Fred Barnes’ Bad Advice to John McCain
No sooner did Fred Barnes say he thought McCain should use the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military to prevent social conservative voters from staying home, then readers either via e-mail or in a comment asked me in the words of this post, whether gay Republicans would tolerate the Barnes Option.
Given the stakes in this campaign, particularly Obama’s inconstancy, especially on matters of national security and his preference for federal profligacy, I would pinch my nose and vote for John McCain (as I voted for W four years ago) if he took Barnes’ advice.
That said, I highly doubt McCain will do anything more than he has already done, signal his opposition to lifting the military’s Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy and his support for the traditional definition of marriage. It would be counterproductive for McCain to make it a staple of his stump speech to highlight these positions.
While such rhetoric might galvanize social conservatives, it would do so at the expense of independent voters who have long held a favorable opinion of John McCain. Indeed, it would also upset most rank-and-file Republicans who would rather our party’s presumptive nominee focus on national security, the economy and the importance of appointing conservative judges. They would see it as a distraction from the real issues at stake in this election.
The judicial issue should appeal to social conservatives without upsetting independent voters. Most people would rather have legislatures than judges resolve controversial social issues.
But, if John McCain dwells on gay issues, many voters would wonder why he’s so obsessed with one group. They might see this obsession as disqualifying him from leading a nation which includes such people. As I’ve said before, I think most Americans are neither pro-gay, nor anti-gay, but are “anti-anti-gay [and] would rather that . . . politicians didn’t talk too much about gay issues.”
So, Senator, we know where you stand on these issues. I wish you had taken a different position on gays in the military, but so be it. Your record of service and your position on most issues clearly qualifies you to lead this nation, far more so than your opponent’s record qualifies him. Focus on that record and your policy proposals on national security, the economy, health care, the judiciary and other key issues. And leave us gays alone.
But, I kind of think you had planned to do that anyway.
20 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You left out one big issue…energy…although in prior posts I forgot about appointing conservative jurists..but it is an important issue. I am disappointed in McCain’s position on DADT but then again I am a realist and know that the Democratic Congress has not done one thing to vote on a bill to end DADT (the same Democratic Congress that could have done so by not deleting it from the funding for Iraq War and the same Democratic Congress that screwed us over on hate crimes (who instead of should have first voted on Employment Nondiscrimination, which must people would understand that no one should be fired just because of their sexual orientation..a question of fairness (of course you can carve out religious exceptions for 501 c 3 church organizations)
I have never once felt that McCain is anti Gay and I don’t see him starting to be something he is not. Concentrate on big picture issues….energy indepedendence, the economy, fix entitlements, return to fiscal conservatism (indeed, McCain can point to that he is a reformer of the federal budget and federal government..cut out the waste, no more earmarks, etc.), health insurance that is common sense and of course a big emphasis on national security/homeland security. NOBama changes his views quicker then he changes his suits and point out you get honesty and reality with McCain..not a new position depending upon which interest group NObama is talking to.
Comment by Rocket — July 10, 2008 @ 5:08 pm - July 10, 2008
oops..and I forgot to add lower taxes and cut regulations…to encourage jobs and business growth.
Comment by Rocket — July 10, 2008 @ 5:29 pm - July 10, 2008
Yup, you’re right, Rocket. Add those issues to McCain’s mix.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 10, 2008 @ 6:08 pm - July 10, 2008
I’d just plain rather have another nominee…
Comment by KevinQC — July 11, 2008 @ 12:08 am - July 11, 2008
My thing is that the liberals are falling all over themselves to FORCE the election wins on Republicans this year. Problem is, Republicans don’t seem interested.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 11, 2008 @ 2:11 am - July 11, 2008
TGC: That is the funniest thing i read all day.. and so true.
Comment by Vince P — July 11, 2008 @ 2:25 am - July 11, 2008
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 07/11/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Comment by David M — July 11, 2008 @ 11:17 am - July 11, 2008
God you guys are pathetic! While I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative I would never, ever vote for a man or a party that so despises my lifestyle. You Queers on here can try to justify McCains and the Republican party’s bigotry any way you want, but there is no excuse for it! You can moan and groan all you want about the Democratic Party and Obama not being in favor or gay marriage either, but they are light years ahead of Republicans, they do not make an issue of it by campaigning on it…try to justify it all you want. I do not even want to get into the pathology of your reasoning, that is an issue people like you have to live with.
Comment by Dave — July 11, 2008 @ 10:28 pm - July 11, 2008
Obama loathes everything about America.. That’s why he keeps saying he watns to re-make it.
Sorry , I’m not voting for a say-anything do-anything Marxist. If you want to sell-out that to that, it doesn’t speak much for you.
Comment by Vince P — July 11, 2008 @ 10:38 pm - July 11, 2008
profligacy, huh? for a lesson in profligacy, kindly turn your attention to the dubya presidency and his rubber-stamp congress
Comment by jonesey12 — July 12, 2008 @ 3:36 am - July 12, 2008
No, you’d vote for a completely incompetent man or party that pats you on the head and tells you what a good little cock sucker you are so you feel good about putting your hard earned money (I assume) into their pockets. Then they reward you with the most discriminatory anti-gay laws out there.
And what do you do? You defend them to the death and call Republicans racist, sexist, bigot homophobes just because you don’t get your way.
What kind of spineless, bleeding, queefing twat does that? WTF is that about?
Yeah, Howard Dean fired his queers. What else has the DNC done for you that puts them “light years” ahead? Soaring rhetoric that nobody with half a brain buys into?
Seriously. I want to know what the party of slavery and socialism has done for gays.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 12, 2008 @ 5:45 am - July 12, 2008
There IS NOT a gay issue on the table that would make me vote for Barack Obama! Nothing, ziltch, nada, nichts, kein atwort, null, zero, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER would I vote for such a person.
I already am holding my nose to vote for John McCain and if the stakes weren’t so high in other areas I’d not vote at all.
Comment by EDinTampa — July 12, 2008 @ 6:34 am - July 12, 2008
I’m serious. What has the DNC done for gays that makes them “lightyears ahead”?
If you need a few days to peruse the internet, that’s fine. I’ll wait. Whenever you’re ready, Dave. I shan’t forget and will remind you if need be. I know NDT, Pete, VtK and others eagerly await your answer.
No hurries though. I wouldn’t want you to have to make shit up.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 12, 2008 @ 10:48 pm - July 12, 2008
I sincerely hope McCain ignores this bad advice. He just doesn’t have it in him to go down the anti-gay route. Focus on national security & sound economic decisions.
Comment by Jimbo — July 13, 2008 @ 4:40 pm - July 13, 2008
Any day now, Dave.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 13, 2008 @ 9:12 pm - July 13, 2008
#13 - I’m waiting too, Dave. Let’s see if you’ve got any cojones to back up your assertions.
If not, either grow a pair or shut up.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 14, 2008 @ 11:04 am - July 14, 2008
The DNC is being sued by the GLBT Caucus leader that Howard Dean fired and the trial that has begun shows a great deal of homophobia demonstrated by DNC staff and the likes of Donna Brazile….please…if the Democrats are light years ahead..why did they amend Hate Crimes legislation in Congress…to eliminate transgender rights and refused to act on DADT…haven’t moved on ENDA…and give us lip service and screw us over…..please….can you spare the hypocrisy….
Comment by Rocket — July 14, 2008 @ 12:08 pm - July 14, 2008
Congratulations on having this post showcased in Tuesday’s Washington Times!
It shows that somebody is listening (reading?).
Comment by Rick Sincere — July 15, 2008 @ 10:29 pm - July 15, 2008
#16: “I’m waiting too, Dave. Let’s see if you’ve got any cojones to back up your assertions.”
Me too. I want to hear from Dave as well–not about the Democrats supposedly being “light years ahead” of Republicans on gay issues, but about something else he wrote. Here’s my question:
Dave, where have you been hibernating for the past 10-15 years that you are somehow unaware that calling yourself “socially liberal” and “fiscally conservative” became a tired punchline back in the 90s? For about 45 minutes back in 1991 or 1992 it was a diplomatic and fashionable way for Republicans to avoid admitting that they were Republicans but avoiding any inference that they were gay. “Socially liberal” meant, ” I don’t dig dudes, but if that’s what you’re into, well that’s cool I guess–just don’t kiss in front of me.”
Now it’s evolved into an expression used by people who are just completely out of touch politically and somehow thinks politics is still about nothing more than fags making out in public vs. low taxes. If that’s how you still see the issues, then it’s time to get with the program, Bueller.
What on Earth does “socially liberal” mean to you now? Gay marriage? Honor killings in some instances? The acceptance of Muslim polygamous marriages in the West? Unmitigated amnesty for all illegal aliens that want to live and work in American society? What does that silly expression even mean? Can you even define it in 2008?
And I would REALLY like to know what “fiscally conservative” means to an Obama supporter. Seriously, what does that MEAN? How does do you reconcile universal healthcare with “fiscally conservative?” And what about Obama’s plan to raise capital gains taxes regardless of the undisputed evidence that tax revenues to the government go up when capital gains taxes are lowered? How does a bona fide “fiscal conservative” like yourself explain that one? Does “fiscal conservative” in 2008 mean “approval of obscene over-taxation and flagrant government spending on anything and everything except war, the military, anti-terrorism measures or border enforcement.” Is that what “fiscal conservative” means in 2008? Seriously, I’m dying to hear an Obama supporter talk about being a “fiscal conservative.” I can’t imagine anything more hilarious than that. Please, just humor me.
Comment by Sean A — July 17, 2008 @ 11:19 am - July 17, 2008
[...] would have McCain use the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military. But, as I said in this post that would be a bad idea. It might galvanize social conservatives but would do so “at the [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Why the GOP should avoid gay issues in St. Paul — August 31, 2008 @ 7:30 pm - August 31, 2008