RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/01/2008

Wash Blade, Dry Responses

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 2-183Okay, okay. We've been putting it off all day. But for those who have yet to see it, here it is -- the Washington Blade's Q&A with Sen. John McCain:

McCain’s gay Q&A [Wash Blade]

Now don't get us wrong -- we haven't refrained from giving you the link because we dislike Wash Blade. No, no -- we are totally BFFs with the print pub. Our problem with the Q & A is that it's just more of the same from this anything-but-with-us candidate. We know where he stands on the important LGBT issues, and so his "I hope gay and lesbian Americans will give full consideration to supporting me" lines just annoy us at this point. Because of course he wants the LGBT vote; but in our humble opinion, he has little to nothing over the past few years to deserve it. And this Q & A changes nothing.

**SEE ALSO: Human Rights Campaign Responds to John McCain Q&A in Washington Blade [HRC]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I disagree completely, Jeremy. Yeah I know that doesn't surprise you but put aside our political differences for a moment and think of the significance of this interview. A Republican candidate, especially one of McCain's age, being interviewed by a gay newspaper?!? A Republican candidate who may not support the measures for gay rights we do, but personally seems to be quite tolerant of gays??? Extraordinary. I realize that you may wish to toss this back in as a guppy for a mulititude of reasons, gay rights being only partly why, but this is a Big Step forward for the GOP. God willing the stranglehold the Religious Right has over the GOP will be broken someday soon and efforts like these give me hope that that day is coming faster than I thought. How nice it would be to bicker about substantive policy differences and not have this as a concern anymore. One thing is for sure, the RR is losing big time among the youth of all political persuasions when it comes to gays. This is why IMO you are hearing The Peter and other such folks become increasingly unhinged as they see their influence steadily diminishing.

Posted by: John | Oct 1, 2008 6:50:02 PM

So the fact that he deemed the Blade worthy is your primary reason for why this is so "big"? And not even for an interview, but merely a questionnaire?

Since the intellectual bar for this ticket currently seems to be set at a ridiculously low level, I can see why merely getting out a set of cognitive responses might be considered a plus. But sorry, I still want to substance.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 1, 2008 6:58:45 PM

McCain consented to a written interview, because he had someone on his staff fill it out for him. It is like a take-home test that you slip a hundred to the tutor to finish for you - and that doesn't impress me even a little bit. And, the answers to those questions are from mildly to significantly different than McCain's public stance on those issues - and that infuriates me. He want's our votes and is willing to let a staffer lie to us to get them.

And, as far as eliminating the stranglehold of the radical religious right from that party, the best way to ensure that happens is for us to NOT vote for them. When they start PUBLICLY DENOUNCING the Dobsons and keep the loons like Palin off their tickets then I might give them a second listen.

Of course then, the fact that they want to further erode government oversight and deregulate all industries (which has had chilling effects most recently on the financial sector) is the biggest reason they would never get a vote from me.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 1, 2008 9:03:20 PM

This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to court our vote without pissing of the religious Reich. LGBT people of America, prove that we're smarter then that. Vote Obama.

Posted by: Rainbow Phoenix | Oct 2, 2008 12:22:13 AM

So that's the litmus test for this lovely shitsalad of a political party? Whereas most of the developed world has come to accept the needs of gay and lesbian folk on some level, the GOP should be showered with gifts over the act of acknowledging what the rest of the world already knew: that gay people, do in fact, exist. And John McCain even talks to a few! Tre progressive!!

Posted by: Chris | Oct 2, 2008 2:16:23 AM

Jeremy: Somewhat. I understand that you agree with HRC and reject this but regardless that doesn't change the fact that this is significant. McCain asked for our votes in a gay newspaper, that is obviously not enough for you (nor I as a matter of fact), but it is a good start for a Republican presidential candidate.

Dick: How quickly you have forgotten the primaries when the Huckster seriously threatened to split the GOP. The loathing for him and the social cons he represented was intense from many of the other 70% of the party. McCain is certainly not perfect on this and other matters, but he remains a better pick overall than Obama IMO. Take comfort in this though: if Obama wins next month, the GOP civil war begins. If an Obama win is followed by concrete action by the Dems in Congress, instead of more back-stabbing like we saw in the 90s, this will remove many of the issues that give the RR their power. The best example is repealing DADT. Once it is gone the RR will never get it reinstated. They know this too which is why folks like Elain Donnelly are in panic mode at the moment. They see that this issue cuts across political lines very deeply.

Posted by: John | Oct 2, 2008 3:34:15 PM

Chris: Not at all. I recognize this as a good step forward for the GOP, not something to throw a party over. Frankly I'm surprised this much was done considering the influence of the RR. I also see this as a sign of their power beginning to wane.

Posted by: John | Oct 2, 2008 3:36:12 PM

"Jeremy: Somewhat. I understand that you agree with HRC and reject this but regardless that doesn't change the fact that this is significant."

First off, please don't make any claims about my agreement with HRC. I am my own person who has never stood lock-step with anyone.

But most importantly, John: You are arguing a point that I didn't make. You said in your initial comment that you disagree with my assessment of the interview, but then you proceeded in both comments to me to defend it on the basis of it being significant to Republican party. That is a completely different point. I'm not speaking on what this means to your party. I'm speaking to what McCain says in the Q&A, which I find insignificant, short-sighted, and more of the same. And I find it offensive that he conveys platitudes about gays, their existences, and their votes, but makes no connections between his policies and the betterment of LGBT lives!

That's my point, John -- that his words are shallow. If you want to defend his record, then do that. But what you are trying to sell me on the notion that this is fantastic because he, a GOP candidate, deemed the Blade worthy of his time. Again -- the state of the Republican party's media outreach efforts is not the point to which I am speaking at this time.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2008 3:48:03 PM

Uh-huh. Okay. We obviously will not agree on anything about this so on to other matters. Check your email in a few minutes, I'm sending you something you might be interested in. Ciao.

Posted by: John | Oct 2, 2008 5:22:40 PM

It's not about "agreement," John. It is a verifiable fact that you are challenging my point (that McCain's words are in no way pro-gay) with another point entirely (that the interview is a step forward for the Republican party's media outreach). End of story.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2008 5:25:58 PM

Ah, I see where the problem is: I never said nor implied that McCain's words were "pro-gay" so no challenge was issued on that. What I did say was that this was an important step for the GOP. Now where we probably do disagree is that I do not consider McCain to be anti-gay, his own behavior shows him to be tolerant, but instead someone behind the times on gay rights. Given his age and party that's probably to be expected, but I do not believe he holds any animus towards gays. I do believe the RR does hold such feelings.

Enough about this. Check your email. Not sure you will find it useful, but perhaps. Take care.

Posted by: John | Oct 2, 2008 5:59:02 PM

"Ah, I see where the problem is: I never said nor implied that McCain's words were "pro-gay" so no challenge was issued on that. What I did say was that this was an important step for the GOP."

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding -- that's what I've been saying for the entire thread.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 2, 2008 6:04:09 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails