I've been traveling all week and will be on the road for another. Jon Rauch is also away, so blogging is going to remain skimpy for awhile. Still, I wanted to take note of the brouhaha over John McCain's thoughtless response to a question about gay adoption as reported in the New York Times:
Mr. McCain, who with his wife, Cindy, has an adopted daughter, said flatly that he opposed allowing gay couples to adopt. "I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," he said.
And , after a stinging response from libertarians and limited government, big-tent conservatives (and, of less importance, LGBT Democratic activists), his campaign's statement to Andrew Sullivan revising and extending McCain's comments:
"McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.
McCain's expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative."
(The New York Times story is here.)
McCain's "clarified" position remain intentionally mushy, and if his original intent was to placate the anti-gay religious right, he's now managed to tick them off all the more. But it does represent some sort of progress that he was made to realize his earlier position, which was entirely consistent with the GOP's traditional dismissal of gay citizens and gay voters, in 2008 will no longer fly.
22 Comments for “A Bit Late, McCain Realizes It’s 2008”
posted by Rob on
Can you imagine if he said that on Ellen’s show? What a joke McCain has become.
posted by LeBain on
It seems as if McCain does not care to research his positions on this or other off-the-beaten-path topics. Reporters will try to catch him up with left field questions (since when was gay adoption a national issue?) He needs to be better prepared.
posted by Thommen on
As per opinion of Mr. McCain, all parents, who are no(more) complete, have to give children for adoption to other heterosexual parents! ;))
posted by Jim on
A couple of things stand out about McCain’s “clarification.”
First, it reiterates McCain’s “personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible.” Fine. We have all been reminded that McCain thinks of gay parents as second best, at best.
Second, it does not contain anywhere, in any terms, a retraction of his plain-as-day statement that he “do[es] not believe in gay adoption.” Instead it says that McCain believes it is preferable for “abandoned children who have yet to find homes” to be raised by “caring parental figures” rather than go homeless. Talk about going out on a limb and being unafraid to take a controversial position!
Finally, even if we interpret “caring parental figures” to mean “caring gay parents,” McCain has said nothing more than that he believes it is better for children to be adopted by gay parents than it is for them to go homeless. Well. Sorry, Senator McCain, but flattery won’t work. You need to earn my vote.
posted by DUMP on
Of course, McCain himself is a poor example of a father. How else could you explain his abandonment of his own children and wife. But, then again, there is no trait as ingrained in the GOP psyche then that of trading in your old, roughed-up wife for a new younger one (and in McCain’s case, an incredibly wealthy and drug addicted one at that).
posted by avee on
How aptly named "Dump" is. He adds nothing to the conversation except hate-filled invective. Steve’s original post made an excellent point — that progress can be seen in the way that the GOP presidential nominee backtracked and (in effect) changed an anti-gay position when it looked like it would cost him more to appear intolerant than pandering to the religious right would gain for him. But none of the above commenters seem interested in anything but expressing their liberal cred by insulting Republicans.
posted by LeBain on
Speak for yourself, avee. I am a conservative Republican. You don’t have to be a liberal to see that McCain has some weaknesses he needs to work on. Apply a little consideration before you make any more generalizatins.
posted by avee on
LeBain, read “Dump”‘s vicious remarks about McCain’s wife (“in McCain’s case, an incredibly wealthy and drug addicted one at that”), and then defend that as acceptable discourse. If you do, you are no better than Daily Kos.
posted by Jim on
What is so terrible about observing that Cindy McCain is incredibly wealthy and a drug addict (albeit a recovering one)? She herself admits that both are true. As for McCain’s abandonment of his first wife, I think it’s rather worse for McCain to have done that (which he did) than it is for DUMP to note that it occurred.
I don’t know DUMP. He (or She) may be a “major league asshole” (to borrow an especially delicate phrase from our current President). But merely noting true, if uncomfortable, facts about the Republican nominee and his wife hardly qualifies as “hate-filled invective.” Much closer to that would be McCain’s own statements about his wife, whom he has called a “trollop” and “cunt” in the presence of others.
posted by tjr on
I’m just so amused at the conservative republicans in this forum who continue to defend their party’s divisive, homophobic tactics to use as red meat for the votes of right-wing extremists. McCain and the republicans hate your very existence but would still love your vote!
posted by Bobby on
“What is so terrible about observing that Cindy McCain is incredibly wealthy and a drug addict (albeit a recovering one)?”
—So what? Obama experimented with crack and cocaine, Bill Clinton smoked pot, Bush is rumored to have tried cocaine and is a recovering alcoholic…
We’re not electing saints here.
Besides, if McCain really believes in states rights, then it doesn’t matter what he thinks of gay adoption.
posted by Rob on
Besides, if McCain really believes in states rights, then it doesn’t matter what he thinks of gay adoption.
Sure it does, concerning the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, and the US territories. If he’s going to veto the repeal of DADT, the UAFA, and DOMA, then out of principle, there’s no reason whatsoever for any gay conservative to support him.
posted by Richard on
I am not too interested in a vice/presidential candidate’s wife, ex-wife, or children. I tend to find such stories to be a tad bit silly and pointless.
Mcain is — gasp — trying to have his cake and eat it too. So is Obama. So are most politicians — except those that cannot win or are a bit looney.
The difference — thus far — between the two major candidates is that Obama is actually willing to support us on certain issues with actually policy suggestions.
Not to mention Supreme Court appoitnments…
McCain is willing to offer us ‘revised’ muddled and vague comments. I am not going to make an official endorsement as I am still undecided, but Mcain is not doing a swell job of earning my vote.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
tjr offers a perfectly gayLeft Democrat perspective with this gem of political prestidigitation “I’m just so amused at the conservative republicans in this forum who continue to defend their party’s divisive, homophobic tactics to use as red meat for the votes of right-wing extremists. McCain and the republicans hate your very existence but would still love your vote!”
Hmmm, I thought that pandering politician was the oft’ promised next “gay”President that the gayLeft offers up shamelessly to the gay center… namely BarryO.
Wasn’t he the presidential candidate who had a bigoted, racist homophobic spiritual mentor for 20+ years as a pastor… until BarryO tossed Rev Wright’s ungrateful butt under the ObamaBus as it rushed to the center of the road?
Wasn’t it BarryO who embraced, coddled and then made a campaign advisor out of another homophobic black minister (yeah, there seem to be a few in BarryO’s recent past) by highlighting Rev Meeks?
Ghee, two black homophobic bigots as key advisors –political and spiritual– to BarryO and YET the gayLeft here is telling us not to worry… it’s McCain’s position on gay adoption that is the threat du jour to the Republic?
tjr, you and DUMP need to get a room and then you can worship BarryO without asking the rest of gay voters to get on their knees… because time will prove that BarryO has enough homophobic, bigoted racist demons in his closet to last ’til November.
Gay voters who aren’t locked down on the Masta’s Plantation know that BarryO will toss us under the ObamaBus as quickly as he has Rev Wright, Rev Meeks, HRClinton, the MoveOn-AntiWar-RadicalLeft people. It isn’t about Hope or Change or pretty words with mindless sentiments… it’s about BarryO’s lack of character, seasoning, experience or temperment for the Presidency… by a narrow margin, America tried another slick, pandering, empty suit in BillClinton and it didn’t work. It won’t with BarryO, either.
The only question is whether BarryO will drive the bus over gay issues repeatedly or will he be content to do a single pass (ala gay marriage) and let gays run for cover in the ditches?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
avee notes “How aptly named “Dump” is” after DUMP climbs into the gutter with another legendary gayLeftie Chas Wilson and vomits a purulent opinion for all to see the steaming bile reeking in the public square.
LeBain, avee has it exactly correct.
posted by DUMP on
Gee, it looks like someone woke up on the cranky side of the bed. You call Reverend Wright a homophobe once again Matt…why do you feel the need to lie? It is very wrong to lie Matt, but you seem to be the type of person who doesn’t really care about the truth or being a good person. I’m sorry that you have been exposed as a liar and a sociopath. Maybe you should go back to your big expensive house and play dress-up with your dollies?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, not at all… you just can’t accept that your candidate, BarryO, has embraced and then run-over two black ministers who have a history, in part, of being racist, bigoted homphobic church leaders.
No lies in that simple, apparent truth. GayWired editors, who are all gay and liberal, said it themselves when they declared in headlines that Rew Wright was addressing his anti-gay remarks of late… but that doesn’t matter to the gayDemocrats like you who are charged with delivering the GayVote to the Masta?
Despite all the references that have been provided to you, you continue to plug your ears, cover your eyes and in a bleating, pleading voice “Say it aint so, BarryO; say it ain’t so”.
Try as you might… it doesn’t work. Nor does your sleazy attempt ala the scumbag editors over at VanityFair in trying to portray Cindy McCain as a drug addict.
Low blow from a group of low lifes… and you WANT to be in that kind of company? It’s a shame Obama is to blame for unleashing gutter politics of personal destruction like the Clintons practiced to a fine art.
posted by DUMP on
Still waiting for your proof of Wright’s anti-gay statements. Why is it so hard for you to provide citations for your mindless statements. You are lying, Matt. Just admit that you have no proof and move on.
PS
Cindy McCain is a drug addict. She admits as much herself, she doesn’t need a bottom-feeder like yourself to defend her.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
DUMP, in three separate threads now you’ve been given your proof just like when I initially stated the widely-held view that BarryO was tossing homophobes under the bus for political expediency.
You just don’t like the truth.
As for Cindy McCain, I repeat: “Try as you might… it doesn’t work. Nor does your sleazy attempt ala the scumbag editors over at VanityFair in trying to portray Cindy McCain as a drug addict.
Low blow from a group of low lifes… and you WANT to be in that kind of company? It’s a shame Obama is to blame for unleashing gutter politics of personal destruction like the Clintons practiced to a fine art.”
Low blows from a low life it is… have fun with your new friends, DUMP.
posted by Pat on
Cindy McCain is a drug addict. She admits as much herself, she doesn’t need a bottom-feeder like yourself to defend her.
DUMP, why characterize Ms. McCain a drug addict. If she had a drug problem in the past and beat it, good for her.
DUMP, in three separate threads now you’ve been given your proof just like when I initially stated the widely-held view that BarryO was tossing homophobes under the bus for political expediency.
MichiganMatt, I’ve watched this back and forth with you and DUMP regarding Wright. You said you have proof that Wright made anti-gay statements. Why not provide the citation and cut and paste the actual quote that was said by Wright (not a headline or what someone else’s opinion of Wright). If not, you are providing credence to DUMP’s claim that you don’t have any such citation of Wright.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, that’s already been done… DUMP/CharlesWilson/WetWilly has been given the date of the sermon from Rev Wright and he says he’s looked at it and it isn’t there.
It is, he’s wrong. Is there a transcript of Wright’s homophobic comments from that sermon? No. But that’s no surprise because a noted, liberal, leftwinged news service, GayWired, called Wright’s comments anti-gay but that’s not good enough for DUMP/CharlesWilson…
And remember the context in which this issue was raised? gayLeft BarryO apologists here were demanding all gays come to Rev Wright’s defense because he was gay-friendly -all one need do is look at his efforts in creating an HIV/AIDS ministry… but when that was done, it turns out the ministry was directed toward black female prostitutes, black drug addicts, black men engaged with those two groups… not exactly the stellar, pro-gay record the spinMasters of the gayLeft wanted us to accept and worship in tune.
The claim of Wright’s anti-gay, homophobic record rests in his sermonizing… plus, how can any gay think Wright’s portrayal of AIDS as a weapon used by Washington against blacks be anything but anti-gay, uninformed and dangerously misleading?
Hillary called him out on it. Gay news services called him out on it. BarryO even tossed Rev Wright under the ObamaBus after the related issues percolated for a while…
Yeah, nothing anti-gay in all that hate from Rev Wright or Rev Meeks.
I still wonder why gayLefties and BarryO supporters want to excuse BarryO’s conduct in embracing such bigoted, hatefilled racist homophobes for so long?
They have to. The gayLeft has to deliver the gayVote to the Democrat Masta… otherwise they won’t sit at the table of power with Democrat leaders from labor, global warming scam, environmental radicals, corrupt inner cities, anti-WorldBank types and our new European Masters.
posted by Pat on
Okay, MichiganMatt. So you are saying that there isn’t anything written (transcript, on the Internet) etc., that explicitly quotes an anti-gay statement by Wright.
All you have is a news service and two politicians that say that Wright is homophobic. I can’t put my full faith and trust in that. In fact, your characterizing Obama’s dissing of Wright as throwing him under the bus seems to support that you don’t have full faith and trust about Obama would say about Wright.
I’m not doubting that Wright has said anti-gay statements. I’ve seen news clips spewing racist hate, so it wouldn’t surprise me if he is also anti-gay. And I saw the thing about AIDS lie that he spewed. I’ve heard others spew that lie, and it was racist, uninformed, and dangerously misleading, but not anti-gay.
Anyway, I’m not defending Wright here, since he appears to be unsavory enough whether or not he actually said anti-gay statements. I just figured there would be some record of an anti-gay statement if he did make anti-gay statements.