 |
Remarks By John McCain
AP Annual Meeting
Monday, April 14, 2008
Washington, D.C.
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.
On the Net:
For Immediate Release
April 14, 2008
Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550
|
