« A Modest Proposal For Those Who Haven't Read Obama's Books | Main | Clinton/Obama '08 Is Official »

McCain's Log Cabin Surrogate: Schwarzenegger

11 Apr 2008 07:57 am

Though John McCain won't attend this weekend's "national conversation" convention of Log Cabin Republicans in San Diego, he has asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a gay rights supporter, to be his surrogate.

"We were scheduled to speak at the convention and were asked by McCain campaign to speak on their behalf since they can't attend, and we said no problem," a senior aide to Schwarzenegger said last night. "So Governor Schwarzenegger will talk about the future of the Republican Party and will also talk about McCain."

And, in a further sign that McCain does not consider gay Republicans to be an expendable part of the Republican coalition, he plans to meet soon with executives of the Log Cabin Republicans, people with knowledge of the meetings said.

Patrick Sammon, the Log Cabin’s President, would not speak about his group’s plans. “Throughout the primaries, we have had the attitude that we're not going to speak to the media about contacts we’ve had or haven’t had with the different campaigns.”

McCain opposes gay marriage, is against relaxing the ban on gays in the military and campaigned against a ballot measure that would have permitted civil unions in Arizona.

But he has expressed support for allowing gays to hold “ceremonies” expressing their partnerships, opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and has displayed his irritation with Republicans efforts to stir up anti-homosexual resentments for politically expedient purposes.

A self-described Goldwater Republican, McCain has also expressed sympathy for legislation that would allow gay partners hospital visitation rights and other reciprocal benefits generally reserved for straight couples. In 2001, McCain movingly eulogized the life of Mark Bingham, a hero of United flight 93, who was gay.

In 2000, McCain was willing to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans at the height of his primary battle with George W. Bush. At the same time, he supported California’s Prop 7 – the Knight initiative, which codified in law the definition of marriage as a contract between one man and one woman.

What this all means depends largely on the identity of the immanent McCain. Since he is somewhat of an ideological hybrid, who he takes with meetings with and who he refuses to meet with allow voters, by process of elimination, to discover his true disposition.

McCain has said, for example, that he sees no reason to meet with James Dobson, the president of Focus on the Family (although Dobson has said he has no intention of voting for McCain and has privately told associates that he personally dislikes him), or with Rush Limbaugh (although that may change.)

His campaign is setting up an advisory Committee of 50, which is reported to include social conservative activists and evangelicals concerned with economic justice.

At the request of the late Jerry Falwell, McCain visited Liberty University to mend fences after McCain accused him, in 2000, of being an agent of intolerance. He has met with Family Research President Tony Perkins to talk about embryonic stem cell research, which McCain supports and Perkins opposes.

The FRC has invited McCain, along with the eventual Democratic nominee, to its 2008 values voters summit this September. The group considers McCain’s attendance there a test of whether his commitment to social conservatism is cosmetic or real.

As for his meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans, “he has an association with them that goes back to the 2000 campaign,” said Brian Rogers, a McCain spokesperson.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/22030

Comments (21)

you mean he is such a "straight-talker" that we have to wait and see who he does and doesn't meet with to figure out what he believes? Is that "straight-talkin" or "maverickin"?


“he has an association with them that goes back to the 2000 campaign,”

I was hoping he would say McCained has had intercourse with them since the 2000 campaign.

But he has expressed support for allowing gays to hold “ceremonies” expressing their partnerships

Well, I should hope so. In the United States, we have this thing called freedom of assembly that means we can hold whatever "ceremonies" we want. If I wanted to hold a "ceremony" expressing my partnership with my pet pig Petunia, there's nothing John McCain (or anyone else in the government) could do to stop me. The suggestion that he thinks there's a question about this is worrying.

"If I wanted to hold a "ceremony" expressing my partnership with my pet pig Petunia, there's nothing John McCain (or anyone else in the government) could do to stop me."

Yes there is, Ear.

It is called laws against Bestiality.

So tell us more about your "partnership" with Petunia.

Oh.... I take it you are not Jewish or Muslim?

If yes, there is another angle...

But then, I can't figure out why you would want a "partnership" with the likes of Karl Rove...

>> But he has expressed support for allowing
>> gays to hold “ceremonies” expressing their
>> partnerships.

Who the f**k McCain thinks he is? a dictator? Anyone can hold any ceremonies in this country. If McCain has any balls he will stop flipping and flopping on issues like gays and torture. McCain is nothing but Bush Version-2.

McCain is not only a very old man who has become desparate to become president but he is also a fake.

Ah, but you're wrong, D. You're correct that in many jurisdictions in the US, bestiality is illegal. However, those laws apply only to the sex act itself. Any ceremony celebrating such a "relationship," however, would be constitutionally protected.

(I should probably stress here that I'm not in any way comparing or equating homosexuality with bestiality. I'm simply using an extreme example to illustrate the freedom we all enjoy to hold whatever kind of ceremonies, parties, rallies, or anything else we care to.)

Why should McCain risk his rep by appearing with a gay group? It's all politics; on thin ice with conservatives already, he doesn't want any awkward circumstances.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

This is the McCain strategy: embrace far right policies, but by either his personality or the personality of his surrogates somehow project a "softer" image.

People should not fall for this, and it sure seems the media is. McCain is anti-gay rights, pure and simple. There is no other way to describe his record or his policy positions.

If he talks nicer about gays than some other far right Republicans, then fine. If he has surrogates like Arnold who can also talk nice that's fine as well.

But it doesn't change the reality of the policies.

It's the same way on the war issue. McCain always says he's against war and hates war and tries to come across as this nice grandfather type, but then his positions are all for more war.

The only person trying to dupe people on personality and talk this year is McCain. Obama is the real deal; he has the substance and policy to back up his talk and the personality he projects.


Ear,

Your leg is being pulled.

Is this the election that "social conservatism" - bigotry - dies? Probably not but I hope it's a step in the right direction. It's hard to tell at this point what McCain is sincere about and what he isn't.

There's the chance that he really does somehow believe that (A) gays are second-class citizens and we shouldn't persecute them, but (B) they should continue to stay second-class citizens.

That being said, I think we need to keep in mind that it's politically much harder for McCain to make overtures to the gay community than it is for Obama or Clinton. So, I still wonder if McCain actually holds beliefs like Obama's stated stance, or Goldwater's "you don't need to be straight to shoot straight" stance. I do revel in the idea that preachers around the country feel abandoned.

Ultimately, though, the decision is the same: he isn't politically willing to go the lengths for gay rights that Clinton and Obama are, and that's all that should matter on that issue.

Sorry, D. You simulated an ignorant person really well.

Schwarzanegger is sent to talk to the Republican "girly men" -- I love it.

How do I make the type large enough to read?

McCain is a hypocrite who bashes gays but goes on his knees in front of religious taliban and tells them that he will do anything to please them. McCain is a Double Talk Express.

Let's all not forget that Don't Ask, Don't Tell can't be nullified by the President. It takes Congress because they codified this damn nonsense into law. And it was a Democratic congress that did it. It was also a Democratic congress that passed the Defense of Marriage Act, and it was a Democratic Preident who refused to veto either. And don't forget that neither Democratic nominee supports gay marriage. I'm not sure why any gay person would be proud of the job the Democratic party has done regarding these issues. I feel as if Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a knife in the back ==> stabbed by a democratic President and once inserted, twisted by a Democratic congress. Thanks for nothing - I'll never trust what a Democratic nominee for President says again.

As a gay man I don't think we should be singing the praises of the Democratic party when it comes to doing anything about our rights in particular. They have been anything but courageous regarding these issues, they have repeatedly failed to deliver on their campaign pledges, and they still prefer a solution for marriage that is separate but equal. Don't kid yourself - leaving the gay marriage decision to the states only guarantees that gay marriage will be outlawed in some states, and that means that some gays will be less equal than others. And the Democratic nominess support and endorse this position. In effect, they would codify into law a state's right to outlaw gay marriage. It's shameful, it doesn't show courageous leadership, and they don't deserve our compliments for 'at least trying.'

To me, McCain shows more courage by going against his party and supporters to send surrogates to such meetings or even to meet with the executive members in private. The only way for gays to fully realize all the rights they deserve is to recognize that we are all equal - and that means, sorry to say, that none of us deserve any special rights. The Libertarians best embody this philosophy but the Republicans are close behind.

I must agree with sbj's post. The dems have screwed us over more that the repukes have; that's why I only vote Libertarian. If that means I'm "throwing my vote away", then so be it. At least I can sleep at night, not having voted for the lesser of 2 evils. I've lived for 45 years with the discrimination & bigotry. I'd rather have the next 45 years be the same, than sell my soul to the devil on the "possibility" they "might" try to do something which "may" result in a status of supposedly "separate but equal". NO THANKS.

Marc, Schwarzenegger is NOT a gay rights supporter. He VETOED the only gay marriage bill ever to be passed by a state legislature. Nobody remembers this, but look it up. It was when he was at the lowest point of popularity in California, looked like he wasn't going to get re-elected, and needed to shore up the conservative base. I wish people would remember this.

Ah, yes, Mr. Schwarzenegger
A.K.A. Mr. Let-the-People-Decide
A.K.A. Mr. No-Let's-Let-the-Courts-Decide
A.K.A. Mr. I-Ain't-Gonna-Sign-it-No-Way!

Some argue, of course, that the issue is already before the California Supreme Court and, so, Ahnuld was right not to sign it. He could, however, have signed it, noting that it could not be implemented before the courts ruled on Prop 22. Or he could have thrown his support behind the plaintiffs and indicated that he would be honored to sign the law passed by the Legislature as soon as the courts issue their ruling. That would have required conviction and personal courage.

What is it about the LRC? I know it's almost impossible to find a GOP politician who actually supports gay rights, but why fawn over those who so clearly fail us.

McCain in not anti-gay and he does not think of gays as second class citizens. McCain is against gay marraige. Just because someone is not for gay marraige does not mean they are against gays. Also McCain is not flip flopping, his stance is clear. He is not anti- gay, but he is against gay marraige.

"McCain is against gay marraige. Just because someone is not for gay marraige does not mean they are against gays."

Yes, it does.

If I deny you the full access to civil society's benefits (remember, we're not talking here of forcing sacramental imprimatur by a religion) I am against you.

With my five (and still counting) prior marriages, I am a one man wrecking crew when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, but I am free to continue my depredations unchecked.

*I can get married again by any clergyman I choose to hornswoggle...

There is no set religion for America. However, it seems those following christian beliefs volley to limit the rights of fellow human beings by making gay marraige illegal. This is not to protect the sacred institute of marraige. No, it is merely to limit the rights of a fellow human being.

My grandfather can get married again after abusing my grandmother for 33 years and sending her to an early grave and noone is going to step in mand tell him he can't marry another woman. Howrever if by some miracle he stepped up and asked to marry a man, then he'd be violating the HOLY institution of marraige.

There is nothing holy about the institution of marriage. Unless of course we let the churches decide...Oh wait if we did that some churches might not even allow black to white marraiges down south. We should not allow anyone to limit the rights of another citizen just because of their orientation. If Joe-Blow can get married 1000 times throughout his lifetime if he wants to, slandering and misusing women all his life, then why not allow two consenting males, two consenting females, transexuals...To get married?

As a citizen I have the right to practice any religion I please. Hopwever, those that practice their religion have no right to impose their beliefs upon me. As I cannot impose my beliefs on them.

Then why in the bloody sam-hell do you evangelical people forcefully shove your beliefs at us believing that gays are bad or whatever and take away rights as a person we should have?

There are no BLACK RIGHTS no ASIAN RIGHTS no GAY RIGHTS. There are merely the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.

Mccain. I admit, I don't care for him. I don't care for any candidate. We are not second class citizens. We do not deserve to be treated in such a way.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.