BlogHer - John McCain and His So-Called Family Values - Comments

So Shealynn ...

PunditMom — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:38:17 -0500

... you'd rather have these children languish without families in orphanages or in foster care?

Or, if the answer is no, I'm assuming that you and other hetero couples will be adopting many children so they have what you consider to be an acceptable family? If you feel this way about gay adoption, then you had better be willing to step up and provide a home for these children.

McCain vs. Obama

shealynn — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:27:18 -0500

I also respect your opinon. I do.

On back pedaling... have you watched the news lately and seen Obama's moutain list of back pedals? Wow. Give me a friggin break!

I am a die hard Republican. Obviously, right? ha. I never heard about the black baby adoption thing that Karl Rove talked about. But. I have heard about the gays adopting babies topic. I must say. I completely agree with McCain on this one. I am totally against gay men or woman adopting children. Then again, I am against the gay/lesbian lifestyle. Subjecting a child to that lifestyle, in my opinion is wrong.

That said,

Both parties have changed their minds on things. I am not against that, but I am against it when one of them [Obama - Ahem] is constantly changing his views because he finds many Americans totally differ from him on many of the subjects. For example the war. He wanted to pull the troops out immediately after getting into office [hopefully he won't]. Hello?! Talk about causing a sh*t load of chaos!!! He finds out that so many Americans don't agree, so he changes his mind and says, well, maybe in 18 months - 2 years. Just ONE example! Give me a BREAK! So sick of this. ha ha.

Not to mention... in my opinion Obama doesn't have the experience necessary to be the president. He needs to get more experience. Then maybe he would be a better candidate.

Shealynn

www.shealynnbenner.com

Shealynn Benner

Arizona Photographer

shealynn@gmail.com

morality and republicans

davet. — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:38:04 -0500

neither party should lay claim to having the high moral ground. there
are/have been creeps in both parties. whether it is larry craig, david
vitter, eliot spitzer, bill clinton, etc. it is not surprising that
many people are turned off by both parties these days. time for
washington, d.c. (on both sides) to clean up their act and work for the
most important constituency - the people.

Morality and Republicans

MMarquit — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:00:51 -0500

My family are staunch Republicans. I'm not. My mom likes to talk about how "moral values" guide her votes to Republicans. Moral and family values, in Republican-speak, refer mainly to who's having sex with whom. To me, though, there is so much more morality and family values.

YieldingWealth.com

LendingLeaves.com

the important concerns

davet. — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:28:01 -0500

Pundit Mom,

I respect your opinion on this and we all need to
vote for different reasons. That being said, whether or not John McCain
supports the right of gays to adopt, etc. is probably about number 52
on the importance list this fall. We've got a small economic matter to
deal with, gas costing more than a gallon of milk, terrorists wanting
you and I dead, and on and on and on. Barack isn't exactly Mr. Family
Values himself when you look at some of the crowd he has hung around
with for the last 20 years. None of us want our kids to be brought up
in a world of discrimination and hatred, right? If that's the case,
Barack should have long ago denounced his racist minister, Jeremiah
Wright. That man has set race relations back about 20 years. At the end
of the day, family values are important, no doubt about it. But
electing a man who will keep us safe is at the top of my priority list.

dave

san diego

John McCain and His So-Called Family Values

PunditMom — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:20:28 -0500

Most people who know me realize that, notwithstanding my recent crisis of political faith, I will not be voting for John McCain in November. But as an adoptive mother I have a soft spot in my heart for the McCain family since they are an adoptive family, too.

That soft spot hardened up a bit when Karl
Rove and his henchmen (allegedly) started some push-polling in 2000
about what voters would think if they found out that McCain had
fathered a black child out of wedlock. They were talking about Bridget McCain who was adopted by the McCains from Bangladesh.

Why
am I mad at McCain for what Rove did?? Well, you see, McCain never
spoke out to set the record straight -- he said nothing to stand up for
his youngest daughter. Not only that, but the McCains never told
Bridget. She only found out recently after Googling her name. She was reported to have have asked, "Why does George Bush hate me?"

My heart hardened even further after McCain's announcement that he was against gay adoption. For me, that's just a different way of saying that children are better off in orphanages or being shuffled around in foster care
than being with loving and caring parents. When the you-know-what hit
the fan on that one, McCain back-pedaled, claiming that what he really
meant to say was that adoption shouldn't be regulated by the federal
government and that it should be a state issue -- nice punt.

According to Wonkette:

McCain expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother
and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself,
McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments,
and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet
to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring
parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.

blondiewrites at Gay and Lesbian Lifestyles blog is scratching her head over that comment.

Well,
how mighty of him to say that children with no chance of being adopted
by straight couples can have gay parents then. That is like saying if
the pizza comes out burnt, then you can have steak.

And the problem with McCain's state regulation argument is that, as the
McCains and the PunditMom family well know, for international adoptions
like ours, there's plenty of federal involvement and screening,
including federal fingerprinting and background checks. And there are
lots of gay couples who want to adopt internationally. So what about
them, John?

Amy at The Masson Family blog focuses on a special irony:

What
bothers me ... is that this man is assuming that any person is a better
parent if he or she is heterosexual, just by virtue of liking the
opposite sex. It doesn’t matter if they get divorced, beat their kids,
or just move across to DC for a career and leave their family in
Arizona. Apparently a man who is not actively involved in the raising
of children is a better parent than two committed parents who happen to
be of the same gender.
...
Families
can be successful or unsuccessful based on a number of things, but I
think odds are better when you have two loving, devoted, present
parents - regardless of their gender.

If my partner was a woman instead of a man, I be a worse mother to my
child? I don't think so John, but I guess you do. You're not losing my
vote, since you didn't have it in the first place. But when you're
putting yourself out there as a family values kind of guy, maybe
spending a little more time thinking about children who really need
families would be a good first step.

Aside from focusing on politics at a variety of places around the blogosphere, BlogHer Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger often writes about adoption at her place PunditM Save Now om.