Mark Sanford Draws A Blank On McCain/Bush Economics

The most painful clip from the Sunday morning shows: top McCain VP prospect Mark Sanford "drawing a blank" (in his own words) on live TV when asked to name a major economic policy that President Bush and John McCain disagree on.

The transcript:

BLITZER: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to now what John McCain supports?

SANFORD: Um, yeah. For instance, take, you know, take, for instance, the issue of -- I'm drawing a blank, and I hate it when I do that, particularly on television. Take, for instance the contrast on NAFTA. I mean, I think that the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from, are they consistent where they come from.

Sanford finally came up with an answer -- McCain has opposed earmarks while President Bush hasn't -- but Blitzer twisted the knife a bit further, following up on Sanford's initial mention of NAFTA. "He's a huge supporter of free trade, John McCain, the Bush administration supports free trade. I don't see a big difference."

Sanford said he was going to make a separate point about consistency.

Here's the vid:

Comments

[Jody2167]

he would be great in a vice presidential debate. I can just picture it. I lived in Canada and we hated NAFTA. It wasn't good for Canada or the US.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

So exactly what job growth is he attributing to NAFTA?

[AxelDC]

I live in Canada, too, and the biggest problem with Canada's economy is its protectionism. Retail costs, especially for clothes, are significantly higher than in the US, leading Canadians to shop US stores, even with the offensively high customs coming back.

NAFTA has been a windfall for all 3 countries. It's no coincidence that they decade following NAFTA was one of the most prosperous in US history. Mexico also benefited until American companies discovered China, and shipped all the jobs there.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

S a n f o r d is drawing a blank because he knows that there is no difference. Earmarks and NAFTA have nothing to do with each other and that was not the argument made by the O b a m a campaign.

[eden4barack08]

That's the first Republican I see, who hasn't mastered the art of lying. Maybe he's secretly a Democrat.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

He was asked if there was any difference between Shrub and his master McClunk. There is no difference. How do you spin or lie your way out of that? He finally managed to squeak out his lame argument about earmarks and lied about NAFTA (both he and Shrub love NAFTA and support it)

[RobBob]

At least we can agree that the Repubs very good at one thing.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

Exactly what job growth has NAFTA brought about? Is he talking about job growth for Mexicans? Exactly where has NAFTA helped grow jobs in the United States?

[AxelDC]

NAFTA brought about the most prosperous decade in US history. Job growth has evened out because NAFTA is such an integral part of our economy now.

If you want to see the US go into recession, start putting up trade barriers. That will drive up costs, reduce exports and send us into an economic tailspin.

The last time the US put up huge trade barriers was in the 1930s. It hurt our economy and sent Europe into such a deep decline that Hitler and Mussolini rose to power.

[thegreatgiginthesky]

So I suppose all those workers in Ohio are just whining right?

[Canaris]

Prosperous for who? The CEO's?

The middle class doesn't appear to have done that well out of it.

[Diplomacy]

Why are you worrying about NAFTA? It's a non-issue.

The REAL issues are the WAR in IRAQ to the tune of $12 Billion a month of borrowed money. The ECONOMY with the failures of BANKS and there's more FAILURES coming. The PRICE of OIL.

We are witnessing the "Decline of the American Empire". It's CYLICAL throughout HISTORY.

These WARS have been ECONOMIC all along! Only problem is NO ONE NOTICED!

[mamacat]

Not to belabor the point, but I don't see this as a painful clip at all. It is a very illuminating and educational clip, one that all voters should be interested in.

By his own admission, a fellow Republican and potential veep candidate says that the difference between B and M on economics is one of style, not substance. Actually, even their styles are similar - pure B.S.

[likeicare]

How unusual for an American "reporter" to actually press an official on an issue.

Don't see that very often nowadays.

[WIpatriot]

Not like he's a REAL official or anythimg like that....

[DesertZ]

How refreshing for a change to see the MSM ask probing follow-up questions instead of giving these guys on the right a free pass. If CNN and friends had not sat back on their haunches and done this BEFORE Iraq maybe we wouldn't have created the tragic mess there that we have.

[johnnygoodwud]

what's that i smell,,,,,,,,,,,,oh it's just a landslide this nov.

[RFBorjal]

And to think that they had to expel a little sweet librarian for carrying a McCain=Bush sign.

[DSully]

John Stewart has got to be drooling over everying that has happened this week.

[lccooler]

WOW . That guy got pwned.

[the964kid]

He drew a blank because there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND MCCAIN ON ECONOMIC POLICIES.

Every republican should try to answer this question, if they can...

[Youth4Obama]

Ouch... kinda hillarious. Pick him as your VP McBush!

[olivia]

The Republicans traditionally choose much, much better liars than this guy.

[aristippe]

Dan Quail part deux

[gifu]

And Bush and Quayle still WON......l­ike Bush and Cheney two times in a row.....it is a long way to victory in this Orwellian nightmare we all seem to be sleeping through.

[bitabingbitabangbitaboom]

Monkey See Monkey Do

.

[TamysDMilo]

I'm with George Will, who said Mark Sanford would make a fantastic running mate for John McCain.