Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Meghan McCain issues Civil War warning...look out!

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, is warning the GOP of an impending civil war. She cites her desire for an "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy for the Republican party. I do applaud Ms. McCain for stepping out from her father's shadow and making her voice heard--and encouraging other young women to do the same. However I think that her general idea is a bit misguided. Ms. McCain seems to want to be "more inclusive" as a party by "...[b]reaking free from obsolete positions and providing real solutions that don't divide our nation further." By "obsolete positions," she means support for traditional marriage. I have to wonder if Meghan has actually read the 2008 Republican Platform. Her assertion is that by using "more gay-friendly language" the Republican party will garner a wider base and the attention of a younger, more hip crowd. The latter may be true. Welcoming gay marriage may quite possibly attract the attention of a younger crowd, but it would do so at the expense of the Republican crowd. Ms. McCain seems to want the public, and the gay community, to believe that the Republican party is currently "anti-gay." She is mistaken. The Republican party is pro-traditional-marriage. I have yet to encounter a Republican, regardless of his/her age, who was opposed to "civil unions" to allow gay couples the same legal rights as married couples with regard to health care, next of kin notification, etc. Republicans are opposed to the redefinition of the sanctity of marriage. Please don't be fooled, this is not an issue of rights. There is no unalienable right for each person to marry his/her partner of choice. Our unalienable rights were endowed by our creator. We acknowledged this in the Declaration of Independence, and this term is referenced widely. If we are alright with acknowledging that we do have a creator, aka God, then why would we think that He got it wrong when he designed us for procreation?

As a conservative Republican, I could care less what two grown people do in their bedrooms. Contrary to what you may read in salacious headlines, the Republican party is not trying to butt into peoples' sex lives. Instead it is trying to ensure that the definition of "marriage" is upheld. Can we just call a spade a spade here? If the issue were one of rights, civil unions would be welcomed by people like Ms. McCain. We probably should address marriage vs. civil unions. Essentially the problem as I understand it, is that there is no uniformity. Some states, not all, recognize civil unions. And some states recognize only their own civil unions, but not others. Apparently some states allow certain benefits for civil unions, while other states do not allow or address the same benefits. I vehemently agree that this is a problem. There should be uniformly recognized laws which regulate civil unions. I would support a federal level of protections under civil unions. But I cannot and will not support the redefinition of the term "marriage." A marriage and a gay union is inherently different, and as such, the recognition of them will differ. We cannot grant the right to procreate to a gay couple, it isn't within our power. Instead that right is granted by our creator. The best we can do is to protect the rights of partners to have insurance benefits and the likes. Even if every state in America guaranteed the right to marriage for all--gay and straight--the two types of marital relationships would still be different. No amount of legislation will ever make them the same. That is not discrimination, it is a simple genetic fact. I, like Meghan McCain, have gay friends. But that doesn't mean that I am kidding myself into thinking that they could ever look forward to having a marriage like my husband and I share. I do wish that they could have that. But it wouldn't be a matter of us changing the definition of marriage to suit their relationship. It would be them pursuing different relationships that would allow them to procreate. That is not my law, it is God's law.

There is no storm brewing within the Republican party. There is not a huge divide of the "young" and the "old." There is most certainly an awakening going on, but it has nothing to do with a war within the party. To the contrary, if Meghan hasn't noticed, the party is energized and electrified at the moment on a unified front. I'd like to invite Meghan McCain to join the Republican party, but I would respectfully request that she not ask us to check our morals and values at the door.

Ms. McCain stated in her blog that Republican resistance to gay marriage goes against conservative values—and our own self-interest. I wonder why it is that Meghan thinks sacrificing our values is good for the party? Obviously she has a different idea of what conservative values are, than I do. Certainly we would gain Democrats' favor if we adopted their values, but what would the result be? Do we really NEED two Democrat parties? I mean I guess we could feasibly hold an election with one "liberal Democrat" and one "conservative Democrat" but somehow I think that is not what is best for our country. Isn't that the goal of having more than one party in the first place? Is our goal not the betterment of our society? As I understand it, we have differing philosophies, and the will of the population is served when the majority wins an election. I may not agree with the Democrats who are in power, but I do respect the process which placed them there. I don't ask that their party, in the future, become more conservative, or even Republican for that matter. I am not promising to support them if they would only change this or that about their party's stance. Their party is what it is, I happen to not agree with it. That is precisely why I am a Republican. If I wanted to vote according to a Democrat's values, I would change party affiliations. I would suggest Meghan think about that in regard to her own views if she feels that strongly about them. Before this gets blown out of proportion, I am not suggesting that people who support gay marriage should not remain Republicans. But in the same vein that I would not agree with changing our views on the sanctity of life and the horror that is abortion, I can't support her view that we change our stance on the sanctity of marriage.


commoncents said...

I love your page!

Would you like a Link Exchange with COMMON CENTS?? Check us out here...

Anonymous said...

I love Meghan McCain. She is smart, sassy and manages to say what most of us want to say to the Republican caucus.

A moderate voice in a sea of extremists is a good start.

Rick Beagle

Natalie said...

My dearest anonymous Rick,

How did I ever guess you would love Meghan? She is the most unRepublican there is...of course she's your favorite. :)

Her father is a moderate voice, Meghan, on the other hand, is a RINO.

Anonymous said...

Dearest Natalie,

Of course I love her, she is a strong voice who's opinions are driven by her own values rather than by hate. What's not to love about that?
She could actually win an office as a Republican in Independent territory - which might be something considering.

Speaking of hate, this lovely bit from The Daily Dish (warning to Republicans convinced that Republicans can do no wrong, do not read! You have been warned....):

"The assertion of total power through unchecked violence - outside the Constitution, beyond the reach of the law (apart from legal memos from hired hacks instructed to retroactively redefine torture into 'legality') - will be seen in retrospect as the key defining theory of Bush conservatism. It ended, as all regimes bent on total power always end, with torture. Why? Because reality may differ from ideology; and when it does, it is vital to create reality to support ideology. And so torture creates reality by coercing "facts" from broken bodies and minds."Peace.
Rick Beagle

Olympia said...

Mr. Beagle,

Last night, O'Riely showed some comment's sent in by viewers. One of these really struck me and I ask you the same question (I do not remember it verbatim):

Would you waterboard someone if it would save your child's life? If so, then you can't be against waterboarding if it would save someone else's child"

IF you don't have children, just substitue "child" for the person you love most in your life.

Don't spin it, don't bridge around it, it is a direct question. Would you....YES or NO?

I hope someone else picked up on this because, to me, it breaks the whole debate on this extreme ineterrogation measures as a use to protect our country.

BKR said...

A bigger issue at the moment is whether the politicos who made the decisions to use, or condoned the use of, waterboarding should be accused of criminal activity. If we will think back to the atmosphere of fear in the few years following Sept 11, 2001, it will clarify our perspective about this. The Bush admin did not make these decisions under cloak of darkness. As much as the Democrats enjoy rewriting history and whitewashing their roles, the facts are there for all to see who choose to honestly view facts: Congress was kept apprised of, and approved, establishing Gitmo and gaining intelligence through torture. It's more than a little disingenuous for them to now point fingers. If we as a nation are ashamed of our techniques, then the appropriate thing is to resolve not to allow ourselves to go down that road again. But to seek prosecution of those involved now is merely a ploy by the Democrat admin to redirect attention from their push toward more liberal socialistic policies.

The question that liberal minded individuals don't seem to consider is whether they wish to give up more personal freedoms and if they will enjoy living under the political system they are helping to adopt.

Natalie said...


I was watching O'Reilly and my husband and I read that comment and we immediately looked at each other and said that I HAD to write something about that. I heard a similar sentiment given later in another show, and have even heard the flip side of the argument. I think it is definitely something worth exploring. In this case, I would have to say that those who would say, "no" are simply being politically correct because their child is not in immediate danger at the moment.

Natalie said...


With all due respect, I don't think Meghan McCain is driven by her values. I think that she is driven by her desire to be in the spotlight. As a mother of 4, I think that I can look at a young person and form a very good opinion on their motives, and hers, unfortunately, are to be seen as "the cool girl." When it was "cool" to be right behind her Daddy during the election, that's where she was. It didn't work out as expected and he lost, so she had to find a different platform. In essence, she is trying to use the Republican party as a spring board to catapult herself into celebrity status. She wants to be known as Meghan, not McCain's daughter. Hey, to her credit, it's working out fairly well. The two of us with polar opposite views are having an ongoing conversation about her.

JoyFull said...

Rick, I always love how you get off track almost immediately and go off on subjects that are irrelevant to the blog you are responding to, such as hate. Natalie was not in the least hateful in her article and was not suggesting conservatives were. In fact there is tolerance and understanding of gay issues BUT there was no need to redefine marriage. There are certain values that America was founded upon. Also torture is another subject not in the Megahan McCain article, but since you brought it up, I suppose that the beheadings of Danny Pearl and Nick Berg, both Americans and the torture that only they would have been able to relay had they not been...beheaded were acceptable? Their captives proudly displayed their videos! Did you write your representatives or government about them on their families behalf then?

Meghan is asking us to be "politcally correct." That is stupidity, in a free nation with freedom of speech, politcal correctness is and always has been absurd. There never should have been a thing such as political correctness or getting ones feelings offended. For pete's sake, are we not all adults?

I am not going to change my values to fit the climate or someone elses and I am not going to ask you to either. And I shouldn't because that is our constituional right. And the rest of what I would like to say was said best by Natalie in her article and BKR (since you brought up the distraction of torture)

Anonymous said...

In all fairness, I did hijack the article and that was impolite.

Admin, please accept my apologies.

Sooo.... Did you read what Meghan said about Rove? Oh come on, you can't dislike her for saying that he "creeps" her out?

Rick Beagle

Anonymous said...

Meghan McCain is so embarrassing. She needs to read a book or something. I just don't understand why she thinks she has something coherent to say.

She is pro-life, but in favor of 16 year olds taking the morning after pill without any parental consideration. She thinks that the torture that left her father permanently disabled is equivalent to psychological fear tactics.

She doesn't ever know the specifics about any of the topics she chooses to comment on. It's so irritating to hear.

Anonymous said...

Meghan McCain is less informed and has a more limited vocabulary than my 10 year old.

Anonymous said...

Okay, one last comment on the torture discussion --- I cant help it, its a disease....

So, as an American people we try to impeach a President for a stain on an overly accommodating intern, but we are okay with torture?

Please keep in mind that women and children were also tortured (at least on of the children was seven years old). Do you think its okay to put a seven year old in a box and tell him that there is a poisonous bug in the box? What about slamming a nine year old boy's head against a wall? Is that okay with you? No, they weren't terrorists, but their father was suspected of being one. So they were tortured to get to him, both physically and mentally. You folks okay with that?

There are reasons why we do not torture, and before you make a judgement call based on the false fear that the lives of your family (Fox News) were in jeopardy listen to all of the facts.

As to the beheading of Americans, those were awful, but the electrical contractor killed more Americans that those Islamic nut jobs. And what about the actions of Xe? Randomly shooting into civilians is okay with you?

There were some horrible things done in our name, and I want an accounting. I want our country to return to a nation of laws.

Rick Beagle

PS my last note on the subject as it really bothers me to see people support this....

Olympia said...

Mr. Beagle,

I see you STILL have not answered my previous question. Or is it that you do not have an intelligent one for it?

Again, would you waterboard someone to save your child's (or your most loved one's) life?

BKR said...

Mr. Beagle,
False fear? 9-11 didn't happen? Oh good, it was just a bad nightmare. Come on, can you really not think back to the sentiments of EVERYONE, libs and conservatives alike, in those first years after the towers fell?

Don't kid me, you know they attempted to impeach Clinton for much broader reasons than having an employee under his desk in the Oval Office, as if that weren't enough. If it had been a Republican who was proven to be dishonorable in many ways, repeatedly lying and smearing the office of President, what would you have been calling for? Honestly?

Sorry for continuing the off-topic conversation. I am ignoring the whole Meghan thing because I agree with others that she is simply looking to extend her 15 minutes.

Anonymous said...

Olympia and BKR,

I am going to keep my word and not continue our discussion on torture here, but I DO want to respond to your comments. It is my hope that there will be a post on this topic sometime this weekend.

If we don't have anything by say late Monday (i am a west coast third shift person - so bear with me), I will null out a blog and post something there - and invite you to view.

Have a great weekend!
Rick Beagle

luci said...

Olympia asked:

"Would you waterboard someone if it would save your child's life? If so, then you can't be against waterboarding if it would save someone else's child."

I think the real question would be if the information obtained from waterboarding actually produced a factual answer (and not something just made up).

- Mother of two

Olympia said...

Mr. Beagle,

Why am I not surprised of your response. So typical!!!!

Natalie said...


In response to the question posed, "Would you waterboard to save your own child?" You replied that what was of importance is whether the information obtained would be real or made up. I will ask that question again. Real or made up, if you had someone who was holding and threatening bodily harm, or worse, to one of your children, would you HONESTLY not even TRY to get the information? If your child is in danger, is some information not better than none at all? Is a false lead not better than the offender laughing in your face? Would you suggest that while your child was in captivity, or possibly in the process of being abused or murdered, we just politely ask that person what he had done to him? Please sir, it's very important to me, I love my son, I have to know where he is... Yeah, somehow I don't think that is the route you or ANY loving parent would take. If given the opportunity, you would do whatever you could to get an answer, preferably the true answer, but ANY answer, nonetheless. If it is good enough for our children, it is good enough for our countrymen and our neighbors' children, is it not?

Smart Girl Politics ©Template Blogger Green by Dicas Blogger.