. Nobody's perfect, but some of us do like to be advocates for the best option among the available options."
Sure--I'm not arguing that anybody ought to vote for McCain. What I don't understand is why people who think the government is run by fools most of the time want to make that government more powerful. (Yes, I know we need a government. But there's still a choice between the necessary evil of small government and the optional evil of the big government we get because we hope it will solve lots of out problems.)
Well cry a little harder. Is our democracy so weak to certain people that when people play mean and dirty it becomes imperiled? Oh my Fox news is mean to Obama, CNN is favoring Obama mildly, Olbermann is leading the MSNBC liberal attack, woe is me, a 1/4 of the world will be charred and the seas will turn to blood!!!
C'mon this is an election for the most powerful single man on the planet. Guess what its going to be mean and petty. Those that expect decency under the weight of two wars, 9 trillion (soon to be 10) dollars of debt, a stock market acting like Anne Heche's sexuality, with the cherry on top being that we can't decide if a mini-skirt is professional, or sexy. Those that expect and request such a thing are not, repeat not, fully comprehending the situation. Yes, when the stakes are higher we as human beings, will abandon established norms, rules, anything that appears to be obstructing what we perceive to be necessary to ensure a continued... well just about anything.
Eh, it seems straightforward; like Bush, he doesn't particularly think of Zapatero as an ally and would as soon continue Bush's policy of ignoring him, but doesn't see any need to create an incident about it, either. Thus the non-answer.
If McCain had said half the things Biden or Obama have (57 states?), people would be pushing to have him committed for his own safety.
John McCain spent a good part of his military career flying very noisy aircraft, in an era when hearing loss due to extended exposure to high sound levels was less understood.
I suspect that he, like many other military pilots of the era, has lost most of his high frequency hearing. That makes it difficult to understand what is said in crowds or environments with lots of background noise. It also makes it more difficult to understand female voices than male voices. When you mis-hear a question, you may respond inappropriately, thereby conveying the impression that you don't know what is going on.
I don't know if he wears hearing aids, or not. I suspect not because the mainstream media would find a way to use it as an example of how old he is.
All candidates make verbal slips, they are all sleep-deprived, the demands of the campaign are really inhuman, agreed. You can pick any example of possible cognitive impairment on McCain's part--and there are many more than I mentioned--and find a comforting alternative, sometimes even plausible, explanation. All I am saying is that put together, they form a perceived pattern which it seems to me anyone should find too frightening to simply brush away. Obama and Biden have answered questions, and follow-up questions, thoughtfully and cogently throughout the campaign; if there is an example out there of McCain doing the same thing (and not simply one answer on very familiar ground), I would be very reassured to see it. Please point me to the video or transcript.
"All I am saying is that put together, they form a perceived pattern which it seems to me anyone should find too frightening to simply brush away."
I agree. I'm really worried about Obama's sanity.
The man can't remember what Senate committees he's on, for goodness sake. Seriously, we need to see about getting him some help. He's only in his forties. Poor guy.
Megan - Is Obama suffering from Alzheimers, because he visited "57 states"? Of course not. Gaffes happen to politicians, and anyone else who has to speak a lot. Considering such gaffes a sign of alzheimers, even in an older speaker, isn't warranted.
That's some fine reasoning there, you must be lovely to spend time with in this election season.
For others not in full-on partisan mode, the point is that over a long, hard campaign, with microphones in your face for hours each day, listening to questions from interviewers (who sometimes, in this case, have a strong foreign accent), any candidate is going to slip up or have a bit of a brain freeze once in a while. And Obama has had his share (perhaps more so) of harmless slip-ups, a few of which I cited.
It is just interesting to note that the assumed reason for one candidate's slip-up is brain disease, while the other candidate gets a pass every time. Had McCain said the exact same things I cited from Obama, can you imagine the reaction in the media?
if there is an example out there of McCain doing the same thing (and not simply one answer on very familiar ground), I would be very reassured to see it.
As far as I can tell, McCain's is most comfortable at town hall-style campaign events. Given that this involves taking random questions from random people, I assume that he's reasonably comfortable being off-script. If he were continually fouling up, misunderstanding, losing his bearings, it seems like this would be quickly apparent in such a setting.
That said, I don't have proof that he's not fouling up miserably in these sort of environments, but I would think the Obama campaign would quickly let me know if he was.
I agree with many others here. Despite McCain's many failings, in this instance I think he probably wasn't listening very carefully, didn't catch her continental shift.
Alzheimers, nothing. I am a few years older than John McCain, and can clearly remeber making that sort of alphabetical fumble time after time ever since I was seven.
John McCain is not too old to be President; but I really doubtif he is grown up enough to be a good one.
Thanks for your response, SG. I think the Obama campaign has been avoiding making McCain's mental status an issue, for obvious reasons. I didn't see anything on the town hall he recently did before a carefully selected audience, but my impression is that he otherwise has done no town halls for some time, especially in front of a nonpartisan group; I do remember when he was challenged a few months ago in a town hall on his voting record on veterans' issues he got angry and lied (or maybe misremembered his actual record.)
When we encounter information that contradicts a belief we care about, we all search for a way to invalidate it. Psychologists call this emotion-biased motivated reasoning; Dr. Drew Westen did a study with functional MRI showing that our brains actually use different pathways for this kind of reasoning than we use to reason dispassionately. We can't avoid this tendency, we can only be aware of it and try harder to be objective. If you are a McCain partisan, of course the suggestion that he may have an early dementia is uncomfortable; I find it very uncomfortable, and I'm not a supporter, only someone who once thought that at least our government would be safe in his hands.
"Keep swinging!! Its good to hit a politician in the face for being so insipid as to not be able to understand a Spanish accent. Thats all it is which is further evidence that McCain is not living in the now. The guys is a senator from Arizona. You can find someone with a Spanish accent anywhere in Arizona. Its not just Phoenix, its Sun city to Tempe, to Flagstaff."
Do you know anything about Spanish? There is no a "Spanish" accent that everyone who speaks Spanish has. Spanish speakers from Spain proper do not sound the same as Latin American speakers, and likewise there are many different accents between Latin American cultures. Any middle school Spanish teacher could tell you that. I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but this comment is ridiculous.
Zapato means shoe.
Zapata means roughly slipper, sandal.
Zapatero means shoemaker
Zapatista, if interpreted literally, should mean an enthusiast for footwear, like Mrs Marcos. It is a delightful term for the nearest thing that is still around to a barefoot army.
José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (el Presidente del Gobierno del Reino de España) would be known as Mr Rodriguez in English speaking countries.
karen, I thought of another one - the Saddleback Forum. As I recall, the claim was that his answers were so good he must have known the questions ahead of time.
I don't think he's been any worse (or better) than Obama in the number or severity of misstatements/gaffes made during this campaign season. But his gaffes play into a stereotype so they get more play.
I'm not a McCain supporter so much as a divided government supporter. Single party rule wasn't good with Bush & Reps from 2002-2006, I don't think it will be good with the Obama & the Dems in 2009-? I'd much rather each party have an active counterbalance to keep them (somewhat) honest, and to keep the half of the country that disagrees with Party X having a stake in the game.
What I don't understand is why people who think the government is run by fools most of the time want to make that government more powerful.
I do not think that liberals at this point can meaningfully be described as "wanting to make the government more powerful". This "conservative" administration has just carried out the biggest nationalizations since the 1930s (or ever?) and announced yesterday it planned to intervene to buy up bad debt on a massive scale. It has already given the government near unlimited electronic surveillance rights, adumbrated habeas corpus...you know the routine.
Liberals want effective regulation and competent, consistent public administration. What we have seen over the past 8 years, and climactically this week, is that people who viscerally oppose regulation and try to privatize every function end up triggering massive, unexpected and potentially limitless government interventions. You need effective government-built dikes, or you wind up with massive government disaster-relief operations. That's a pretty good metaphor for a lot of the issues we're dealing with here.
McCain makign a simple mistake and misunderstanding the question wouldn't be that big of a deal (though as others have pointed out eh was talkign to a reporter from Spain, uh woudln't you assuem she meant the PM of Spain?)
But it is the McCain campaign who is now insisting that he didn't make a simple mistake, that he really meant he considers the PM/Presiente of Spain, a NATO ally and key memeber of the EU as a foe of America who he won't meet with.
Really? They think that is less of an issue that making a mistake and not hearing the question correctly?
McCain just flat out had no idea who she was talking about. The Spain segue was odd and unexpected to begin with, and then she started in with the fifteen names, and John was just like, ah, whatever lady.
The real problem here is the Scheuneman response. This is emblematic of the next four years under McCain: events (and words) going by too fast for him to keep up; ideologically estranged underlings filling the vacuum with their agenda.
Does the philosophy of Randy Scheuneman have anything to do with that of the "John McCain" we thought we knew? Yet out of this minor miscommunication comes a truly wacko new policy.
I do believe that McCain knows where Spain is, but it is now clear that McCain can’t cut it any more. He rambles and fumbles. He is either making a howling gaffe or simply rephrasing what Obama has been saying for months. One of the signs of dementia is the inability to track a conversation, and to become belligerent when challenged about the confusion.
Cindy McCain is already giving him directions on stage during events. Remember when Nancy Regan had to direct Ronald around? I have respect for Regan but was a bit worried he did not have the faculties to do his job. McCain is still trying to get elected and is showing signs that he is checking out of reality bit by bit.
Megan: Normally you are quite even-headed and give public figures the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of things. It's an admirable quality. I don't believe you are exhibiting this fairness in this post. Leaping to the conclusion that McCain is suffering from a degenerative brain disease because of what appears to some reasonable people to be a misunderstanding is somewhat beneath you.
"I do not think that liberals at this point can meaningfully be described as "wanting to make the government more powerful""
Huh? Does this mean liberals don't want the government to take over health care or require all kids to "volunteer"? (Saying the Bush administration has increased government power and the scope of its activity a lot is not an answer--I don't approve of those people or what they have done.)
It seems to me that the idiocy of much of what the past administration has done, and of many of its allies in Congress (Ted Stevens, Trent Lott, everybody who supported the farm bill, ...) makes a good case for small-government conservatism. Yet those who complain loudest about these people never make that case. Instead, they seem to think that a government with even more activities to carry on will be better. I am genuinely puzzled here--not making a partisan point in the guise of asking a question.
Alzheimers and aging aren't humorous subjects when you're heading there, but it's alarming when our presidential candidate evidences failing mental acuity.
McCain clearly covered his ignorance with the interviewer and in so doing created a farce of diplomatic relations. Future slip-ups could be much more dangerous.
How ironic that McCain dramatizes his insult-- witness his wounded indignation about Obama's lipstick/pig remark--yet proceeds so obliviously when he upsets a genuine applecart.
I'm just worried that Obama has AIDS. He's thin, almost to the point of being gaunt, he's frail, and he's really showing the effects of what I can only assume is a debilitating and fatal disease.
I mean, what is Obama hiding? All we know about his medical history is a less-than-300-word report from his doctor. He's a 47-year-old smoker. My own father, a smoker, died from a heart attack when he was just 44. Hmmmmm.
And what about Biden? He's got a history of aneurysms, and he's done sketchy things like asking a handicapped man in a wheelchair to stand up, and of course he can't remember what's his life story and what's somebody else's.
John McCain has Alzheimer's. But he destroyed Obama at Saddleback, and when it comes to debates, Barry has been running from McCain like a scalded dog. Obviously Obama has had a lobotomy, and anyone who denies it is a partisan hack. Alert the media!
To parody “The Rain in Spain” from the musical “My Fair Lady” (which was not about Sarah Palin):
: - )
“Explain McCain Spain our ally remains.
You think he’s got it.? Don’t think he’s got it.
And what’s more, John, just where would you find Spain?
Not south of these parts. Go look in Europe.
And does he know Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero
Belongs to NATO. Three cheers for NATO!
The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain!
You think he’ll get it. By George, he’s like George.”
Totally off the record, but Joseph Biden was seen at our office very confidentially, accompanied by a boatload of his handlers, for evaluation for possible alzheimer's early stage, and for possible withdrawal and replacement on the ticket. Hillary again?
Hey, Reagan had early alzheimer's during his presidency, slept during important meetings, and generally was a little "doddering", but he was also hands down the best president we ever have had. Bar none.
So....... go old coots?!!!
It seems that the name of Spain's PM triggered a connection with residents of the Mexican state. It's concerning that the reporter's attempts to re-focus him were missed by the candidate.
Another explanation, and one that deserves consideration, is melanoma. The clinical work-up of mental status changes in any person with a history of melanoma requires this consideration in the differential diagnosis. The brain is a primary site for melanoma metastates.
A simpler explanation might be that he was asked about a bunch of controversial Latin American for most of it so the statement was just a general answer for all of what he's been asked about. Besides which Zapata? The guy died like 18 years before McCain was born. I know you're likely joking, but the "McCain is a 112" type jokes should be left to night-time talk shows.
As for Alzheimer's or dementia you are not a doctor. Besides going by his family history he'll likely die of cancer or heart disease before dementia sets in.
All join me in my vote, don’t wait until November:
My Vote: I put a parental control lock on all NBC/MSNBCchannels, The View and Oprah on every TV in my house! I encourage others to do the same until NBC, The View and Oprah can clean up its extreme bias. Since these miracles will never occur, NBC, The View, and Oprah will never be a guest in my house every again. Let these people know where you stand by lowering their ratings
I'm beginning to worry about Megan. This is a flip dig that is offensive to McCain and the millions of persons who actually deal with Alhzeimers. She actually says it is the "only explanation I can think of." She obviously did not give it much thought. A week or so ago, she stated her understanding that Palin came across as a "moron" in the Gibson interview before she even watched the interview. Tossing out such statements is not serious or fair commentary -- it is closer to juvenile behavior.
Karen, You put me in mind of the American Psychiatric Association voting 40-60% positively that Goldwater was paranoid schizophrenic. In general I think psychiatrists are, in retrospect, embarassed in the self reflecting autism and error of that vote and would prefer that only true armchair psychiatrists like Megan engage in such escapades in differential diagnosis.
Karen tells us she is a psychiatrist. And then gives us a diagnosis on a man she has never met. I thought that giving such diagnoses was considered a breach of professional ethics.
But I will give Karen a chance to prove that she is a psychiatrist (though not necessarily up on the details of their professional code). Any good psychiatrist will know some good psychiatrist jokes. So, how about it, Karen? Know any good psychiatrist jokes?
I listened to the last bit of questions. The spain remark seemed to come out of nowhere. She's asking questions about Latin America... why throw in a question about Zapatero and Spain? I'm pretty sure McCain thought she was asking about the Zapatistas, as other have suggested, the campaign's reaction not withstanding.
Does this mean liberals don't want the government to take over health care
Correct. Liberals do not want the government to take over health care. They want to change the health insurance industry, not health care. There are virtually no advocates of a British-style National Health Service in the US.
In the area of civil liberties, liberals would prefer that the government have far less power than conservatives want it to have.
"liberals would prefer that the government have far less power than conservatives want it to have." brooksfoe
TR: I think there's probably some variety on this among conservatives, but maybe less so among conservative politicians. My guess is that a great many of those voting for Barr are in fact conservative rather than purely libertarian.
Still a few politicians might fit. John Duncan of Tennessee, Butch Otter of Idaho, and Dana Rohrabacher of California are conservatives who opposed extending the Patriot Act or opposed some domestic spying efforts. The New Hampshire Republicans, Gregg and Sununu, have something of a libertarian-streak despite being conservative overall. The Paulians, although not really Republicans in the modern sense, could be deemed conservatives and they're often civil libertarians.
McCain's group could have passed this off as "His attention was distracted and he didn't hear the question correctly." The interviewer's accent makes that viable. Instead they are insisting with passion and fervor that of course he understood everything and was, yes, expressing his displeasure with our NATO ally, Spain, with whom he might not be on speaking terms.
Before that came out, McCain's online defenders didn't go for this as a defense shot--they hit the accent, the prime minister/president aspect, all the "he didn't hear her right" stuff that actually listening to the interview supports--that is, that he didn't realize they were talking about Spain, whether you find that confusion alarming or understandable.
If we elect McCain, every confused misstep will need to be defended as the absolute, of-course-we-meant-it, policy of the United States. This should be terrifying. Never did Obama's admission that he will make some mistakes sound more appealing.
Although I am doubly amused that the interviewer said "I'm talking about the President of Spain," considering that the Spain doesn't even have a President.
The "only explanation?" Really? I read Marc Ambinder's post you linked to and it doesn't seem like the "only explanation," though it certainly is a possible one.
Yeah, but have you actually LISTENED to the English interview?
Because it sure sounds like he just didn't hear the word "Spain". And the lady has an accent and mumbles a little.
On the other hand, his campaign spinning the remarks as genuine anti-Zapatero sentiment and then backtracking is rilly rilly stoopid.
But I think the English blogosphere has swallowed the Spanish version of this story which is distorted because they heard the Spanish version of the interview--which doesn't convey the lack of clarity on the interviewer's part.
The papers this morning (and mccain) are going on about the evils of short selling. How about a post discussing whether or not this is actually causing a problem, for your economically illiterate readers (like me!)?
(I've got a comment in the queue, a few seconds ago. Probably too many links.)
Back in the day, McCain and Zapata probably knew each other. We all know people with Alzheimer's still keep their long-term memories, but can't remember what happened 5 minutes ago. Zing...
Come to think of it; having no short-term memory would explain A LOT of McCain's recent actions...
Zapatero, Zapatistas - they all run together.
I never cease to be amazed by the lack of conversational charity in campaign seasons.
The "only" explanation? Seriously? You've never gotten tongue-tied, never confused one person for another? If that's the criterion for having Alzheimer's, then I guess I'd better start scoping out retirement homes. Should have started when I was 20, for that matter.
Throwing out an Alzheimer's speculation is a completely unwarranted cheap shot at McCain.
Yes he clearly is. The man can barely remember anything. Every time someone calls his name, he looks around confused, jerking his head from side to side.
It's a legimitate question. But yes I think he's not as sharp as he used to be. This was clear as far back as his "Sunni-Shi'ia" mix-up seven months ago. After Lieberman corrected him, McCain still seemed confused.
He constantly pauses to search his memory, seems mildly confused as to where he is and has trouble remembering what his position on certain issues is.
His mental facilities are slowing down. It happens. Especially to someone his age. The presidency would be too much for him.
I don't buy the "Spain doesn't have a president" defense. (1) Zapatero's title is in fact "president of the government" and (2) McCain didn't even try to correct / get clarification by saying "Don't you mean the PM of Spain?"
Addendum: Feel free to mock McCain for being in his seventies. You'll never get old, and you'll never known anybody who's old. So go ahead with that. You'll never be on the other end of that stick.
Polls show, the people most concerned about McCain's age: older people.
"Older Americans are a group that, percentagewise, almost always turns out to vote more heavily than the electorate as a whole. McCain will need them firmly in his corner on Election Day.
Unfortunately for McCain, however, older voters also tend to worry more about the age issue than other voters.
"For younger voters, old age is an abstraction," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "For senior citizens, old age is a reality. In 1996, that difference hurt Dole with senior voters, but didn't seem to matter to voters under 30."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/15/mccain.age/index.html
You're right I have no idea what it's like to be old. Those who do and are old tell me I should be concerned about John McCain's age.
Blame them, not me.
Megan,
There is a more current Mexican revolutionary group:
The Zapatista National Liberation Army.
Zapatista/Zapatero you'd have to be demented to mix the two.
I was going to say, "oh come on. he slipped up. he made a mistake. obama said there were 57 states!"
but then i realized he also said "let's create a commission to study the problem of the financial crisis."
I don't think all of his lights are on right now.
This is going to be the one time in history when I am actually more charitable to John McCain than Megan is. But after listening to the English version of the interview, and then a day later hearing the McCain camp's explanation, I think it is very likely that he in fact did know what he was talking about, knew who Zapatero is, and that he was trying to avoid shifting the policy onn not meeting the Spanish president.
LIstening to the interview, I wasn't sure what she was saying either.
he didn't hear her. now he's too proud to admit it. so they pull back diplomacy from spain. brilliant foreign policy.
Good Morning Megan,
Mccain, being cognizant of Mexican politics, was possibly thinking of the Zapatista Army for National Liberation in Mexico, currently alive.
Mccain's actions and words, in the interview or campaign, are not consistent with alzheimers as I have seen it.
To clarify the comments made by John Thacker and Matt B:
1) Unlike many countries who have a head of state is known by the title of "President", Spain is a monarchy. There is no such person as the "President of Spain", and any reference to such a person is incorrect.
2) In common with other parliamentary democracies, Spain's head of government is correctly called in English by the title "Prime Minister".
3) For various historical reasons the correct title in Spanish is "Presidente del Gobierno", which is commonly shorted in Spanish simply to "Presidente". This routinely causes confusion among both English speakers and Spanish speakers who assume that this means the correct title in English is "President". It is not.
Historical note: Jeb Bush visited Spain in 2003. He speaks both Spanish and English and as such he of course knew what "Presidente del Gobierno" meant - and being a bright sort he reasoned that if Spain had a president it must be a republic. He therefore took time to thank the "President of the Spanish Republic" in a speech. One noted Spanish historian called his error "grotesque" and an "insult to Spain". A little knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.
I think the cheeriest possible explanation is that he couldn't hear or understand the question at all, and was just saying stuff that he hoped was apposite rather than getting her to repeat it again, loudly and slowly. That isn't senility, but I do have to say that it's not a strategy for dealing with failures to communicate that fills me with confidence.
3) For various historical reasons the correct title in Spanish is "Presidente del Gobierno", which is commonly shorted in Spanish simply to "Presidente". This routinely causes confusion among both English speakers and Spanish speakers who assume that this means the correct title in English is "President". It is not.
Even so, if a journalist is asking you about a high-ranking muckity-muck in Spain named Zapatero, how had is it to figure that she's talking about the PM? Or at least get an inkling and ask for confirmation (see my original second point). I think in 1st grade reading class these thing were called "Context Clues."
If a Spainish journalist had mistakenly asked Zapatero about "American Prime Minister Cheney," I would hope that Z would do a double take instead of rambling about meeting English leaders or something.
"57 states"
"new pennsylvania"
"my muslim faith"
When Obama gets confused, it is understandable, just a slip of the tongue or he was tired. When McCain does it, the cause is Alzheimers.
Got it.
I'm no McCain fan, but it's clear to me from hearing the English version of the interview that he just had problems hearing the questions. When the reporter asked "What about Europe?" he thought she was asking "What about you?" so he replied "What about me, what?"
I don't understand the campaign's response at all, though.
The interviewer has stated that she thinks he was dodging, rather than confused. Possible, b/c McCain's standard dodge is to make a joke and I doubt any joke he knows would have been anything other than totally inappropriate.
I also thought of the Zapatista Army. Perhaps he thuoght she was asking if he's meet with Subcommander Marcos. That would actually fit pretty well with how he answered and could be considered a (very slightly) germane question in light of his views on Georgia. Does the interviewer have any connection to southern Mexican?
And Meerdahl gets the prize for identifying the standard for judging these things.
I can't think of any other explanation.
"'my muslim faith'
When Obama gets confused, it is understandable, just a slip of the tongue or he was tired. When McCain does it, the cause is Alzheimers.
Got it."
Selective quoting out of context is okay when it's Obama, but McCain and Palin both require deference.
Got it.
Yeah, listening to the English interview (way more informative than the one with the Spanish translations dubbed over it), she pronounced Zapatero's full name in Spanish, and I think McCain got tangled up there and thought she was asking about Calderon in Mexico.
When he realized he was confused, it sounded to me like he backed into a prepared position--that generic phrase he repeated twice about being willing to meet with our friends and those who support democracy and all that. That seemed enough like a smart technique for politicians in potentially hard interviews that I plan to look around and see if I can catch other examples of it being used.
What I heard didn't sound at all like an intentional evasion. It sounded like confusion, probably caused by the change from Latin America to Spain and the interviewer's accent. (Though she surely pronounced Zapatero's name correctly, even though that probably made it harder for McCain to hear it correctly.) Among other things, McCain apparently said he would meet with Zapatero in an interview in April, and endless refusal to meet with Zapatero out of annoyance at Spain's pullout from Iraq makes zero sense. (Though I don't suppose I should use that standard to predict our future policy toward Cuba....)
1/2 CA:
Why cite back nonsense to defend against a nonsense attack? Just makes the McCain side seem stupid.
McCain (clearly, to me) either misheard or misunderstood what was being asked or was trying to duck teh question and slipped into boilerplate. Totally understandable. The campaign's response was weird, but probably born of a desire to respond very quickley and w/o time to talk to JM or anyone who actually heard the interview.
But bringing up "my muslim faith"--a part of a discussion where BO was stating that JM was not bringing up nonsense about BO being muslim--is worse than asking the question of whether JM was confused (which, as I said, I don't think he was). And anyone being honest knows that 57 "states" was an easy slip from refering to the 57 primary voting jurisdictions--you want to acknowledge everyone, but what the hell do you call a group of voting bodies that includes "democrats abroad", guam, DC and 50 states among others. I've never heard the "new penna" thing, so I don't know if that's the same kind of stupid or a legit gaffe.
Meerdahl,
I'm sorry, but you're just being willfully ignorant or daft if you really think there's any parity at all between "57 states" and whatever McCain possibly thought here.
For one, we don't actually know what he thought. Either: he didn't know who the guy was and figured he'd wing it assuming it was another Latin America leader, he couldn't understand the interviewer and was too proud to ask her to clarify and decided to wing it, or he knew exactly what he was saying and decided to piss on Spain for no apparent reason other than because Bush doesn't like Spain.
Now, assuming it was one of the first two, instead of just correcting themselves later (we'd all understand a fast-talking accented interviewer excuse), they dig down and refuse to admit a mistake and recklessly antagonize a NATO ally...for what? Their own pride?
Obama, on the other hand, said 57 instead of 47 but everyone knew exactly what he meant.
So again...are you *really* that ignorant?
Johanna,
Along similar lines, looking as the transcript it occurs to me we she said "president of Spain" he thought the said president McCain. I'm sure both candidates are very fond of the idea of hearing their name after the word "president". He does seem to have confused him with some anti-US South American before this however.
The Spain thing bothers me less than his support for banning short selling, though I suppose Obama favors that too (just guessing, but it's the normal thing for politicians). This is what I don't get about the left--why does anybody favor giving people whose main talent is getting elected more power to make major decisions about our lives? Isn't it just a bit inconsistent to say "people like McCain, Bush, X, ... are dolts" and then advocate giving government--which will inevitably be run by those very dolts or others a lot like them at least half the time--more to do?
"The Spain thing bothers me less than his support for banning short selling, though I suppose Obama favors that too (just guessing, but it's the normal thing for politicians). This is what I don't get about the left--why does anybody favor giving people whose main talent is getting elected more power to make major decisions about our lives?"
Well, mostly because we have to elect *someone*. I don't think Obama knows enough about what's going here to offer a reasonable opinion, so his position is basically "these are the smartest economic minds in the country, if they say this is necessary to fix it, I trust their judgment." McCain, on the other hand, seems to say whatever he's told to say, with extreme firmness. Remember the "no bailout ever for AIG" the day before?
So, basically, since we do in fact have to have someone in charge, the "left" in this case favors the smartest person who will presumably use the most prudent judgment and the best, most reasonable advisors. Nobody's perfect, but some of us do like to be advocates for the best option among the available options.
Okay, okay, we get the message. You voted for Bush and have felt burnt by your choice, and now you want revenge on the GOP. I've only ever voted for Dubya in a primary, but am still perceived as an ardent Bushie for not hating him -- go figure.
Whatever.
Don't know if you're in any mood to do requests, but I've got one: Where do you stand on the strong dollar vs. weak dollar divide? I invoice in euros (full disclosure) so I like my dollar mooshy. Were I a latte-lapping liberal eager for cheap wine at Club Med or cheap cafe visits in chic international hotspots, I might feel different. Or maybe not.
My sense is that a weak dollar could help us erode some national debt (inflate it away) while boosting domestic industrial production. I think this would potentially reduce the anti-trade sentiment in the country, and it would potentially cut the urge for protectionism. Yet the thought of eroding the value of my own savings is not so attractive, I do admit.
Ooh. This did get a little long -- no threadjack intended...
Parroting some of the commentators above I sort of figured he conflated Zapatero and the modern Zapatistas led by Subcomandante Marcos. What ever happened it was a mistake, but the bigger mistake was the next day when the McCain campaign doubled-down on the mistake knowing full well it was just a mistake. That says a lot about McCain and the way he would run the country whereas the misstatement was just a misstatement.
I remember watching something where the presidential candidates told their favorite movies, and McCain's was Viva Zapata. So he must know what that it.
Prof X:
I recommend a parallel example. Your child has just been diagnosed with a heart abnormality that will require surgery. You are in a position to choose between two surgeons. One of them is very old, and you've had a couple conversations with him that make you suspect the possibility of some age-related decline in mental function. The other is young, energetic, but has rather less experience doing this kind of surgery than you'd like.
Should you consider the possibility that the old man is losing some of his sharpness in your decision? Or would that be wrong or evil or mean, somehow? Because I absolutely would think about that and weigh it into my decision, and I wouldn't feel the least bit bad about it.
The presidency is probably a much harder and more stressful job than cardiac surgery. (Though I'm pretty sure the average cardiac surgeon is quite a bit smarter than the average president.) The stakes are a lot higher than just one child. So I think we ought to weigh that possibility into our thinking when choosing a president. It's every bit as reasonable as considering the amount of experience Obama has.
Is there anyone who's made an honest attempt to assess this? My sense is that McCain is able to handle on-the-fly questions in verbal interviews quite well, which suggests that he's probably mentally okay, but I really know very little about what this kind of mental decline would look like.
TV does Mccain even know how to use one. wait he invented it on the commerce comittee.
dirka dirka mohammed jihad!!!!!1
...this is not an easy mistake to make.
Well, it's easy when you're 100 frickin' years old!
He totally confused Zapatero with Zapata. That's the only explination.
'Better to die on one's feet, than on one's knees...'
Maybe McCain just couldn't hear the question. If he kept asking "What? What? I can't hear you," everyone would act like he was poor Admiral Stockdale and bring up the age issue anyway. This way, he has a chance of getting the question right (but he didn't).
Heck, I am in my 30s and can barely hear people in crowded restaurants. I do EXACTLY the same thing I think McCain did - try to answer questions based on what I THINK the question is. My wife loves that.
So no, not the only explanation, Megan.
"He totally confused Zapatero with Zapata. That's the only explination"
This is the same mentality that leads to the "my muslim faith" being considered a slip. IF McCain confused Zapatero with anything, it was with the Zapatistas of SubCom Marcos, not Zapata himself. He misheard (intentionally or accidentally) and went with boilerplate rather than ask for a clarification--typical senatorial behavior, much as Biden would do in the same situation. The real cock-up was the campaign's response.
The McCain I didn't mind has long since vanished, having been replaced by an uninteresting Republican walking talking point. He's vanished these last several months into a mist of standard nonsense.
That charitable view having been aired, the simplest explanation for his comments is that he simply wasn't listening to the interviewer, and was operating from a script based on what he thought she was talking about and on what he thought she would say next. He simply wasn't listening, didn't care to start, and responded to things that actually were not said. Either way, he comes off unthoughtful (again), which is cause enough for concern.
As a psychiatrist, I have thought that McCain was showing frightening signs of cognitive impairment throughout this campaign, and every colleague I have spoken to agrees. He is forgetful, misuses common words without catching himself (like using "oversight" as a verb),answers questions with generic, platitudinous statements which he simply repeats if pressed for specifics, contradicts himself from one day to the next without apparent awareness (though I suppose this could be a campaign tactic), and lately is sometimes out and out incoherent. I hope to God that the debate format does not allow the candidates to simply give rehearsed answers, but presses them on their thinking. Of course we should not casually label McCain as demented, but we cannot afford to dismiss the idea either. What more important issue could there possibly be? Especially with Gov. Palin next in line?
"using "oversight" as a verb"
Oh, come on, you have to have something better than that. EVERYONE (mild exagerration) uses "impact" as a verb and we may just be emerging from the long sports commentary nightmare of "on-tracked" as a verb. It's probably just stupid staffers using stupid neologisms that McCain picked up on.
Or (Occam alert!) he meant oversee and just kept going rather than correcting a meaningless mistake.
You need something better than that.
Oh, and to be clear, there was never any doubt I was voting for Obama, but my vote won't really count, anyway, here in Illinois.
If you listen to the interview in English, it's clear that he misheard the question. The interviewer repeats the question about meeting with Zapatero and McCain goes on about "Latin America" and "the Hemisphere." This is totally understandable-- she has a strong Spanish accent, she drops the ends of some words so that "What about Europe?" sounds like "What about you?", she talks fast, the interview was over the phone.
So anyone could forgive McCain mishearing the question. Why the campaign put out its ridiculous explanation is a mystery.
Keep swinging!! Its good to hit a politician in the face for being so insipid as to not be able to understand a Spanish accent. Thats all it is which is further evidence that McCain is not living in the now. The guys is a senator from Arizona. You can find someone with a Spanish accent anywhere in Arizona. Its not just Phoenix, its Sun city to Tempe, to Flagstaff.
To top it off, instead of just saying "I'm sorry miss with this phone connection I can't understand your accent, so I have no idea who you're asking me about." Or something to that effect. He gave a statement so elusive its right up there with William J. Clinton and "IS".
He is forgetful, misuses common words without catching himself (like using "oversight" as a verb),answers questions with generic, platitudinous statements which he simply repeats if pressed for specifics, contradicts himself from one day to the next without apparent awareness (though I suppose this could be a campaign tactic), and lately is sometimes out and out incoherent.
By this standard, all politicians, including Obama, show signs of cognitive impairment. We ask our politicians to solve the world's problems in 30 second sound bites, and then complain when they are incoherent and contradictory.
This is funny, but the headline is unfunny. It's just ageism. We know you don't like McCain, you don't need to dig it in with unfunny attacks. It was just a funny gaff, nothing more.
Obama says 57 states.
Obama calls Maliki the President of Iraq.
Obama says the leader of Canada is the president of Canada. Never mind the fact that Canada has been under parliamentary rule for 140 years.
Obama says 10,000 people died in a tornado in Kansas.
Obama says 100 million died in Burma.
Obama in Kansas City says he is in St Louis.
Obama says welcome sunshine when he is in sunrise florida.
Obama says sioux city when he is sioux falls.
Obama confuses geography of illinios, kentucky and arkansas of which is closest to one another.
The best Joe Biden who has had brain surgery says Palin is the Lt governor of Alaska.
Now Joe biden is so out of it he thinks Palin is the Lt Governor.
But never mind those gaffes.
Ms Megan doesn't care about them.
This election coverage is a disgrace. You liberal elites have destroyed our democracy.
You liberal elites cover this election like you are on the payroll of the democrats. You never heard of objective reporting.
You people have destroyed our democracy.
Ms Megan did you hear the interview.
The question is are you dense.
McCain had just been talking about latin america beforehand.
McCain was dodging the question because Zapatero is a far left wing nut who goes around wearing a palestinian flag and bashing Israel.
Bush has never met with Zapatero. He came out and endorsed Kerry in the last election.
McCain was ducking the question and went back to talking about latin america and how he has dealt with other leaders. Just right before he had been talking about latin america on chavez and morales.
He ducked a question and you in the left wing blogosphere take it out of context and twist it a hundred ways.
First of all he was on a phone interview with a lady with a heavy accent.
McArdle doesn't care that Biden thinks Palin is the Lt governor.
McArdle why aren't you asking if Joe Biden is senile? He called Palin and really thought she was the Lt governor.
But McArdle won't go after Biden because he is a democrat.
You've gone off the deep end. I don't like McCain either but Zapatero and Zapata have something in common - uh, they're very similar sounding names. And alzheimer's is the only explanation you can think of?
What is it with bloggers going nutty when they join The Atlantic?
Adam said:
"Well, mostly because we have to elect *someone*.
I don't think Obama knows enough about what's going here to offer a reasonable opinion, so his position is basically "these are the smartest economic minds in the country, if they say this is necessary to fix it, I trust their judgment." McCain, on the other hand, seems to say whatever he's told to say, with extreme firmness. Remember the "no bailout ever for AIG" the day before?
So, basically, since we do in fact have to have someone in charge, the "left" in this case favors the smartest person who will presumably use the most prudent judgment and the best, most reasonable advisors. Nobody's perfect, but some of us do like to be advocates for the best option among the available options."
Sure--I'm not arguing that anybody ought to vote for McCain. What I don't understand is why people who think the government is run by fools most of the time want to make that government more powerful. (Yes, I know we need a government. But there's still a choice between the necessary evil of small government and the optional evil of the big government we get because we hope it will solve lots of out problems.)
Jeff-
Well cry a little harder. Is our democracy so weak to certain people that when people play mean and dirty it becomes imperiled? Oh my Fox news is mean to Obama, CNN is favoring Obama mildly, Olbermann is leading the MSNBC liberal attack, woe is me, a 1/4 of the world will be charred and the seas will turn to blood!!!
C'mon this is an election for the most powerful single man on the planet. Guess what its going to be mean and petty. Those that expect decency under the weight of two wars, 9 trillion (soon to be 10) dollars of debt, a stock market acting like Anne Heche's sexuality, with the cherry on top being that we can't decide if a mini-skirt is professional, or sexy. Those that expect and request such a thing are not, repeat not, fully comprehending the situation. Yes, when the stakes are higher we as human beings, will abandon established norms, rules, anything that appears to be obstructing what we perceive to be necessary to ensure a continued... well just about anything.
I think that I read somewhere that 'Viva Zapata!' was John McCain's favourite movie...
Sorry, i take back my 11:29 post, that's what i get for not clicking on the ambinder link.
Eh, it seems straightforward; like Bush, he doesn't particularly think of Zapatero as an ally and would as soon continue Bush's policy of ignoring him, but doesn't see any need to create an incident about it, either. Thus the non-answer.
If McCain had said half the things Biden or Obama have (57 states?), people would be pushing to have him committed for his own safety.
You can find someone with a Spanish accent anywhere in Arizona. Its not just Phoenix, its Sun city to Tempe, to Flagstaff.
Yes, Arizona is just crawling with Spaniards.
I don't think he's suffering at all. He seems perfectly content with his Alzheimers.
I hardly see that as a problem, it simply stengthens the argument that we have a Palen vs. Obama contest.
John McCain spent a good part of his military career flying very noisy aircraft, in an era when hearing loss due to extended exposure to high sound levels was less understood.
I suspect that he, like many other military pilots of the era, has lost most of his high frequency hearing. That makes it difficult to understand what is said in crowds or environments with lots of background noise. It also makes it more difficult to understand female voices than male voices. When you mis-hear a question, you may respond inappropriately, thereby conveying the impression that you don't know what is going on.
I don't know if he wears hearing aids, or not. I suspect not because the mainstream media would find a way to use it as an example of how old he is.
Jack
Don't forget the Nittaly Lions from New Pennsylvania.
If anyone is having mental lapses this election, it is the guy who has to drag a teleprompter around with him to keep on message.
All candidates make verbal slips, they are all sleep-deprived, the demands of the campaign are really inhuman, agreed. You can pick any example of possible cognitive impairment on McCain's part--and there are many more than I mentioned--and find a comforting alternative, sometimes even plausible, explanation. All I am saying is that put together, they form a perceived pattern which it seems to me anyone should find too frightening to simply brush away. Obama and Biden have answered questions, and follow-up questions, thoughtfully and cogently throughout the campaign; if there is an example out there of McCain doing the same thing (and not simply one answer on very familiar ground), I would be very reassured to see it. Please point me to the video or transcript.
"All I am saying is that put together, they form a perceived pattern which it seems to me anyone should find too frightening to simply brush away."
I agree. I'm really worried about Obama's sanity.
The man can't remember what Senate committees he's on, for goodness sake. Seriously, we need to see about getting him some help. He's only in his forties. Poor guy.
Megan - Is Obama suffering from Alzheimers, because he visited "57 states"? Of course not. Gaffes happen to politicians, and anyone else who has to speak a lot. Considering such gaffes a sign of alzheimers, even in an older speaker, isn't warranted.
Adam,
"you're just being willfully ignorant or daft"
"are you *really* that ignorant?"
That's some fine reasoning there, you must be lovely to spend time with in this election season.
For others not in full-on partisan mode, the point is that over a long, hard campaign, with microphones in your face for hours each day, listening to questions from interviewers (who sometimes, in this case, have a strong foreign accent), any candidate is going to slip up or have a bit of a brain freeze once in a while. And Obama has had his share (perhaps more so) of harmless slip-ups, a few of which I cited.
It is just interesting to note that the assumed reason for one candidate's slip-up is brain disease, while the other candidate gets a pass every time. Had McCain said the exact same things I cited from Obama, can you imagine the reaction in the media?
if there is an example out there of McCain doing the same thing (and not simply one answer on very familiar ground), I would be very reassured to see it.
As far as I can tell, McCain's is most comfortable at town hall-style campaign events. Given that this involves taking random questions from random people, I assume that he's reasonably comfortable being off-script. If he were continually fouling up, misunderstanding, losing his bearings, it seems like this would be quickly apparent in such a setting.
That said, I don't have proof that he's not fouling up miserably in these sort of environments, but I would think the Obama campaign would quickly let me know if he was.
I agree with many others here. Despite McCain's many failings, in this instance I think he probably wasn't listening very carefully, didn't catch her continental shift.
Alzheimers, nothing. I am a few years older than John McCain, and can clearly remeber making that sort of alphabetical fumble time after time ever since I was seven.
John McCain is not too old to be President; but I really doubtif he is grown up enough to be a good one.
Thanks for your response, SG. I think the Obama campaign has been avoiding making McCain's mental status an issue, for obvious reasons. I didn't see anything on the town hall he recently did before a carefully selected audience, but my impression is that he otherwise has done no town halls for some time, especially in front of a nonpartisan group; I do remember when he was challenged a few months ago in a town hall on his voting record on veterans' issues he got angry and lied (or maybe misremembered his actual record.)
When we encounter information that contradicts a belief we care about, we all search for a way to invalidate it. Psychologists call this emotion-biased motivated reasoning; Dr. Drew Westen did a study with functional MRI showing that our brains actually use different pathways for this kind of reasoning than we use to reason dispassionately. We can't avoid this tendency, we can only be aware of it and try harder to be objective. If you are a McCain partisan, of course the suggestion that he may have an early dementia is uncomfortable; I find it very uncomfortable, and I'm not a supporter, only someone who once thought that at least our government would be safe in his hands.
"Keep swinging!! Its good to hit a politician in the face for being so insipid as to not be able to understand a Spanish accent. Thats all it is which is further evidence that McCain is not living in the now. The guys is a senator from Arizona. You can find someone with a Spanish accent anywhere in Arizona. Its not just Phoenix, its Sun city to Tempe, to Flagstaff."
Do you know anything about Spanish? There is no a "Spanish" accent that everyone who speaks Spanish has. Spanish speakers from Spain proper do not sound the same as Latin American speakers, and likewise there are many different accents between Latin American cultures. Any middle school Spanish teacher could tell you that. I'm not a huge fan of McCain, but this comment is ridiculous.
While we are on the subject:
Zapato means shoe.
Zapata means roughly slipper, sandal.
Zapatero means shoemaker
Zapatista, if interpreted literally, should mean an enthusiast for footwear, like Mrs Marcos. It is a delightful term for the nearest thing that is still around to a barefoot army.
José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (el Presidente del Gobierno del Reino de España) would be known as Mr Rodriguez in English speaking countries.
karen, I thought of another one - the Saddleback Forum. As I recall, the claim was that his answers were so good he must have known the questions ahead of time.
I don't think he's been any worse (or better) than Obama in the number or severity of misstatements/gaffes made during this campaign season. But his gaffes play into a stereotype so they get more play.
I'm not a McCain supporter so much as a divided government supporter. Single party rule wasn't good with Bush & Reps from 2002-2006, I don't think it will be good with the Obama & the Dems in 2009-? I'd much rather each party have an active counterbalance to keep them (somewhat) honest, and to keep the half of the country that disagrees with Party X having a stake in the game.
What I don't understand is why people who think the government is run by fools most of the time want to make that government more powerful.
I do not think that liberals at this point can meaningfully be described as "wanting to make the government more powerful". This "conservative" administration has just carried out the biggest nationalizations since the 1930s (or ever?) and announced yesterday it planned to intervene to buy up bad debt on a massive scale. It has already given the government near unlimited electronic surveillance rights, adumbrated habeas corpus...you know the routine.
Liberals want effective regulation and competent, consistent public administration. What we have seen over the past 8 years, and climactically this week, is that people who viscerally oppose regulation and try to privatize every function end up triggering massive, unexpected and potentially limitless government interventions. You need effective government-built dikes, or you wind up with massive government disaster-relief operations. That's a pretty good metaphor for a lot of the issues we're dealing with here.
McCain makign a simple mistake and misunderstanding the question wouldn't be that big of a deal (though as others have pointed out eh was talkign to a reporter from Spain, uh woudln't you assuem she meant the PM of Spain?)
But it is the McCain campaign who is now insisting that he didn't make a simple mistake, that he really meant he considers the PM/Presiente of Spain, a NATO ally and key memeber of the EU as a foe of America who he won't meet with.
Really? They think that is less of an issue that making a mistake and not hearing the question correctly?
McCain just flat out had no idea who she was talking about. The Spain segue was odd and unexpected to begin with, and then she started in with the fifteen names, and John was just like, ah, whatever lady.
The real problem here is the Scheuneman response. This is emblematic of the next four years under McCain: events (and words) going by too fast for him to keep up; ideologically estranged underlings filling the vacuum with their agenda.
Does the philosophy of Randy Scheuneman have anything to do with that of the "John McCain" we thought we knew? Yet out of this minor miscommunication comes a truly wacko new policy.
I do believe that McCain knows where Spain is, but it is now clear that McCain can’t cut it any more. He rambles and fumbles. He is either making a howling gaffe or simply rephrasing what Obama has been saying for months. One of the signs of dementia is the inability to track a conversation, and to become belligerent when challenged about the confusion.
Cindy McCain is already giving him directions on stage during events. Remember when Nancy Regan had to direct Ronald around? I have respect for Regan but was a bit worried he did not have the faculties to do his job. McCain is still trying to get elected and is showing signs that he is checking out of reality bit by bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvGjQLkCH00
Megan: Normally you are quite even-headed and give public figures the benefit of the doubt on these sorts of things. It's an admirable quality. I don't believe you are exhibiting this fairness in this post. Leaping to the conclusion that McCain is suffering from a degenerative brain disease because of what appears to some reasonable people to be a misunderstanding is somewhat beneath you.
I can't believe you'd make something of this when there is nothing to it.
If you wish to see mental disease operating every day in every way, you have only to check in on your extremely disturbed colleague Sullivan.
There's no doubt he's sick. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
"I do not think that liberals at this point can meaningfully be described as "wanting to make the government more powerful""
Huh? Does this mean liberals don't want the government to take over health care or require all kids to "volunteer"? (Saying the Bush administration has increased government power and the scope of its activity a lot is not an answer--I don't approve of those people or what they have done.)
It seems to me that the idiocy of much of what the past administration has done, and of many of its allies in Congress (Ted Stevens, Trent Lott, everybody who supported the farm bill, ...) makes a good case for small-government conservatism. Yet those who complain loudest about these people never make that case. Instead, they seem to think that a government with even more activities to carry on will be better. I am genuinely puzzled here--not making a partisan point in the guise of asking a question.
Alzheimers and aging aren't humorous subjects when you're heading there, but it's alarming when our presidential candidate evidences failing mental acuity.
McCain clearly covered his ignorance with the interviewer and in so doing created a farce of diplomatic relations. Future slip-ups could be much more dangerous.
How ironic that McCain dramatizes his insult-- witness his wounded indignation about Obama's lipstick/pig remark--yet proceeds so obliviously when he upsets a genuine applecart.
I'm just worried that Obama has AIDS. He's thin, almost to the point of being gaunt, he's frail, and he's really showing the effects of what I can only assume is a debilitating and fatal disease.
I mean, what is Obama hiding? All we know about his medical history is a less-than-300-word report from his doctor. He's a 47-year-old smoker. My own father, a smoker, died from a heart attack when he was just 44. Hmmmmm.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_releases_health_informat.html
And what about Biden? He's got a history of aneurysms, and he's done sketchy things like asking a handicapped man in a wheelchair to stand up, and of course he can't remember what's his life story and what's somebody else's.
http://hnn.us/articles/53683.html
Hmmmm.
John McCain has Alzheimer's. But he destroyed Obama at Saddleback, and when it comes to debates, Barry has been running from McCain like a scalded dog. Obviously Obama has had a lobotomy, and anyone who denies it is a partisan hack. Alert the media!
Explain Spain to McCain
To parody “The Rain in Spain” from the musical “My Fair Lady” (which was not about Sarah Palin):
: - )
“Explain McCain Spain our ally remains.
You think he’s got it.? Don’t think he’s got it.
And what’s more, John, just where would you find Spain?
Not south of these parts. Go look in Europe.
And does he know Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero
Belongs to NATO. Three cheers for NATO!
The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain!
You think he’ll get it. By George, he’s like George.”
Totally off the record, but Joseph Biden was seen at our office very confidentially, accompanied by a boatload of his handlers, for evaluation for possible alzheimer's early stage, and for possible withdrawal and replacement on the ticket. Hillary again?
Hey, Reagan had early alzheimer's during his presidency, slept during important meetings, and generally was a little "doddering", but he was also hands down the best president we ever have had. Bar none.
So....... go old coots?!!!
It seems that the name of Spain's PM triggered a connection with residents of the Mexican state. It's concerning that the reporter's attempts to re-focus him were missed by the candidate.
Another explanation, and one that deserves consideration, is melanoma. The clinical work-up of mental status changes in any person with a history of melanoma requires this consideration in the differential diagnosis. The brain is a primary site for melanoma metastates.
A simpler explanation might be that he was asked about a bunch of controversial Latin American for most of it so the statement was just a general answer for all of what he's been asked about. Besides which Zapata? The guy died like 18 years before McCain was born. I know you're likely joking, but the "McCain is a 112" type jokes should be left to night-time talk shows.
As for Alzheimer's or dementia you are not a doctor. Besides going by his family history he'll likely die of cancer or heart disease before dementia sets in.
All join me in my vote, don’t wait until November:
My Vote: I put a parental control lock on all NBC/MSNBCchannels, The View and Oprah on every TV in my house! I encourage others to do the same until NBC, The View and Oprah can clean up its extreme bias. Since these miracles will never occur, NBC, The View, and Oprah will never be a guest in my house every again. Let these people know where you stand by lowering their ratings
Real classy McCardle, keep on truckin' down that highway.
I'm beginning to worry about Megan. This is a flip dig that is offensive to McCain and the millions of persons who actually deal with Alhzeimers. She actually says it is the "only explanation I can think of." She obviously did not give it much thought. A week or so ago, she stated her understanding that Palin came across as a "moron" in the Gibson interview before she even watched the interview. Tossing out such statements is not serious or fair commentary -- it is closer to juvenile behavior.
Karen, You put me in mind of the American Psychiatric Association voting 40-60% positively that Goldwater was paranoid schizophrenic. In general I think psychiatrists are, in retrospect, embarassed in the self reflecting autism and error of that vote and would prefer that only true armchair psychiatrists like Megan engage in such escapades in differential diagnosis.
Karen tells us she is a psychiatrist. And then gives us a diagnosis on a man she has never met. I thought that giving such diagnoses was considered a breach of professional ethics.
But I will give Karen a chance to prove that she is a psychiatrist (though not necessarily up on the details of their professional code). Any good psychiatrist will know some good psychiatrist jokes. So, how about it, Karen? Know any good psychiatrist jokes?
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
...
...
...
...
Give up?
Only one.
But the light bulb has got to want to change.
I kill me.
I listened to the last bit of questions. The spain remark seemed to come out of nowhere. She's asking questions about Latin America... why throw in a question about Zapatero and Spain? I'm pretty sure McCain thought she was asking about the Zapatistas, as other have suggested, the campaign's reaction not withstanding.
Does this mean liberals don't want the government to take over health care
Correct. Liberals do not want the government to take over health care. They want to change the health insurance industry, not health care. There are virtually no advocates of a British-style National Health Service in the US.
In the area of civil liberties, liberals would prefer that the government have far less power than conservatives want it to have.
"liberals would prefer that the government have far less power than conservatives want it to have." brooksfoe
TR: I think there's probably some variety on this among conservatives, but maybe less so among conservative politicians. My guess is that a great many of those voting for Barr are in fact conservative rather than purely libertarian.
Still a few politicians might fit. John Duncan of Tennessee, Butch Otter of Idaho, and Dana Rohrabacher of California are conservatives who opposed extending the Patriot Act or opposed some domestic spying efforts. The New Hampshire Republicans, Gregg and Sununu, have something of a libertarian-streak despite being conservative overall. The Paulians, although not really Republicans in the modern sense, could be deemed conservatives and they're often civil libertarians.
McCain's group could have passed this off as "His attention was distracted and he didn't hear the question correctly." The interviewer's accent makes that viable. Instead they are insisting with passion and fervor that of course he understood everything and was, yes, expressing his displeasure with our NATO ally, Spain, with whom he might not be on speaking terms.
Before that came out, McCain's online defenders didn't go for this as a defense shot--they hit the accent, the prime minister/president aspect, all the "he didn't hear her right" stuff that actually listening to the interview supports--that is, that he didn't realize they were talking about Spain, whether you find that confusion alarming or understandable.
If we elect McCain, every confused misstep will need to be defended as the absolute, of-course-we-meant-it, policy of the United States. This should be terrifying. Never did Obama's admission that he will make some mistakes sound more appealing.