A nice overview by former Log Cabin spokesman Kevin Ivers on John McCain's plusses and minuses for gays. Excerpt:
He stood with gay Republicans against the ugly tactics in South Carolina in 2000 and the early pandering by the 2000 Bush campaign to anti-gay groups. He voted against the FMA in the Senate, and spoke against it on the Senate floor, but he also voted for DOMA, against ENDA, supports "don't ask, don't tell" and backed the Arizona anti-gay marriage referendum (but so did John Kerry back such a measure in 2004).
He led the fight…to repeal the repulsive Dornan Amendment, which sought to create witchhunts to drive soldiers out of the military who tested HIV positive after enlistment and cut off all their benefits.... And when I raised "don't ask, don't tell"...he had the same political (almost Hillaryesque) answer: "When General Colin Powell says it's time to repeal it, we can do it." ...
He already went to Liberty University a long time ago, and much like he did at CPAC last week, he didn't give them anything other than very polite attention and a restatement that he is who he is, take him or leave him.
Ivers concludes, "Conviction, politics, bravery, skittishness-all rolled up in one." But still, he represents a huge step forward for a GOP standard-bearer.
More. Comments reader "Avee""
gay issues have fallen off the radar...because the Democrats think Obama and/or Clinton should not be pushed for any kind of real commitment to advancing gay equality other than feel-good rhetoric, and Republicans realize it's probably futile to try to press McCain for anything (other than continued opposition to the federal marriage amendment, which does put him ahead of W.)
I agree. Without a GOP nominee who is shilling for the federal marriage amendment, gay issues will be all but unheard this go round.
A caveat. If the Senate's Democratic leadership finally allows the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to come to the floor (it passed the House last fall), it could cause a ripple. The closer it is to November, the more likely President Bush will feel compelled to veto it, so as to keep already alienated social conservatives from sitting out the election. Which may explain why Senate Democratic leaders are waiting to move the bill-helping ensure a veto keeps gays on the reservation.
Update. Well, it's getting pretty obvious just how ugly and below-the-belt the "progressive" left media is going to get in order to elect their new messiah, isn't it.
13 Comments for “More on McCain”
posted by Brian Miller on
But still, he represents a huge step forward for a GOP standard-bearer.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
For the old-party primaries, the exciting part is over. McCain, Clinton and Obama all have identical voting records on gay issues.
The excitement right now is in the Libertarian and Green contests to see if those parties will produce candidates who will challenge the old parties on their lousy records on gay issues.
posted by Jorge on
The excitement right now is in the Libertarian and Green contests to see if those parties will produce candidates who will challenge the old parties on their lousy records on gay issues.
I doubt that would be very exciting if they did. This is fundamentally not a gay rights election, and neither the libertarian or green party are fundamentally gay rights parties. If any third party puts forth a remotely viable or exciting candidate, it will be about other issues that Americans as a whole actually are dissatisfied with, and gay rights concerns will take a backseat again.
I think the McCain candidacy represents a step back from both the 2000 and 2004 Republican candidacies. In both elections Bush took the subject of gay rights more or less head-on. In 2000 he showed initiative in being more moderate and tolerant, in 2004 he was on the defensive. In both cases, Bush defined an issue and advanced a discussion that gave gay causes a lot of positive air time. I think this year we are being swept under the rug while conservatives win silently.
posted by Bobby on
“I think the McCain candidacy represents a step back from both the 2000 and 2004 Republican candidacies. ”
—I agree. This has been a terrible year for republicans, we have a flip-flopping mormon, a Law & Order relic, a first amendment destroyer (McCain), a christian socialist (Huckabee) and what’s the name of the other guy? Sure, the GOP is gonna try to sell us McCain as a “better than having Clinton or Obama as president.” Well, “anybody but Bush” didn’t work for the liberals, “anybody but Obama/Hillary” won’t work for republicans either.
posted by Pat on
I think the McCain candidacy represents a step back from both the 2000 and 2004 Republican candidacies.
Now that’s a tall order.
posted by Avee on
Certainly, I agree that gay issues have fallen off the radar. That’s because the Democrats think Obama and/or Clinton should not be pushed for any kind of real commitment to advancing gay equality other than feel-good rhetoric, and Republicans realize it’s probably futile to try to press McCain for anything (other than continued opposition to the federal marriage amendment, which does put him ahead of W.)
posted by Brian Miller on
Gay issues have fallen off the radar because gay voters have happily donated money and given votes to homophobes in both the Democratic and Republican parties. When gay people voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 after he signed DOMA, and swooned over John-Kerry-the-state-DOMA supporter in 2004, they sent a signal to the “establishment” to “bash us, please!”
While the Greens and Libertarians aren’t “fundamentally gay rights parties,” they’re certainly the only two national parties who support gay people on the issues that are most important. And in an Independent *Gay* Forum, that’s an important distinction.
posted by arthur on
It’s about torture for me, not any gay issue.
How can he compromise on that issue?
I volunteered for McCain in 2000. Not this year.
posted by Richard on
LGBT-rights issues have not, “fallen off the rader.” They were talked about earlier, during the primary season and during several of the GOP and DNC debates.
It is easy to find out where the candidates stand on the LGBT-rights issues and the media is simply focusing on the “bread and butter” issues that appeal to most voters; i.e. economy, foreign policy.
America is a two-party system. People who suggest otherwise are simply naive or woefully ignorant.
What the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Reform Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc. thinks about anything matters very little.
They do not win many elections.
posted by Pat on
What the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Constitution Party, Reform Party, Socialist Party, Communist Party, etc. thinks about anything matters very little.
They do not win many elections.
And that’s unfortunate. It propogates the low standards we expect in both major parties. One of these days, it will change…maybe.
posted by Brian Miller on
Democrats certainly weren’t insisting that the Greens were “irrelevant” back in 2000, were they?
They weren’t insisting Greens and Libertarians were irrelevant in 2004 either, when they sued to keep both parties off the ballot in Pennsylvania — at the same time they were hypocritically demanding that “every vote be counted” just across the state line in Ohio.
The only reason why third parties fail in elections is because people like Richard/ETJB/whatever he’s calling himself this month like to prevent their ideas from getting out into the mainstream — and voters choose not to vote for them out of some sense of “inevitability.”
A year ago, a “Giuliani vs. Clinton” race was “inevitable” under the same assumptions. Ooops.
Politics is really quite simple. When you contribute to, campaign for, and vote for, a candidate who acts to deny you your equality under the law, you’re saying “thank you, may I have another?” Other candidates across parties notice as well and decide that taking a stand for what’s right doesn’t matter, as it won’t earn them support.
When you contribute to, campaign for, and vote for a candidate who acts to promote and fight for equality under the law, you are sending a message to that candidate rewarding him/her for support. You are also sending a message to other politicians that if they want your money, campaign supports and vote, they need to do the same thing.
Richard/ETJB/whoever he is insists on a strategy of rewarding Democrats for their anti-gay activities — while opposing Republicans because of their anti-gay activities. That makes sense only to a brain-dead partisan Democrat like ETJB/Richard/whatever his name is this post.
posted by Richard on
Pat:
If we want non-major party candidates to become more viable choices then we have to change how we conduct elections; i.e. campaign finance, ballot access, debate inclusion, winner take all, etc.
Election laws largely dictate the role of non-major party candidates in 99% of all American elections.
Brain;
The fact that a non-major party presidential candidate is destined to lose, does not mean that they cannot be a spoiler.
Their have been several cases in our nations history where a non-major party presidential candidate helped to determine which major party candidate won.
Democrats have accused the Greens of being spoilers, as have many Republicans made similar complaints against the Constitution and Libertarian parties.
Again, the election law itself is the primary factor in determing the role of non-major party candidates in our elections.
The reality is that Americans will only have two viable choices. This may not be a pleasant reality or a just reality, but it is the one that we must face.
If you do not like this reality, then get off your ass and work to change it. Get involved with interest groups (i.e. Fair Vote or Ballot Access News).
Voting for an Independent/third party candidate is not going to advance LGBT rights, anymore then it will advance campaign law reforms.
BTW, I do not recall stating that I was “ETJB” or a member of the Democratic Party. I am neither.
Voting for an Independent/third party presidential candidate is a strategy for (1) wasting your vote or (2) helping the candidate that you least prefer win.
The differences between the two major parties on LGBT-rights are not always great, and their are plently of regional nuances, but they do exist.
It does make a difference — in terms of gay rights — who sits in the White House and which party holds a majority in Congress.
posted by Brian Miller on
Richard ETJB, your argument is rather inconsistent.
First you claim the issue is ballot access.
Then you claim the issue isn’t ballot access, but viability.
Then you claim that it matters which old party sits in Congress and the White House — ignoring the fact that we got the anti-gay military ban with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democrat president; and the anti-gay marriage ban with a Republican majority and a Democrat president.
The reality is that a vote for a Democrat or Republican is a wasted vote, because both parties are pretty much the same where it matters — legislation and votes.
A vote for a third party that will actually walk the walk is a better investment. It tells the old parties that their politics and hilarious arguments (which you parrot like a good Party Man) don’t make sense.
It enrages them. Just look at the vitriol sprayed at Nader voters by partisan Democrats — even to this day! They honestly believe that they have a God-given (or Goddess-given, in many Dem’s case) “right” to your vote.
Gay people who are tired of second-class and third-class treatment by Democrats and Republicans don’t have to put up with anti-gay votes, or patronizing lectures from Party Men like Richard ETJB. They can, instead, vote for the candidate who best reflects their views and who they can count on to do the right thing if they assume office.
Yes, Democrats and Republicans will scream at you about your “narcissism” and “ego” for not voting for their apparatchik. Then, they’ll pass laws making it harder for third parties to run candidates on the ballot. At the same time, in an election that is close between their apparatchik and the other old party’s, they’ll scream about how “every vote counts” while their party shills log in to tell you how your vote *doesn’t* count.
The power to change this sorry state of affairs — and get candidates who are vastly superior to Hillary “Build a Dynasty” Clinton, Barack “Empty Suit” Obama, and John “Keating Five” McCain is in your hands, and your hands alone.
posted by RIchard on
Brian/Bobby
You said: First you claim the issue is ballot access.
Ballot access laws is ONE of the hurdles facing non-major party candidates.
The difficulty in completing the petitioning drives and the high costs involved.
Fair and equitable ballot access laws would alter the two-party system.
It would revert to the two-party system we had before the laws become harsh and unfair. Instant Runoff Voting would also not change the two-party system, but it would reduce, if not eliminate, the spoilage issue.
ANY NATION THAT USES WINNER-TAKE-ALL PLUARITY VOTING METHODS WILL ONLY HAVE TWO MAJOR PARTIES AS VIABLE CHOICES. This is something of a near mathematical certainty.
It does matter — in terms of LGBT rights — which major party sits in the White House or controlls Congress. DADT is an improvement over the polices that had existed before. It may not be a wonderful improvement, but it was an important first step. Their were other, important, steps made during the Clinton presidency.
The DOMA was not an improvement, but did not alter federal law. Prior to 1996 marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman and States were free not to recognize a marriage that went againt its public policy.
It does matter, but it is not the entire story. We have a very ‘weak’ two-party system where regional differences play a big role in a politicans views on LGBT-rights. It is difficult for either party to hold elected officials to a platform.
You said: A vote for a third party that will actually walk the walk is a better investment.
Absent of serious campaign law reform, a vote for a non-major party candidate is not an investment. The candidate will almost certainly not win and might help elect the person you least like. The election laws dictate — to a large extent — which candidates or parties are viable choices.
You said: It tells the old parties that their politics and hilarious arguments (which you parrot like a good Party Man) don’t make sense.
It tells the two major parties that you either do not want a voice in government or want to help one of the major parties win. Election law is not especially hilarious, but I would agree with you that it often does not make much sense.