Every time I think I have reached the limit of my disappointment in John McCain, he manages to push the envelope. With this morning’s appearance on Meet the Press, he has achieved a level of disingenuousness I didn’t think was humanly possible.
David Gregory naturally asked McCain about DADT repeal. McCain first takes a side swipe at the fact that the results of the military survey were prematurely leaked, as if that somehow affected what they show. Perhaps what was leaked is not, in fact, accurate. If that’s true, a lot of folks will be red-faced, and should be. But if the results are as advertised, the fact that they came out early, and without authorization, doesn’t change the answers. The primary danger of leaking the results is to make it a bit harder for politicians, and the politically inclined military brass to spin the answers. That’s not a dangerous matter of military strategy, it’s an unfortunate problem of political inconvenience.
But McCain’s main missing of the point is that the leaked study is flawed because it examines how to implement repeal of DADT, not what its effects on military readiness and morale would be. Now certainly the President was clear that he was interested in a study that would help implement repeal, rather than decide whether to repeal or not. But the survey asks every question – and then some – that anyone in authority would want to have answered if they needed a baseline assessment for dealing with the presence of openly homosexual troops in a military that, like the country at large, is overwhelmingly heterosexual. The answers reveal how many are ready to know which of their comrades are homosexual (instead of going to all the trouble of guessing), and who is going to drag their feet, be a problem, or need special attention. A bigger number of gay opponents would suggest a bigger problem. And I can’t imagine a survey that would be better designed to serve that purpose; in fact, I believe it seemed almost designed to elicit anti-gay responses.
So the obvious came as a surprise to me, that our predominately young military is not unlike the general population in its positive-to-neutral sentiments about homosexuality. McCain, along with some other top military leaders, seems to be hoping that there would be more anti-gay feeling among the troops, and is disappointed. The 70% of the military who either support lesbians and gay men or find nothing worrisome, is almost exactly the same level of support that DADT repeal shows in surveys of the rest of the country.
Which shifts the focus to the 30% in both the general and military populations who continue to oppose homosexuality and homosexuals. Since they are not a majority – not even close — the question is whether (and how) to deal with them. Up until now, as a large majority, they’ve had their way with a policy that makes homosexuals, not them, the problem. Now that’s turning around, and I’m sure it’s hard for them. Fortunately, they have friends in high places.
McCain is providing his small band of resisters with aid and comfort. Those of us who used to believe he was a moderate, rational Republican have seen him becoming nearly maddened by DADT repeal, to the point of declaring that he would stand alone to filibuster against it. Watch his cold, cheerless laugh on Meet the Press.
Closer to home, the horrifying evidence of fairness among the troops has caused him to pull in the reins on his wife, who doesn’t strike many people as a woman who would take naturally to that. Cindy McCain’s participation in the NOH8 campaign has been a small political miracle of open tolerance in a world of political spouses who find it more amenable to toe the party line — at least until it’s safe, as with Laura Bush, whose gentle common sense on gay rights was never allowed to surface during her husband’s presidency.
John McCain cannot make his thirty percent into fifty, but the magic of politics is that they might be just enough to continue to hold back an inevitable change a bit longer. That is why his wife’s silence is valuable. She has been helping gain supporters for equality, while her husband is dedicating himself to not losing more of his misguided followers. He’s only got one more victory in front of him, while all of hers are in the future.
18 Comments for “McCain’s Last Stand”
posted by BobN on
With this morning’s appearance on Meet the Press, he has achieved a level of disingenuousness I didn’t think was humanly possible.
You’re in for some difficult months ahead. McCain has just begun.
posted by Bucky on
You, and almost everyone else, refers to McCain as a “military leader.”
WTF?
I’ve never understood this bizarre DC meme. Here is a man who by all accounts only graduated from the academy because of family connections. He then proceeded to crash no fewer than 4 multimillion dollar planes (and almost lost a fifth). It was ruled that he wasn’t responsible for a couple of the destructions, but was for the others. In part, due to his “daredevil clowning.” Any pilot not so well connected politically would have been out after the first incidence of “daredevil clowning” that led to a crash.
And then let’s not forget that his sole claim to military expertise fame is that he was a POW in Vietnam. And the reason that he was a POW? He got shot down because he disobeyed direct orders and was flying in an area he wasn’t supposed to be and doing more of that daredevil clowning.
And this is the man we consider a military expert?
That explains so damn much about the current state of our military affairs.
posted by ludovico on
Hmmm … I remember Barry Goldwater saying something to the effect, re gays in the military, “I don’t care if they’re gay or straight. I just hope they can shoot straight!” Gee, if repealing DADT was good enough for “Mr. Conservative,” then it oughta be good enough for Mr. McCain! Oops! I forgot. He’s a “maverick!”
posted by Jorge on
…And then let’s not forget that his sole claim to military expertise fame is that he was a POW in Vietnam.
That is callous and extremely uncalled for, not just toward McCain, but toward the entire armed services. It is also false. John McCain was the primary proponent of the Iraq troop surge, which was adopted by President Bush, and worked.
More to the point, John McCain has “been there”. Despite your attempt to minimize his experience and sacrifice, including injury, torture, and five years as a prisoner of war, John McCain’s example and experience marks him as one who understands and can relate to the experiences of the people whose lives he, as a government official exercising civilian control over the armed forces, literally holds in his hands.
posted by More on McCain’s cynical disingenuousness… « matthewmeandering on
[…] at Independent Gay Form, the ever cogent David Link takes apart McCain’s appearance on Meet the Press yesterday. […]
posted by Priya Lynn on
Jorge, you don’t know what literally means. John Mccain in no way, shape, or form holds anyone’s life “literally” in his hands.
posted by mike/ on
over the last few years Sen. McCain has been showing a lot of the symptoms of dementia; this is an example of advanced dementia…
posted by Doug on
John McCain is a bitter little man and is pissed off that he lost the election to Obama. He has lost his mantle as ‘war hero’ and will now be remembered as the man who chose an unqualified Sara Palin as his running mate and tried to stop the repeal of DADT.
posted by Jorge on
Jorge, you don’t know what literally means. John Mccain in no way, shape, or form holds anyone’s life “literally” in his hands.
You are petty.
You’re also wrong. Prove it.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
For years, Americans have known that the farLeft, Democrats, and lap dog groupies of the farLeft and Democrats –like the liberal leadership of the gay “rights” movement– are anti-military, anti-patriotism, anti-strength Let’s Blame America Firsters. This piece and the comments section here and at HuffPo are no exceptions to the prevailing reality. I thought IGF was supposed to have balance?
It’s not any surprise that John McCain is pilloried here without the benefit of fair, balanced impartial review of the facts –instead of prissie, purse-swinging fits of rage from limp-wristed sissies that don’t know the value of noble service, the meaning of honor and courage or will even tolerate the idea that the military isn’t an enemy of society but the strongest repository of character in a society.
The incoming GOP majority owes nothing to the gayLeft movement’s agitation for a repeal of DADT. If people here want to look for fault and blame, look to Queen NancyP, Harry gReid and the Big O for failing their political constituency.
And for the record, younger voters appear more inclined to support broader tolerance of gays in the military because, for the most part, they are naive and have yet to mature into thinking adults who can exercise wise judgment… it’s why most of them voted for Obama… stupid and regretful as that now seems to many.
And it’s why the Democrats’ best strategy is to hope they can once again con naive, trusting, immature voters to pull the lever for them in 2012… so let’s move beyond proving that “the times they are a’changing” on growing public sentiment for gays in the military, gays as parents, gays in Hollywood and gays as President just because the younger, immature and naive youth in society think it’s right.
posted by BobN on
younger voters appear more inclined to support broader tolerance of gays in the military because, for the most part, they are naive and have yet to mature into thinking adults who can exercise wise judgment
So, it appears Michigan Matt OPPOSES gays serving openly in the military. Or maybe he supports them but not for naive and immature reasons like everyone else.
Inquiring minds would like some clarification.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
BobN> “inquiring minds would like some clarification”
You must be asking for someone else, eh?
posted by BobN on
Too embarrassed to answer, eh?
I thought so.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Not at all, BobN… I just needed clarification because no one here thinks you’ve got “a mind” or that it is remotely “inquiring”. You HAD TO BE asking for someone else, then, no?
posted by BobN on
Still too ashamed to fess up, eh?
posted by Jorge on
Not at all, BobN… I just needed clarification because no one here thinks you’ve got “a mind” or that it is remotely “inquiring”.
Talk about a pot living in a glass house with a wooden beam in his eye throwing stones at a kettle because it has a splinter in his eye.
posted by Jorge on
It’s not any surprise that John McCain is pilloried here without the benefit of fair, balanced impartial review of the facts
I could not disagree with you more. The blog here regularly presents John McCain’s current actions in the context of his past political history and remarks, and you’ve got a fair number of apologists who will defend John McCain using a competing context. I’ll agree with the criticism that it’s not impartial because I think almost everyone judges him on how gay friendly he is and takes it personally–uhhhh, so what?
However, should you wish to present a fair, balanced, impartial review of the facts, I will be listening.
posted by Carl on
Didn’t McCain say that if the military leaders supported repeal, he would too? I know some still don’t, but Gates and Mullen do.
I don’t think it’s about wisdom of age, because a number of Republican senators, some older than McCain, seem inclined to support it, like Sen. Lugar.