Hotline's Todd oblivious to McCain's inconsistencies on gay and lesbian rights
SUMMARY: Ignoring conflicting statements by John McCain on gay and lesbian
issues, The Hotline's Chuck
Todd asserted that on the issue of same-sex marriage, McCain is "being true to what he is and what he thought
conservatism was." Todd also likened McCain to Barry Goldwater,
suggesting they held similar views on gay rights; in fact, while McCain
supported an Arizona effort to ban legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples and supports the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the
military, Goldwater became a strong supporter of gay rights and opposed the ban
on gays in the military.
On the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Chuck Todd, editor-in-chief of National Journal's The Hotline, ignored Sen. John McCain's inconsistencies on gay and lesbian rights issues and stated that in his support for private commitment ceremonies combined with his opposition to same-sex marriage, McCain is "being true to what he is and what he thought conservatism was." In fact, McCain (R-AZ) has taken a number of conflicting positions on gay rights issues, as Media Matters for America has noted. For instance, while claiming to be "opposed to discrimination against anybody under any circumstances," he continues to voice support for the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military and voted against a bill prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. On the issue of same-sex marriage and civil unions, on the November 19, 2006, edition of ABC News' This Week, McCain denied both that he was "for" civil unions and that he was "against" them.
Further, Todd asserted that "McCain is no different than [former Sen.] Barry Goldwater [R-AZ]," suggesting they were both libertarians and suggesting they held similar views on gay rights. As purported evidence of McCain's libertarianism, Todd noted that McCain represents a state that was "the only state in the union to actually reject a gay marriage ban," referring to Arizona Proposition 107, which Arizona voters rejected in a November 7, 2006, election. But McCain supported Proposition 107, even though it would have gone further than simply denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. Moreover, Goldwater advocated lifting the ban on gays and lesbians in the military and banning job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, while McCain has recently expressed support for the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and voted against the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996.
While discussing McCain's presidential ambitions, Vanity Fair national editor and political correspondent Todd Purdum noted that during an October 18, 2006, Hardball appearance, McCain first said he had "no problem" with a "gay marriage ... ceremony," then said he opposed making gay marriage legal:
MATTHEWS: Should there be -- should gay marriage be allowed?
McCAIN: I think -- I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don't have any problem with that. But I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.
[...]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My name is Don McDowell (ph), I'm the chairman of the Iowa State College Republicans, and since this is Iowa and Iowa State University and the next Congress will be taking up the farm bill, what sort of provisions do you see in terms of renewable energy, as well as subsidies in the next farm bill?
McCAIN: Well Don, thank you for your magnificent work. You're a great American, being chairman of the College Republicans.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.
McCAIN: I -- on the issue of the farm bill, we're going to re-authorize it. I am against some subsidies. Don't think ethanol needs a subsidy. I think we ought to make sure that the people who need subsidies, the most, which are the small farmers, not the big agro-businesses, not the big huge farms that get millions of dollars. So I think we ought to look at an area of need, as opposed to size and I think that some of that has to be looked at very carefully.
Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.
After viewing the clip, Purdum asserted that McCain has a "libertarian, live-and-let-live, 'You stay out of my life, I'll stay out of your life' approach." Todd agreed and suggested that McCain's positions on gay rights showed that McCain is "being true to what he is and what he thought conservatism was."
But McCain has not been "true" or consistent on gay and lesbian issues. As Media Matters has noted, on the November 19, 2006, edition of ABC News' This Week, McCain denied both that he was "for" civil unions and that he was "against" them. Host George Stephanopoulos specifically asked McCain: "Are you against civil unions for gay couples?" to which McCain responded: "No, I am not." Seconds later, however, Stephanopoulos asked: "So you're for civil unions?" to which McCain responded: "No."
Further, to the extent that Arizona's rejection of a constitutional amendment banning legal recognition of gay unions is indicative of the state's libertarianism, despite Todd's suggestion, the state's rejection of the amendment is not indicative of McCain's views on the issue. As Media Matters noted, The Arizona Republic reported on August 26, 2005, that McCain said "he supports an initiative that would change Arizona's Constitution to ban gay marriages and deny government benefits to unmarried couples." The proposition would have defined a marriage as being between a man and woman, and denied "legal status for unmarried persons ... that is similar to that of marriage."
Todd also asserted that "McCain is no different than Barry Goldwater" in his "conservative Republicanism," suggesting the two held similar views regarding gay rights. In fact, in the 1990s, Goldwater expressed strong support for gay and lesbian rights on at least two issues -- the military and employment. In a June 10, 1993, Washington Post opinion column, Goldwater called the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military "un-American," writing "there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays" and criticized "a compromise policy like 'Don't ask, don't tell'" because "[t]hat compromise doesn't deal with the issue -- it tries to hide it." In a 1993 letter to the Post, Goldwater famously stated: "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight." McCain, in contrast, has steadfastly supported the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, recently stating during his November 19, 2006, This Week appearance that "the don't ask, don't tell policy has been very effective. We've got the best military we've ever had and are well into all-volunteer force, so I think the policy is working."
Goldwater also advocated for a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the workplace. As The Washington Post noted, in 1994, Goldwater "signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals." In explaining his decision, Goldwater stated: "The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay. ... You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it." For his part, McCain voted against the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1996, which failed by only one vote, and defended his decision on the February 27, 2000, edition of This Week. McCain, while claiming to be "opposed to discrimination against anybody under any circumstances," stated: "I don't believe that they [homosexuals] belong in a special category. ... That's why I voted the way that I did. I think that enforcement of existing law could work rather than passing special laws for special categories of people."
From the January 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. The night before they started the 110th Congress -- they open tomorrow. We're back with Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum and The Hotline's Chuck Todd.
Todd Purdum, as opposed to Chuck Todd -- I love it, it's like dominoes, the Todd part connects -- let me ask you about -- to give us the lead you wrote to your big Vanity Fair piece about McCain and his conundrum of trying to reconcile the right and the center.
PURDUM: Well, you were at Hardball at Iowa State University at Ames. And you asked him a question, given the Mark Foley scandal, about the kind of prevalence of gay people in all walks of life and whether he thought there should be gay marriage. And he began to answer, apparently quite openly, that he thought if people wanted to have a marriage ceremony -- he was looking for a word, I sensed, like commitment ceremony or civil union; he couldn't quite find it. But he basically said, "If people want to go off and have something they call a marriage, that's OK, but I believe in the sanctity of the union between a man and a woman." At the next commercial break, his adviser John Weaver went up and talked to him -- you guys were making a move down onto the floor of the auditorium --
MATTHEWS: Right.
PURDUM: -- and in his first answer after the break, which was about agriculture subsidies, he suddenly interrupted himself and said, "Can I just say one other thing about gay marriage? I don't think it should be legal." And the whole audience booed. These were kids, you know, from --
MATTHEWS: OK.
PURDUM: -- Iowa.
MATTHEWS: Todd, let's -- since you're advertising our show, we can only show the tapes. Let's show them right now. This is John McCain unedited, and then John McCain after he's been advised how to say it by his top staffer.
[begin video clip]
MATTHEWS: Should there be -- should gay marriage be allowed?
McCAIN: I think -- I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there's a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don't have any problem with that. But I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.
[end video clip]
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that if people want to have private ceremonies, that's fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.
CROWD: [booing]
[end video clip]
MATTHEWS: Well, you heard it there. Todd, that was interesting. What does that tell you as a journalist about the problem he faces in winning the Republican nomination and going on to win the general?
PURDUM: Well, it's hard, because what happened next was he came back on the stage and said to John Weaver, standing in the wings, in a very kind of disappointed tone, "Did I fix it? Did I fix it?" And the problem for Senator McCain is he can't quite fix it. He can't quite square the circle of appealing to the most conservative elements of the party that have a disproportionate voice in the nominating process and saying what he really thinks because the truth is, what he really thinks on a lot of these issues is a kind of libertarian, live-and-let-live, "You stay out of my life, I'll stay out of your life" approach. And that's like the person he is. It's very in keeping with his, you know, sort of rebellious, "Don't get in my way, I won't get in your way" type of person.
MATTHEWS: And you know what, Chuck? It's also the issue of gay marriage. It's not simply a question of, "Can two people pair off if they happen to be the same sex because they're attracted to each other and love each other and want to spend their life together?" It's, "Should society recognize those relationships as marriages?" So they're both relevant questions. Depending on your position, you will say, "One's more important than the other." Some people who are for gay marriage will say, "It's more important about the love relationship than whether society likes it or not." Others will say, "Wait a minute. Society is what recognizes marriages. That's why they are marriages."
TODD: Well, it's interesting that he just pointed out -- he called -- he called -- Todd [Purdum] called McCain a Western Republican. What's interesting is, actually, McCain is no different than Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were when they brought what -- defined what conservative Republicanism was in the '60s and '70s. What's interesting is, it is still what they defined out West. You know, Arizona is the only state in the union to actually reject a gay marriage ban. That's John McCain's home state. McCain's only being true to what he is and what he thought conservatism was.
It certainly appears that McCain is in a pickle here. Obviously he thinks that in order to win a conservative Southern state in the 2008 primaries, he has to be fervently against any legal recognition for gay couples.
Poor John, what is a "principled" candidate to do?
If he had any, and stopped playing every side all the time, he would have the cajones to come out and advocate that the term marriage should be taken out of our government altogether. It should strictly be a religious term and a ceremony performed by churches as they see fit.
The states should sanction and legalize civil unions, and call them as such, between two consenting legal adults with all the same rights whether it be one man/one woman or two men or two women.
And then all this silliness and political gamesmanship may eventually be over regarding this issue, if just one politician had the guts.
If the gay rights advocates from the left had any clue as well, they would stop all this "marriage" nonsense too. Because they will never "win" in this present form. Their main focus should be equal protection and equal rights under the law - so what if the state won't call it marriage. They should be pushing for civil unions with identical rights that marriage affords straight couples and that goal, an admirable one, in my opinion, may be achievable.
Get out of the "marriage" business and into the legal and civil rights equality arena - most decent and clear thinking Americans are with gay people on this.
...Gov't should get out of the religion biz entirely, once and for all.
...business to restrict the rights of certain Americans, my usual good humor is negated by the American orgy of unAmerican amending. Likewise, on MM, whereas I'm usually happy to joust and jibe with the those on the Right, homobigotry has stripped all the mirth from me.
Today's sexuality Jim Crow laws leave me muttering, "Bigot. Bigot. Bigot."
Jon Stewart once challenged William Bennett on The Daily Show. I'll have to paraphrase:
Stewart: "Why side with the bigots? The bigots never win. Never. In the end, justice and equality always win."
And Bennett agreed, that despite all the amending, that one day, equality will win.
I do like Tommy's suggestion. It preserves the precious word, marriage, and more importantly, protects equality.
While I appreciate the tone of your qualifier, "most decent and clear thinking Americans are with gay people on this," and believe that may be true, most voting Americans in most of the states, cities, and counties addressing the issue of equal protection in the form of civil unions are against gay people on this.
italicoff?
In your prediction. I think we will see gay marriage. I also think in 40 years this whole issue will be a joke and the rightwing opposition will be the punchline. I think eventually it will be seen the way miscegenation laws are seen now, people will wonder what the big deal was and what reasonable person could have been freaking out about it.
I agree one hundred percent. I really do not understand why more conservatives do not support this. I mean a primary belief of conservatives is "keep the government out of our LIVES." Barry Goldwater is a personal hero of mine and probably one of the few "TRUE CONSERVATIVES" in our government. To equate Flip floppin' McCain with a great man like Goldwater is a insult. McCain is pandering to his far right base and he knows it. This issue is one of many where he suddenly has gone FAR right.
...Lovefest, I'll have to take a number and wait my turn.
Sigh.
At least, it's worth the wait.
Marriage, a religious institution?
I have difficulty trying to understand why allowing gays to use the term “marriage” rather than “unions” to be such a sticking point. I have heard it often said by people that are opposed to gay marriage; say that marriage is a religious institution. Or using the term marriage will somehow make a mockery of traditional marriages. If marriage were indeed a religious institution, why then are heterosexual couples afforded such a wide variety of ways of getting married that have no religious affiliation whatsoever? Heterosexual atheists are allowed to marry and they certainly don’t want any religious overtones to their marriages. Straight couples can get married by the justice of the piece; they can get married by a ship captain on a cruise ship. They can be married underwater or on a mountaintop, it seems to me it just doesn’t matter and that there are no restrictions. The list goes on and on therefore, making the argument of about marriage being a religious institution absurd.
I have also heard many opponents of gay marriage say that same sex marriage will make a mockery of traditional marriages, meaning I suppose between a man and a woman. I think that looking closely at all of the statistics about the success of traditional marriages; they seem to be doing a damn good job of their own, making a mockery of the institution of marriage. Then when one looks at the statistics of how many straight lay men and woman who have extramarital affairs doesn’t look so good either not to mention many couples of the clergy who seem also not to have the greatest track record. So then, what do the opponents of gay marriage really mean by saying that same sex marriages would make a mockery of traditional marriage? One doesn’t have to be a sociologist or have a degree in statistics to understand that allowing gay marriages to exist would hurt no one. In fact gay marriage would likely cause gays to have longer lasting relationships. There has been a common complaint generally spouted out by the straight population, that gay relationships don’t seem last very long. Statistics do however bear out one thing in regards to marriage verses just living together as a couple, and that is that couples that are married verses couples just living together, do last longer if they are married. Perhaps this could be the answer in motivating gay couples to work harder at their relationships if they were legally bound by a legitimate contract, rather than just being able to just walk away as so often happens when they hit some rough waters as all relationships do at some point whether gay or straight. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver Saugatuck, Mi 49408 269 561 6789 www.aaronjasonsilver.com
I think Tommy's point about 'marriage' being linked to religion (catholocism primarily) is so engrained that people get bent out of shape when the notion of 'gays' marrying is introduced... all hell breaks loose.
Tommy's suggestion to level the playing field and call them all unions... then< allowing the couple to have an unofficial religious ceremony in addition to, if they so desire... makes sense to me. However, the folks who desire to see more religion infused into gov't, I fear, would not care for that too much. Again, this notion of 'diverting' the general populace away from core Christian values or whatever...
People that are opposed to gay "marriage" use the mockery argument and how it will redefine the entire institution for their own purposes. It is of course a strawman argument, in my opinion. It is divorce and the cavalier way people enter into "marriage" that is threatening the institution - not two men who commit to each other exclusively.
This is just further evidence why the wrong battle is being waged by those who support this issue. Get marriage out it, concentrate and use civil union as the benchmark and the goal.
Society is best served when people enter into committed relationships with one another, it strengthens communties and families and builds character and integrity.
Allowing marriage(civil-unions) between two consenting adults will HELP strengthen families, not break them. How can a family function if one of the parents is married to someone of whom's gender they are not even attracted too! It will be very difficult to break down the wall of discrimination towards homosexuals, but it will happen. Just as it did with african americans in the 60's all this banning gay marriage legislation will be remembered as being just as dumb as Jim Crow Laws...
the superb VanityFair interview/article by a writer travelling with McCain showing what a zori (what the Japanese called flip flops when I was there in ‘55) McCain really is. This is just more whipped cream icing melting down where someone left the cake out in the rain. Shades of McCain Park. [link to www.vanityfair.com] politics/ features/ 2007/ 02/ mccain200702
Also, since MMFA hasn't addressed it yet, see the clip of a gross example in today's think progress:
Today on MSNBC, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed that he knew the Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough,” and that he was “sorry” for those who voted for the war believing it would be “some kind of an easy task.” “Maybe they didn’t know what they were voting for,” McCain said. vs “Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]
“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]
“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]
[link to thinkprogress.org]
sit up...good doggie.
Now roll over...kiss Jerry Falwell's feet. Gooood doggie!
Here John..sit up. Beg. Here's a cookie. goood doggie.
Now lick W's hand. Such a gooood boy!
Now bark that you don't like gay marriage. GOOOOD boy!
as these pols travel the country, they need one of those "applause-o-meters" from the game shows or talent contests.
Before starting their speech, they can just go for a big " Hello, Goofusville ! Who hates (Gay marriage/unions/Mexicans/Abortion/etc.)?"
And depending on the response, go with one of several versions of the speech to suit the crowd.
I wanna go live where a pol would pose, "Who loves the Constitution and equality and all their neighbors?" and the crowd would go crazy. I suppose such a place is over the rainbow, eh?
gays and lesbians should serve in the armed forces. When Socrates fought in the Athenian army men fought back to back in pairs. Someone needed to protect your back. Gay lovers fought back to back. There were claims that they were more effective than straights. I suspect that was true. What a strange prudery we live in.