Following the Log
Cabin Republicans' endorsement of John McCain for
president at the Republican National Convention,
The Advocate caught up with Log Cabin president
Patrick Sammon to discuss the group's advocacy work,
McCain's stances on LGBT issues, and how Gov.
Sarah Palin affected the decision to endorse.
The Advocate:Where do gay rights fall in terms of priorities for
Log Cabin Republicans as an organization?Patrick Sammon: We're a gay rights
organization working from inside the Republican Party, and
so we're completely focused on how do we
advance equality for LGBT people. And the fact is,
doing so will require votes and support from Republicans,
and so we made this endorsement of Senator McCain with
the very clear focus on how this decision will impact
and benefit our community. The fact is, even those who
disagree with our decision should realize there's a
50% chance that Senator McCain wins this election, and
I ask those people, do they really want our community
sitting on the sidelines for the next four years? I
say no. I say that Senator McCain, in the totality of his
record, is someone who has demonstrated that he can be a
maverick, that has demonstrated he's an
inclusive Republican, and I believe that if he's
elected, as a community we will make progress on some of the
issues that are so important to all.
What demonstrates that to you?He's the only candidate in the field who's
actually paid a political price for a vote that
benefited gay and lesbian people. The fact is, one of
the reasons social conservatives distrust him is because he
twice voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment --
that took political courage, and he paid a price for
it with his base. He paid a price that made it harder
to win the nomination. I think he needs to be applauded
for that. He's not where we want him to be on every
issue -- I'm the first one to admit that -- but
at the end of the day, on the most significant issue
that our community has faced, he was on the right side
of it.
Voting against the FMA is certainly a pro-gay vote.
Other than play defense on a crucial bill, has Senator
McCain done anything to advance LGBT rights?Senator McCain took a tough stand. We can quibble about
whether that's a pro-gay vote or defensive
vote, but he's the only candidate in this field
who paid a political price for a vote related to gay rights.
In Senator
[Barack] Obama's U.S. Senate career, there have
been a lot of strong words about LGBT people, but I
haven't seen the leadership. Another thing
about Senator Obama is that he's shown a willingness
on a whole range of other issues in the last four
months to make political calculations and decisions
and adjust his positions accordingly, whether it was
on telecom immunity or offshore drilling, we've seen
equivocating, which leads one to believe it is
politics as usual. So you have to wonder if, on gay
issues, all of a sudden there's a political
calculation made, are we going to be sold out if it
happens to benefit him politically? I hope
that's not the case. But he's been presenting
himself as a different kind of politician
-- well, over the last six months we've
seen he's just like any other politician. I say all
of this not to denigrate the positive words
he's saying but to remind LGBT people that
we've been down this road before -- where politicians
say great things and then don't deliver. So
it's a mistake, consequently, to put all our
eggs in one basket and not develop a strategy where we can
work with and move Senator McCain on these same
issues.
What do you make of Senator McCain's, for lack of
a better term, schizophrenic approach to gay issues so
far. He did certainly go on the record against gay
adoption, and then his campaign repositioned him
to say Senator McCain sees adoption as a states'
rights issue, and then there was a similar
situation on the California marriage ban, with the
campaign at one point indicating he backed the ballot
measure and then backtracking several days later to a
more neutral standpoint. What does that signal,
and how do you deal with that? Certainly we've been disappointed with
some of the things the senator has said in the context
of this campaign, but we have looked at the totality
of his record, number one. Number two, in a lot of the
missteps throughout the summer, they're not on
substantive policy issues that he's going to
deal with as president. So we feel like based on our
experience both dealing with the campaign and dealing
with the senator before he ran for president that
he's someone who we can work with and talk to and
educate and try to highlight where we might disagree and try
to move ahead constructively.
The fact is,
though, Senator McCain is not going to win this election
unless he appeals to independent voters. And I think both
candidates and both sides agree that it is
independents who are going to make the difference in
this race. That's why I'm optimistic between
now and Election Day we will hear more inclusive
language from the senator on issues that affect our
community.
Have you heard that from the campaign? We've discussed with the campaign the
importance of having the senator reach out to LGBT
voters and offer an inclusive vision for the country,
and I'm hopeful that we will see some positive
developments in that regard in this election.
Some people have criticized the appearance of
McCain's chief strategist, Steve Schmidt, at your
delegate luncheon last week as a duplicitous
attempt to get gay money. What's your reaction to that? Senator McCain, unlike Senator Obama, is not
taking private financing for his campaign. Effective
Labor Day, Senator McCain is getting public financing.
So if there was an effort to get gay money, it would have
happened before now. Number two, Schmidt's appearance
was an important symbolic step forward about Senator
McCain, the kind of campaign he's running, and
the kind of president he will be. The fact is, to have the
main campaign strategist come and speak to our members and
say positive things about what we're working to
achieve is significant. I have gotten a lot of really
positive feedback. If you look at the incremental
progress Log Cabin's made in the last four years, I
think it's significant. When you look at a
convention four years ago that had lots of antigay
rhetoric, lots of effort to turn out the base using gay
people as a wedge issue. Four years later, we have a
convention devoid of antigay rhetoric -- we're
not at a point where we hear positive things -- but I
hope and expect that will happen in the future.
The other thing
is, we have a nominee who is on the right side of the
most important issue in the last decade. And you have a very
important figure in the campaign who's speaking
to gay voters on the day that McCain accepts the
nomination -- the most important speech of the
campaign -- and [Steve Schmidt] takes time out of what would
be a very busy day to come and speak with us. And
that's significant and it's meaningful.
For the gay left,
who has so often pointed to symbolic gestures as a sign
of progress, this is a very important symbolic gesture, and
symbolic progress usually leads to concrete progress.
Have you seen any evidence that Schmidt's
appearance forced other factions of the Republican Party
to grapple with your presence within the party? I have been quite frankly surprised that the
social conservatives -- on the Web anyway -- I have
not seen any stink about it. Certainly, in speaking
with people from the campaign, there's no indication
that there was a big firestorm from social
conservatives that Steve Schmidt had spoken to our
group.
In terms of Palin, it's clear that she has strong
ties to the Christian community and was raised as a true
believer. There's a lot of gays and
lesbians who have an aversion to politicians who
have strong Christian right leanings, for obvious
reasons. How did the organization reconcile itself
with endorsing a ticket?First, there's a lot about Governor
Palin's record on gay issues that we
don't know about. We are going to listen to what she
says when she's asked about the issues and
respond accordingly. I think there are many on the far
left and the far right who are trying to define her as an
extremist on every single issue, and we just don't
know yet if that's an accurate portrayal.
Certainly, we
disagree with her view of marriage, we disagree with her
effort to try to block partner benefits, though at the same
time, she did veto a bill that [would have taken away]
the benefits -- I know she said she [had to veto the
bill] to follow the [state] constitution. Some social
conservatives in Alaska were pushing her to sign the bill
anyway. So she didn't have to do what she did
in terms of vetoing the bill.
Bottom line is,
there's a lot about her that remains uncertain. I
think people have a caricature of her, and
they're trying to read into it things about gay
issues that haven't been shown to be true yet. We do
know that winning this election is going to require
independent voters, and I think Governor Palin is
smart enough to understand that. And if she's
seen as an extremist across the board then that's
going to hurt this ticket.
So because her
record is so thin on these issues, I think there's a
real opportunity to work with her and talk to her
about these issues, educate her about these issues,
and have a positive position represented in the months
and years ahead.
I think
it's also important to point out that Senator McCain
is the nominee and Senator McCain will be the
president. Senator McCain will make the decisions. And
if the VP was so critical on gay issues, we never
would have had a Federal Marriage Amendment because Dick
Cheney... it's the only issue he disagreed with
President Bush on in the last eight years.
How much did the vice-presidential pick matter?
What if McCain, for instance, had chosen Mitt Romney?It's very unlikely Log Cabin would have endorsed
had someone been selected who had used gay and lesbian
people to win elections. People like Mitt Romney and
Mike Huckabee had a history of trying to use gay
issues to win. Mitt Romney did antigay mailings in Iowa
during the campaign. He did an antigay TV ad. Someone
like that is someone that would have been deeply
troubling to us. Contrast that to Sarah Palin: Even if
we don't agree with her on every issue, in her
'06 governor's race in Alaska she could
have [used] a lot of antigay rhetoric and it
wouldn't have hurt her in a Republican primary in
Alaska. And she actually had more inclusive language
when talking about the issues.
There's one area that could be critical to LGBT
rights in the next four years where what John McCain has
articulated certainly varies from what Barack
Obama has articulated, and that's the area
of the Supreme Court. What's your thinking about
how Senator McCain might affect the makeup of the
court, assuming several justices may retire over
the next four years?Every political analyst agrees that Democrats are going
to have a margin of two, three, four, five, maybe even
six or seven seats. So the fact is, Senator McCain, if
he's elected, will have to pick mainstream,
middle-of-the-road judges, or they're simply not
going to get confirmed.
Number two, the
Supreme Court is full of people who were Republican
appointees who have made rulings and decisions that have
benefited the LGBT community. So it's difficult
to predict what kind of judges the nominees actually
turn out to be on these issues.
Third point, if
you look at state supreme courts around the country over
the last five years, the most significant rulings favoring
our community have come from courts dominated by
Republican appointees. The fact is, I think we have a
pretty good record on how judicial nominees fare.
When asked about
what kind of justices he will appoint, Senator McCain
talks about Justice Alito and Justice Roberts when he could
talk about Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.
It's clear that Justice Alito and Justice
Roberts are more middle-of-the-road justices than Thomas and
Scalia. It's also important to point out that Senator
McCain voted for Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
