A Stitch in Haste

"Governor Bush swung far to the right and sought out the base support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Those aren’t the ideas that I think are good for the Republican Party."
--John McCain, 2000

"What we saw on [September 11th], as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. ... I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle ... I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"
--Jerry Falwell, 2001

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that Jerry Falwell is still an agent of intolerance?
SEN. McCAIN: No, I don’t.
--"Meet the Press," 2 April 2006

I have never, ever been a fan of Arizona Senator John McCain. I have never been fooled by his faux "maverick" persona and I have loathed him intensely ever since the legislative defilement of the First Amendment that bears his name.

Now, fortunately, anyone who has yet to see through his opportunistic song and dance has the perfect occasion to have their eyes opened: his humiliating performance this past Sunday on "Meet the Press." Tim Russert repeatedly called "Shenanigans!" on McCain, citing his various flip-flops, including the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War.

But McCain is rightfully being called to task mostly for his sell-out to the bigot brigades.

I am speaking at the, at the graduation of [Falwell's Liberty University]. I’m not embracing all of the tenets that are expressed at the new college [sic — probably New School University] in New York City, nor other liberal universities and institutions that I have spoke at. For example, I don't agree with the Ivy League colleges barring recruiters — military recruiters from their campuses, but I still speak there.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

There is a fundamental difference between "liberal universities and institutions" such as New School University or the Ivy League on the one hand, and Jerry Falwell's Liberty University — an institution whose raison d'etre is to provide an isolated and insular enclave for the inculcation of intolerance and the indoctrination of future bigots. There is no excuse, none whatsoever, for any politician who seeks to pose as a "big-tent" supporter of inclusiveness to give a commencement address at such an institution. To equate opposition to the Solomon Amendment with providing a safe haven for bigotry is to make a mockery of the marketplace of ideas and to lose all credibility as an "independent" politician.

It's quite simple really: McCain sees where the Republican Party is going — just as many of us have been seeing for a while, and is doing what politicians do, namely pandering to those who are most likely to elect him.

It's the distinguishing characteristic of all politicians, including McCain: principles are never, ever more important than winning.

---

Another McCain Moment:

[M]y position has always been that I will vote against a constitutional [marriage] amendment, which will come before the Senate on, on this issue, because I think the states should decide. That’s the essence of federalism. In my state of Arizona, we have a ballot initiative on this issue, which I am supporting. And so — but if the courts, if the, if through the court process, they say that that’s not constitutional, then I would support a constitutional amendment.

In other words, McCain opposes bigotry at the federal level, but only because bigotry is doing just fine at the state level, thank you very much. But if we need more bigotry down the road, then of course he'll support federalized bigotry too. Because, remember, he's a "maverick" Republican.

---

More thoughts from Ari Melber, Gay Opinion Blog, George Will.

"There is no honor or happiness in just being strong enough to be left alone."
--John McCain, Liberty University commencement address, 2006

Jamie Kirchick, the gay journalist who did almost as much as I to bring down Ron Paul's presidential campaign, now seeks to raise up John McCain instead, in a piece titled "Why John McCain Isn't So Bad" —

But while McCain has racked up an unimpressive voting record in Congress — he supports "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act and opposes adding sexual orientation to the federal hate-crimes bill and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — what distinguishes him from many of his Republican colleagues is that he has also taken some courageous stands.

I guess one gay's "bigoted" is another gay's "unimpressive." I'll be sure to update my gay thesaurus. (Speaking of thesauruses, I'll also save the word "courageous" for people other than politicians.)

McCain was one of the very few outspoken Republican opponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate, calling the proposed ban "un-Republican."

Kirchick then takes another three paragraphs before he concedes that McCain actively embraced the Arizona bigot amendment in 2006. So to McCain, being "Republican" merely means embracing anti-gay bigotry at the state level rather than at the federal level (and confirms, yet again, the axiom that all gay Republicans are, by definition, self-loathing).

Sure, McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006, but he didn't pander.

Utter nonsense. The mere act of speaking at Liberty University in the first place was itself, by definition, "pandering." Legitimizing an institution whose raison d'être is to bring about a War on Gays specifically, and fundamentalist theocracy in America generally, serves no function except to catalyze those processes.

To be sure, McCain will not win over single-issue gay voters. But if you're concerned about Obama's foreign policy naivete or his proclivity for raising taxes, give McCain a serious look.

So gays are allowed to be concerned about Obama's foreign policy naivete but not McCain's economic naivete? (Or, if you prefer, "gays are allowed to be concerned about Obama's foreign policy naivete but not McCain's lack of foreign policy naivete"? (Let's recall also that this purported "lack of naivete" is quite rebuttable.)

Or how about the precedent concern: that McCain is, by all indicia, just plain mentally unstable?

Back in 2004, some very silly people asserted, baselessly, that "a million gays voted for George W. Bush." There are two unarguable reasons why there will not be a million gays voting for John McCain: (1) his miserable record on gay rights, (2) his miserable record on everything else.

It's rare that I actually have an opportunity to say something nice about the Human Rights Campaign (cf., this post), so let me savor the moment:

As the general election kicks off, Senator John McCain will tout his reputation as a maverick, an independent, a moderate who will work with both parties to get things done. However, a look at Senator McCain's record paints a very different picture.

The bullet points: McCain

• cast a deciding vote against the federal Employment Non Discrimination Act.


• voted three times against expanding the federal hate crimes law to include sexual orientation.


• supports Don't Ask, Don't Tell and does not believe that gays should serve in the military.


• voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal rights and benefits in any state.


• campaigned for a ban on same-sex relationship recognition in his home state of Arizona — even appearing in a campaign television ad.

That last point is the most interesting, given that the Theocrat Right despises McCain for voting against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment. But neither gays nor libertarians should mistake this fleeting wisp of respect for federalism as a principled stance for gay rights. Not even close.

(I'll stop short of embracing HRC's indignation of McCain's vote to confirm Samuel Alito or his record on HIV issues. See the report for details.)

The report is "Senator John McCain: A Record of Opposing the Interests of GLBT Americans" (PDF - 7 pages) (Note: One would think that someone at HRC would have test-printed the file on a B&W printer — the colorful cover page doesn't show the title text on a laser printer copy. Issue advocacy at its most professional?)