Posted by
http://madirishmaninc.blogspot.com on Monday, April 14, 2008 10:54:50 AM
|
Contact: Press Office
|
|
Monday, April 14, 2008
|
703-650-5550
|
ARLINGTON,
VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver the following remarks as
prepared for delivery to The Associated Press' annual meeting in
Washington, D.C., today at 10:30 a.m. EDT:
Thank
you. It is a pleasure to be here. I want to keep my remarks brief so
that I can quickly get to your questions, comments or insults. Let me
begin by offering a few thoughts about the press's role in political
campaigns. Long ago in my career, I made a decision to be as accessible
to the press as the press would prefer me to be, and, perhaps, even
more than they would prefer. There have been days on the back of the
bus when I couldn't help but notice the relief that spread among
reporters when, after hours had passed, our conversation exhausted the
day's questions of policy and politics and finally turned to ball
scores, vacation plans, and the amusing eating and sleeping habits of
my friend, Lindsey Graham. For those of you interested in what those
habits might entail, Liz Sidoti, Libby Quaid and Dave Espo can fill you
in.
Running
campaigns under the frequent if not constant scrutiny of the press can
be challenging. And there have been days when I wished you had been
somewhere else when I made comments that were interpreted in ways I
didn't intend and took on a longer life than I would have preferred.
Occasionally, the penalties a candidate suffers by granting widespread
access can reinforce a campaign's natural tendencies to avoid risk and
closely control its message. There have been times when my enthusiasm
in arguing a point and my glibness have had an effect that caused me to
appreciate the qualities of tight message discipline and my staff to
become distraught because I answered a question simply because I was
asked. I confess also that on occasion, perhaps many occasions, I have
felt reporters' questions, their redundancy and sometimes adversarial
quality, were intended more at producing candidate fatigue and,
consequently, mistakes than the enlightenment of y our readers.
These
aren't trivial worries, and they do tend to support arguments for a
more careful approach to talking to you. I want to win this election as
do my opponents, and Americans have always taken the view that the
shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Thus,
campaigns naturally look suspiciously at the more circuitous route to
success that wends and sometimes loses its way through the obstacle
course of the candidate's exchanges with the press. But I've become
rather accustomed to it. And though my campaign certainly took a
circuitous route to securing my party's nomination -- to put it
charitably -- I don't intend to change that particular habit of a
lifetime.
I
believe in giving great access to the press for three reasons. First, I
much prefer long back and forths, where reporters have multiple follow
ups and I have an opportunity to explain my views in greater detail --
and, occasionally to correct any initial mistakes I might have made in
communicating them -- than is allowed in the short exchanges and bright
lights of the press avail. The dynamics of the avail, in my opinion,
tend to produce more heat than light on your part and excessive caution
on the candidate's part. Reporters have one, maybe two shots at me, and
they want it to count, by which I mean they would like to catch me in a
mistake, a discrepancy or a less than artful expression. And candidates
tend to approach them with the primary intention of not saying anything
beyond a single message or not saying anything newsworthy at all.
Second,
I think reporters are better able to meet their first responsibility of
ensuring an informed citizenry if they are allowed to press a candidate
for more than a gotcha quote or a comment on whatever the cable driven
news environment has decided is the process story of the day.
Last,
and most importantly, the responsibility of an informed citizenry is as
much my responsibility as it is yours. I don't believe in deceiving
voters about my positions, my beliefs or how I would govern this
country were I to have the extraordinary privilege of serving as
President. I want voters to know and understand my positions. I intend
to stand by them, to defend them and even, at times, to engage in
spirited debate with voters about them. But I want them to know what
and why I believe the things I believe. And I think the press wants
voters to know that as well, even though, at times, my views can suffer
from your translation of them, sometimes more through my fault than
yours. That is why I prefer the townhall format to other forms of
communication with the voters. And that is why I make myself regularly
available to all of you. I will screw up sometimes, and, frankly, so
will you. But on the whole, you, I and, most importantly, the Ame rican
people are better served by the openness and accountability that
direct, lengthy and frequent exchanges with the press produces. And I
will take my chances with you and trust in the American people to get
it right in the end.
In
the spirit of that commitment to communicating my views fully and
honestly to you, I want to address quickly an issue I know is important
to you, the so-called "shield law" pending before Congress. I have had
a hard time deciding whether to support or oppose it. To be very
candid, but with no wish to offend you, I must confess there have been
times when I worry that the press' interest in getting a scoop
occasionally conflicts with other important priorities, even the first
concern of every American -- the security of our nation. I take a very,
very dim view of stories that disclose classified information that
unnecessarily threatens or makes it more difficult to protect the
physical security of Americans. I think that has happened before,
rarely, but it has happened. I think the New York Times' decision to
disclose surveillance programs to monitor the conversations of people
who wish to do us harm came too close to crossing that line. And I
understand completely why the government charged with defending our
security would want to discourage that from happening and hold the
people who disclosed that damaging information accountable for their
action.
The
shield law would give great license to you and your sources, with few
restrictions, to do as you please no matter the stakes involved and
without fear of personal consequences beyond the rebuke of your
individual consciences. It is, frankly, a license to do harm, perhaps
serious harm. But it also a license to do good; to disclose injustice
and unlawfulness and inequities; and to encourage their swift
correction. The First Amendment is based in that recognition, and I am,
despite the criticism of campaign finance reform opponents, committed
to that essential right of a free society. I know that the press that
disclosed security secrets that should have remained so also revealed
the disgrace of Abu Ghraib, a disgrace that made it much harder to
protect the American people from harm. Thus, despite concerns I have
about the legislation, I have narrowly decided to support it. I respect
those of my colleagues who have decided not to; appreciate very much
the concerns that have informed their position, and encourage further
negotiations to address those concerns. But if the vote were held
today, I would vote yes. By so doing, I and others, on behalf of the
people we represent, are willing to invest in the press a very solemn
trust that in the use of confidential sources you will not do more harm
than good whether it comes to the security of the nation or the
reputation of good people.
No
profession always meets its responsibilities or always meets them
perfectly. Certainly not mine, and not yours either. There will be
times, I suspect, when I will wonder again if I should have supported
this measure. But I trust in your integrity and patriotism that those
occasions won't be so numerous that I will, in fact, deeply regret my
decision. And I would hope that when you do something controversial or
something that many people find wrong and harmful you would explain
fully and honestly how and why you did it, and confess your mistakes,
if you made them, in a more noticeable way than afforded by the small
print on a corrections page. In truth, the workings of American
newsrooms are some of the least transparent enterprises in the country,
and it is easy to believe that the press has one set of standards for
government, business, and other institutions, and entirely another for
themselves. And if you don't mind a little constructive cri ticism from
someone who respects you, I think that is an impression the press
should work on correcting.
Now,
before I take your questions, I would like to respond briefly to the
comments one of my opponents made the other day about the psychology
and political mindset of Americans living in small towns and other
areas that have experienced the loss of industrial jobs.
During
the Great Depression, with many millions of Americans out of work and
the country suffering the worst economic crisis in our history, there
rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of
Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder,
and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous
nation on earth. They were not born with the advantages others in our
country enjoyed. They suffered the worst during the Depression. But it
had not shaken their faith in and fidelity to America and its founding political ideals. Nor had it destroyed their confidence that America
and their own lives could be made better. Nor did they turn to their
religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling
of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue
prosperity. On the contrary, their faith had given generations of their
families purpose and meaning, as it does today. And their appreciation
of traditions like hunting was based in nothing other than their
contribution to the enjoyment of life.
In
my other profession and the war I served in, the country relied
overwhelmingly on Americans from these same communities to defend us.
As Tocqueville discovered when he traveled America
two hundred years ago, they are the heart and soul of this country, the
foundation of our strength and the primary authors of its essential
goodness. They are our inspiration, and I look to them for guidance and
strength. No matter their personal circumstances, they believed in this
country. They revered its past, but most importantly they believed in
its future greatness, a greatness they themselves would create. They
never forgot who they were, where they came from, and what is possible
in America, a country founded on an idea and not on class, ethnic or sectarian identity. And America must not and will not forget them.
Next week, I'll begin a tour of places in America
that do not frequently see a candidate for President. They are places
far removed from the prosperity that is enjoyed elsewhere in America. I want to tell people living there that there must not be any forgotten parts of America; any forgotten Americans. Hope in America is not based in delusion, but in the faith that everything is possible in America.
The time for pandering and false promises is over. It is time for
action. It is time for change, but the right kind of change; change
that trusts in the strength of free people and free markets; change
that doesn't return to policies that empower government to make our
choices for us, but that works to ensure that we have choices to make
for ourselves. For we have always trusted Americans to build from the
choices they make for themselves, a safer, stronger and more prosperous
country than the one they inherited.
Thank you.
Shared with the My Fellow McCain Victory 08 Bloggers at
84 Rules,Adam J Schmidt,Agkyra,Agora politikos,Ahwatukee Musings,America For John McCain,Americas Best Choice,Armchair Everything,ARRA News Service,Asian Americans For McCain,Asymmetric,AzaMatterofact,Basils Blog,
Blogs For John McCain's Victory,Blogs For Victory,Blogs4McCain,
Blue And New,Blue Grass Red State,Blue Star Chronicles,Born Again Redneck,Brainster,BroadSideoftheBarn,But I Am A Liberal,California For McCain,Campaign2008VictoryA,Catskill commentator,Chas' compilation,coleCurtis-The McCain Monitor,College Republican Federation of Virginia,Conservative For Change,Curtis Schweitzer,DC Republican,Deomocrats & MediaSpin Vs. Facts,Democrats For Sale,Election 2008,Election Night HQ,Elyery Landavazo,EvangelicalsForMcCain,Falling Panda,Faultline USA,Frog Blog Of Louis la Vache,Generation X Dad,Georgians For McCain,GOP Convention Blog,Hoosiers4McCain,How I Lost My Heart,Il rumore Dei mie Venti-RDM20,Independent Jim,Iraqi For John McCain,Johnny Miller blog,Lee Volger's Political Points,Les Recettes de Louis la Vache,Liberal Republican,Liberalstein Political Limozeen,Libertas01,
M-J in the Republic,MacPac08,The Mad Irish Man's Conservative Consortium,The Mad Irish Man On TownHall.com,
Marathon Pundit,Mass For McCain,McCain Blogette,McCain Blogger Resources,McCain Blogs,McCain Jewish Coalition of Illinois,McCain Mondays,McCain Online Volunteer,McCain States,McCain Talk,McCain Volunteer,McCainHQ08 Yahoo Group,McCainiac,McCainocrats,McCainVictory08,Metaxupolis,
Michael Johns,Missourians for McCain,Moms for McCain,My vast right wing conspiracy,MyMcCainBlog,Myth Debunker,New Jersey for John McCain,New Mexico for John McCain,NH4McCAIN,NJ for McCain,NY for McCain,Official McCain Blog,Ohio for John McCain,Oklahoma for John McCain,Only Electable Conservative,PA Educators for McCain,Pajama Pack,Pardon My French,Partisan American,Pennsylvania for John McCain,Pink Flamingo,Pirate's Cove,Politico Mafioso,Porter County Politics,Primary Cuts,Provocateur,Purple People Vote,Real World Libertarian,Reality Bytes,Right Wing Nation,Right Wing Sparkle,Rudy Supporters for McCain Blog,Rudy Supporters for McCain Yahoo Group,San Francisco Bay Daily Photo,Sanity 102,StandUpForMcCain,Steve Maloney GOP,Thought Stew,Todd Biggs,Tree Hugging Republican,Unite McCain Campaign,Vets 4 McCain,Vets For McCain,Virginia 4 McCain,Voting McCain 08,watersblogged!,Why McCain?,Wisconsin4McCain,With Both Hands