Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Cindy McCain retreats on don't ask don't tell. John McCain digs in

By Jonathan Capehart

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), you're safe on that pedestal. Less than 24 hours after Cindy McCain threatened to topple Collins from it with her gutsy comments that contradicted her husband's stance on don't ask don't tell, the wife of the senior senator from Arizona backpedaled.

Perhaps it was the screams from the gay community that awoke me Saturday at 6:00 a.m., or just the vibration from my phone alerting me to an incoming e-mail. Either way, I was alerted to McCain's reversal. In a tweet on Friday to her followers, Mrs. McCain wrote: "I fully support the NoH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT." So disappointing.

What's equally disappointing is the senator clinging to his opposition to repealing the ban on gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. There he was on "Meet The Press" yesterday hammering away at his new talking point: the need for yet another report on the "effects" of repeal on battle effectiveness and morale. Nevermind that The Post reported last week that the study of don't ask don't tell by the Pentagon Working Group found that repealing the policy would have minimal impact on the military during a time of war.

"He's doing what anti-gay activists have done for decades, which is that when they don't like the evidence, they just turn it upside down," Aaron Belkin, the director of the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told me via e-mail yesterday. "Twenty two studies, including military studies, have found that gays don't hurt the military. The forthcoming DOD study is #23." The time for studying is over. It's time to end don't ask don't tell.

By Jonathan Capehart  | November 15, 2010; 7:30 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Palinization of Obama
Next: Sympathy pangs for Ginni Thomas

Comments

She is 2 faced. She's just a phony as her senile husband.

Posted by: joe_allen_doty | November 15, 2010 11:20 AM | Report abuse


Sorry to hear that the screamers woke you up at 6 AM, Jon.

Posted by: screwjob22 | November 15, 2010 11:22 AM | Report abuse

Mrs. McCain realized that she needs to get in line and do as she's told like a good little Republican.

Posted by: wmorgan3 | November 15, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't want to bunk with a tranny, maybe Capehart does.

Posted by: Jmacaco4 | November 15, 2010 11:35 AM | Report abuse

Cindy McCain is a hypocrit. It is not possible to fully support the NoH8 campaign and all it stands for, AND support DADT.

On the other hand, John McCain, as shown by his actions and speech, is a dyed-in-the-wool homophobe. Although he was a military officer, his understanding of current society and the military makes any judgements on homosexual integration in the military to be invalid and woefully outdated. In short, he is just plain wrong.

Posted by: mhoust | November 15, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

As usual GOP flip-flop-flip-flop. We want all people to be equal except when it effects our voting block, like the pro-lifers, and anti-gay groups. We are such an integrated group of American's with one combined view of equality for all, unless you are outside the acepted norm. (sic)

Posted by: patmatthews | November 15, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Crap. Sorry, McCains but say it ain't so. I could care less about who serves in the military just so long as they are there to defend the Constitution. Come t'thinkavit, same holds true for the Senate. McCain is such a loser.

Posted by: glenglish | November 15, 2010 12:11 PM | Report abuse

John McCain's cynical political maneuvers on the discriminatory DADT policy are disgraceful...the military will continue to lose trust and support among many Americans as long as the military enforces this discriminatory and unconstitutional law.

Posted by: Civilius | November 15, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't want to bunk with a tranny, maybe Capehart does.

Posted by: Jmacaco4
*****************************************
One more fool who doesn't know there's a BIG difference between a homosexual and a transexual person. You should shut up before you display any further ignorance.

Posted by: st50taw | November 15, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Poor Cindy. I bet John McCain water-boarded her until she gave in and let a staffer send that tweet.

Posted by: kejia32 | November 15, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

This is standard, they started study after study about whether being gay made you a security risk. Every study, found the opposite to be case, though many of the studies were defunded when it was found they would not produce the answer some in the military wanted. The study is in DADT hurts the military by removing trained soldiers and cutting the enlistment pool.

How many soldiers died because we lost those 100+ Arabic translators to DADT, I would bet its at least a double digit number of deaths because of lack of a translator.

Posted by: Muddy_Buddy_2000 | November 15, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse


John McCain and Cindy McCain are two people
who daily display their hypocrisy, thinking they are fooling the American people.

They are liars and incoherent bigots, and a disgrace to the United States of America.

Can anyone say Impeachment.

Posted by: COWENS99 | November 15, 2010 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that nobody points out that McCain has an openly gay cheif of staff, Mark Buse, who also ran his presidential campaign. The Huffington Post already did a story on him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rogers/john-mccains-chief-of-sta_b_128362.html

So McCain thinks that gays are ok to run all the legislation and other issues in his office, and control his campaign for president, but somehow can't serve as an army private.

Posted by: cambel1 | November 15, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

McCain tells the "story" of a noncom saying he wouldn't want to share a bunker with a gay soldier. Of course under McCain's DADT stance, that noncom will never know that the person he's sharing a bunker with may actually BE a gay soldier.

We've had homosexuals in the service all the time...they just have to lie about who they are in order to serve their country - including protecting the likes of homophobic idiots like this fellow McCain. (Are we certain that the John McCain we see today isn't some robotic imposter who replaced the old "Maverick McCain?)

McCain embodies everything wrong with politics today!

Posted by: BlunderBush | November 15, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Senator McCain , don't get so upset or Cindy will tell on you for wearing her nice pink silk bikini panties.

You know, the same ones you wore in the navy.
That's DADT in the McCain house.

Posted by: COWENS99 | November 15, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

The question is whether openly gay men and women should be given the opportunity to serve in the military. Anyone can have an opinion, but nobody should get a "vote" on this issue but the men and women who are actually serving, up and down the chain of command. They can't actually vote, I suppose, but the consensus, if there is one, should be determined, without lobbying, accusation or recrimination. You may think you know better than they do, but isn't that how you would feel if you were serving?

Least of all, I would say, should one of the several thousand politically appointed for life federal district judges determine the outcome. Let the military decide or the Congress. Kudos to the President for seeing it this way.

Posted by: Roytex | November 15, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

"Screams from the gay community"?

Really, Mr. Capeheart?

Posted by: popkultur | November 15, 2010 1:43 PM | Report abuse

No, Roytex. The military is an entity under the control of the U.S. government. It answers to the U.S. government (specifically the President). As such, the government, elected by the people. determines who should serve. It would make no sense to allow a military that, due to past segregation, was all-white to determine whether minorities should be allowed to serve. The military should certainly get some discretion, but it does not get to determine basic civil rights on its own. The people, through the government, do.

Posted by: jaycane40oz | November 15, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Lawd, Lawd... John McCain put his ho in her place where she belongs! After he smacked the taste out of her mouth that just doesn't seem to stop running, he told her to swallow her words whole and raw! That's right John-John! Check your ho!
GGA100.com
~ the Right Reverend Dr. Thurgood Goodlove, the Savedest man in the history of the Republican party
Host of the web show “Good Good Advice”

Posted by: kharma99 | November 15, 2010 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Why does anyone care what Cindy McCain thinks - either way?

Posted by: dixs | November 15, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Cindy, read the bible, honor your husband. Quit trying to act like a normal intelligent woman.

P.S.-Get a dress that covers your legs.

Say 100 times Cindy:

I am your daddy. (John says, look at me)

Now do the wash and clean this house .

Posted by: COWENS99 | November 15, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

More than ever, the "McCain" name has come to symbolize FLIP FLOP.

It's contagious in GOP circles; McConnell has FLIP FLOPPED on earmarks.

GOP: Please figure out where you stand.

Posted by: 809212876 | November 15, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

John and Cindy McCain need to realize that the 2010 elections over and that they don't need to placate the homophobic right wingers any more -- or at least not until 2016, when McCain will be up for reelection.

Posted by: marmac5 | November 15, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Suppose they keep getting calls from 'real americans' that this is a bad idea, unfortunately 98% of those 'real americans' have never served. I dont care whos next to me in the foxhole, as long as they can shoot and they dont freeze up. Seen a lot of apes freeze and chickensh*t out once the bodies hit the floor, these were the same losers who bragged about all the WOMEN they f***ed back home.

Posted by: sherlockjt | November 15, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

How do you spell s-e-t-u-p?

Posted by: AMviennaVA | November 15, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Wish he had insisted on a few more studies about the potential damage to our military of invading Iraq for no apparent reason.

Posted by: bran-solo | November 15, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm a retired Army Colonel. I had gays in my units and they were no distraction to our effectiveness. Wife beaters were. Drunks who got into fights in the barracks were. The President, Secretary Gates and ADM Mullen took the smart path -- take a full year, study the implications and ways to manage this transition, then do the right thing the right way. GEN Ham and his folks did the work. Now its time for Congress to do its part - change this antiquated policy!

Posted by: humbleandfree | November 15, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

what did you say "the time for studying is over. It's time to end don't ask don't tell." you're practically foaming at the mouth. chill, its not the right thing to do, and i don't care how many studies you make up. as soon as they said they had to fgiure out how to implement, things like ie can guys date guys in their unit, can they extend benifits to their same sex "spouse". FORGET it. our military doens'rt need this distraction. neither do the Democrats. the country really doesn't want to deal with homo issues right now. we've got serious problems to fix, not least of which is dealing with the re-thuglicans. we need to make busines undertand that they need to be honest and decent. we can't do that while we're dealing with BS homo nonsense.

Posted by: submarinerssn774 | November 15, 2010 8:08 PM | Report abuse

I'm a retired Army Colonel. I had gays in my units and they were no distraction to our effectiveness. Wife beaters were. Drunks who got into fights in the barracks were. The President, Secretary Gates and ADM Mullen took the smart path -- take a full year, study the implications and ways to manage this transition, then do the right thing the right way. GEN Ham and his folks did the work. Now its time for Congress to do its part - change this antiquated policy!

Posted by: humbleandfree | November 15, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

cambel1 wrote: So McCain thinks that gays are ok to run all the legislation and other issues in his office, and control his campaign for president, but somehow can't serve as an army private.
=======================================
Well, you know, a place for everything, and everything in its place.

The slaveholding South made the determination that blacks could be trusted to produce their goods, prepare their food, and raise their children - just not the important things.

Posted by: carlaclaws | November 15, 2010 10:29 PM | Report abuse

John McCain flip-flops; so why shouldn't his wife? Sad that she has backtracked on her comments. She does, I guess, have to live with John, and Republican wives of public people tend to keep quiet with a stiff upper lip. But her comments are out there so she has lost her credibility too.

Posted by: snoopsmom | November 16, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

I bet Cindy was treated to McCain's infamous temper.

If McCain is so concerned that allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve is detrimental to battle effectiveness he must immediately insist that the British pull out of Afghanistan since they are harmful to the mission and the safety of our military personnel.

It's a shame McCain believes the American military is less capable than the British military in allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve.

Posted by: FauxReal | November 16, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

I thought the main reason for the creation of the armed forces is to defend our nation.

As such we should do what is best to help them get on with their work.

I don't think that includes with dealing with open displays of homosexual affection on the job.

Most people, and that includes the majority of our armed forces, just don't want to be around that behavior.

Gays need to dial back their demands - for the greater good of our country.

Posted by: mlemac | November 16, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

I've never been either L, G, B or T, so my views, experience and opinions are those of a Straight, Male, now Senior Citizen (retired) who served honorably in the Marine Corps for 4 years from 1958 thru 1962. During that period I never knew of a single Homo-sexual or Lesbian Marine. Personally, that lifestyle is repulsive to me and I would never have enlisted in the Corps,or in any other organization if I'd known there would be gays sleeping, showering or living in the same barracks or squad bay. We are now told that this opinion categorizes me and anyone else with similar feelings as Homophobes.

The term … "Homophobe", certainly wasn't coined by those of us who are honestly repulsed by a lifestyle that, by it's nature, includes Sodomy, monstrously elevated levels of HIV AIDS, and other STD's, and practiced by Biblically and Religiously conflicted folks that won't be satisfied until the other 90-percent of the world caves in.

My message to the LGBT community ….it isn't Phobia ….it's DISGUST.

Posted by: lavellemh | November 16, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

The question is whether openly gay men and women should be given the opportunity to serve in the military. Anyone can have an opinion, but nobody should get a "vote" on this issue but the men and women who are actually serving, up and down the chain of command. They can't actually vote, I suppose, but the consensus, if there is one, should be determined, without lobbying, accusation or recrimination. You may think you know better than they do, but isn't that how you would feel if you were serving?

Least of all, I would say, should one of the several thousand politically appointed for life federal district judges determine the outcome. Let the military decide or the Congress. Kudos to the President for seeing it this way.

Posted by: Roytex
******************************

Those serving do not get to have a decision based on their consensus, just as a concensus was not used to determine whether the armed forces should be integrated or to determine the role of women in the armed forces, as just as a consensu is not needed to decide which hill to attack. Those serving should follow the orders that come from their commander in chief.

The CONSTITUTION does not let the military decide and does not let Congress decide if that decision violates the Constitution. And the court system, where cases are brought before one judge, is a function of the Constitution and how it has been implemented for over 200 years. One judge decides, subject to appeal and ultimate decision by the Supreme Court. Can those of you who object to "one person" making the decision come up with a workable system where that is not the case, and explain would be a better system, keeping in mind the need to determine which cases can be heard by one judge and which cannot?

Posted by: wvanpup | November 16, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

McCain is a gay-baiter, verbal gay-basher, who can't face the facts that likely there were gay POWs at the Hanoi Hilton along with McCain, and surely were gays in his squadron.

McCain is a gay-bashing hater who needs to be labeled as such. He is TRYING to keep gays as inferior citizens.

The CONSTITUTION REQUIRES EVERY CITIZEN to join in the defense of the Republic. No citizen is exempted, no class is exempted. Gay taxes pay military salaries, pay military benefits. McCain is a leech on gay taxpayers, who pay his Senate salary.

Posted by: Liann | November 16, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

The question is whether openly gay men and women should be given the opportunity to serve in the military. Anyone can have an opinion, but nobody should get a "vote" on this issue but the men and women who are actually serving, up and down the chain of command. They can't actually vote, I suppose, but the consensus, if there is one, should be determined, without lobbying, accusation or recrimination. You may think you know better than they do, but isn't that how you would feel if you were serving?

Least of all, I would say, should one of the several thousand politically appointed for life federal district judges determine the outcome. Let the military decide or the Congress. Kudos to the President for seeing it this way.

Posted by: Roytex
******************************
(sorry, sloppy writing and spelling cleaned up)

Those serving do not get to have a decision based on their consensus, just as a consensus was not used to determine whether the armed forces should be integrated or to determine the role of women in the armed forces, and just as a consensus is not involved in deciding which hill to attack. Rather than providing a consensus, those serving should just follow the orders that come from their commander in chief.

The CONSTITUTION does not let the military decide what its policies will be, and does not let Congress decide what policies to require of the military, if the military or Congress establish policies that violate the Constitution.

The court system, where cases are brought before one judge, was established by the Constitution. Congress has made rules for the court system ever since the foundation of our country. Under those rules, one judge makes the initial decision in a case, with that decision subject to appeal and potential ultimate decision by the Supreme Court. I have never seen anyone who objects to "one person" making the decision come up with a workable system where that is not the case, and explain why it would be a better system, keeping in mind the need to determine which cases can be heard by one judge and which cannot?

Posted by: wvanpup | November 16, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company