Say what? Next year's US presidential campaign theme could be "Oops! What I meant was ... "
Just about every Republican and Democrat has flubbed an answer to a question or made a borderline inappropriate comment -- some so uncomfortable they make you cringe -- only to take back the remarks or seek to clarify them later when under fire.
This month alone, former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney backtracked from a comment about his sons' lack of military service. Republican rival Rudy Giuliani and former New York mayor retreated from his suggestion that he spent as much time as Sept. 11, 2001, rescue workers at the ground zero site and was exposed to the same health risks. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a Democratic candidate, stumbled over a question about whether homosexuality was a choice. All sought to skirt controversy by quickly explaining themselves.
It is happening so often, "you'd think it's deliberate!" said Terry Madonna, a pollster at Franklin & Marshall College in Pennsylvania.
Joking aside, he said: "I don't think you can go through this grueling ordeal and not find even the most seasoned politician who isn't susceptible to a malaprop here or there. We're seeing some genuinely real moments as these candidates are in the pressure cooker."
Chalk up the glut of apologies and clarifications to changing times.
Candidates of all stripes have become extremely sensitive to the Internet era and painfully aware of video-sharing Web sites such as YouTube that allow images and audio to be posted online immediately.
At the same time, it has become routine for campaigns to send out "trackers" with recorders to capture a rival's every appearance in hopes of catching an election-altering misstep to use in a television ad or Web video.
"In the olden days, this wasn't an issue because if you said something that could be problematic, you just denied that you said it," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant. "These days, it's too easy to have cold, hard proof."
"You've got to have a strategy to combat the YouTube video," she said. "Now, one mistake can be replayed often."
TWO CHOICES
Typically, both Republican and Democratic strategists say, candidates who slip up take one of two damage-control avenues.
Some opt to stand firmly behind their comments and plow forward with their campaigns. They believe that apologizing or clarifying is a sign of weakness and that sticking to their viewpoints shows strength and projects self-awareness. The risk is that they can appear stubborn and unwilling to admit mistakes.
More often, candidates decide to acknowledge their errors or explain their comments quickly. The hope is to take blunders off the table and blunt the impact of any attacks. But they also could appear as though they do not mean what they say and will change positions when they feel the heat.
Regardless of which path they choose, strategists say, each situation must be handled individually and candidates must strike a balance between being authentic and being willing to admit they are wrong.
"I'd rather be who I am and make mistakes than come across as this very carefully scripted, totally handled person. I think people are so sick of that," said former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican whose words sometimes have gotten him in trouble.
"People will forgive me for a mistake more than they'll forgive me for phoniness. And, if they don't, then I'm not their guy," he said.
Huckabee once referred to Arkansas as a "banana republic" and, on another occasion, jokingly attributed his 50kg weight loss to spending time in a concentration camp.
Romney defended his five sons' decisions not to enlist in the military and said "one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected."
Later, the Republican issued a clarification, saying: "I didn't mean in any way to compare service in the country with my boys in any way."
Giuliani claimed he was site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "as often, if not more, than most of the workers" and was exposed to the same health risks.
After drawing the ire of some firefighters, he said: "I could have said it better" and "What I was saying was: `I'm there with you."'
Richardson said: "It's a choice" and then "you know, I'm not a scientist" when gay-rights activists asked during a forum whether people are born gay or whether they choose homosexuality.
He quickly clarified.
The Democrat also said: "I screwed up" when citing conservative Byron White as a model Supreme Court justice.
REGRETS
Senator John McCain, a Republican known for his off-the-cuff style, twice has clarified comments.
In separate instances, he referred to US lives lost in Iraq as "wasted" and used the term "tar baby," which some people consider a racial epithet.
In both cases, he quickly said he regretted his word choice.
Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic senator, apologized for using the word "wasted" about US soldiers killed in Iraq.
During a campaign speech in Virginia, he drastically overstated the death toll in the springtime tornado in Kansas, saying, "Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed."
The actual death toll was 12.
"There are going to be times when I make mistakes," Obama said when he recognized his mistake before his speech ended.
Even unofficial candidates are not immune.
Fred Thompson, a former Republican senator who is widely expected to enter the race next month, offered an explanation after Democrats assailed him for saying "we're living in the era of the suitcase bomb" as he bemoaned illegal immigration from Cuba.
Last year, several politicians learned the hard way that a slip of the tongue could have disastrous consequences.
Most prominent was former Republican senator George Allen of Virginia, who lost his re-election bid after he referred to a young man of Indian descent as "macaca," which some consider a racial slur.
Similarly, Democratic Senator John Kerry endured crushing fallout when he said young people who do not study hard would likely "get stuck in Iraq."
Republicans seized on the remark and days went by before Kerry apologized after cajoling by Democratic leaders in Congress.
The widely publicized episode virtually guaranteed that the 2004 Democratic nominee wouldn't run for president again.
The lesson? Watch what you say.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS