Politics
More PoliticsYes, I'm a Pure Republican
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com. Her new book, Dirty Sexy, Politics, will be published in August.
After a College Republican group withdrew its support for a Meghan McCain speech because she believes in marriage equality, she took the GOP’s “purity test.” And passed.
This week I made a little news by not being “pure enough,” if you will, by College Republican standards. I was invited to speak at George Washington University on February 9 by numerous campus groups, including the George Washington College Republicans and Allied in Pride, an LGBT organization. I take great pride in being one of the few people who brings together the gay community and Republican groups. But somewhere between my accepting their invitation and my presence coinciding with Marriage Equality Week, GW’s College Republicans bailed.
Any organization asking for “purification” from something just feels innately creepy and a little sinister.
They subsequently put out a statement saying: “Ms. McCain’s views on marriage equality align with neither the Republican Party nor her father’s personal stance. Though we fully supported John McCain’s candidacy for president, we feel that Meghan McCain’s last name is not near as important as the message she advocates.”
Yowza.
Seriously, how many 25-year-old women do you know that have the exact same world view as their 73-year-old fathers? Besides, a simple Google search would have tipped off these young Republicans to my very vocal and active support of LGBT rights and marriage equality in this country.
And let’s call a spade a spade here—this is about marriage equality. I would have been less insulted if the George Washington College Republicans had simply come out and said that. By the way, I am still speaking at the university. (After some miscommunication about being disinvited, the young Republicans simply reneged on their sponsorship.) And I am very grateful and honored to be able to talk about where I see the future of the party. Which is exactly what my speech is about—the future and my generation of Republicans. It’s not a speech about marriage equality (although that topic is mentioned) but rather how I came to believe what I believe about the GOP and where I hope the future leads.
I call the talk, “Redefining Republican: No Labels, No Boxes, No Stereotypes,” but apparently some student organizations feel more comfortable being able to group all Republicans into one place.
All of this drama smacks of the Republican Party’s so-called purity test, which caused a lot of controversy last year. In November, an email circulated around the RNC asking members for comments on a proposal that all Republicans must pass a litmus test in order to receive financial support from the party. It was based on the idea that President Reagan “believed that anyone that agreed with him eight out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.” If you agree with eight of the 10 statements on the purity test, you’re apparently the right kind of Republican.
You can imagine how I feel about that idea. Other than the fact that I believe a political party should foster new ideas and encourage widespread support, the word “purity” alone gives me an uneasy feeling. Any organization asking for “purification” from something just feels innately creepy and a little sinister.
So, feeling a little vexed by the GW incident, I took the purity test. I went online to see just exactly how radical I am from the “pure ones.” Because I wanted to see by the GOP’s own standards just how “moderate” I really am.
Just for the record, here are the questions and my answers. The 10 questions are, do you believe in:
1. Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill.
Yes, of course. This is one of the central pillars of being a Republican.
2. Market-based health-care reform and opposition to Obama-style government-run health care.
Yes. I am against universal health care. Especially until we figure out how are we going to pay for it.
3. Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.
Yes and no. I believe in climate change and support market-based energy reforms. I also support cap-and-trade legislation, in theory. But I oppose, as my father says, Obama’s “cap and tax” plan. The Obama administration has used this to tax people instead of encouraging the exploration of new technology. As it is, this philosophy has turned into something that could adversely affect our economy.
So put me down for half a “no.”
YOUR FRIENDS
Joy Behar Was Right
Jeff Shesol is the author of Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court. He is also a founding partner of West Wing Writers, a speechwriting and strategy firm and the author of Mutual Contempt. From 1998 to 2001, Shesol served as a speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. A Rhodes Scholar, he holds degrees in history from Oxford and Brown universities. His comic strip, Thatch, appeared daily in more than 150 newspapers from 1994-1998.
Dragon Tattoo Star Narrowed to Final Four
Gina Piccalo spent a decade at the Los Angeles Times covering Hollywood. She's now a contributing writer for Los Angeles Magazine and her work has appeared in Elle, More and Emmy. She can be found at ginapiccalo.com.
A former editor of Men's Journal, Claire Martin has written for Outside, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times magazine.
Inside Chelsea's Wedding Party
Lynnley Browning is a frequent contributor to the business pages of The New York Times and is a former Moscow-based correspondent for Reuters, where she covered energy and commodities. She grew up in Tulsa, Okla., majored in Slavic Languages and Literatures at Princeton University, and is fluent in Russian. She lives in Hamden, Conn., with her son.
I Don't Care About Obama's iPod
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com. Her new book, Dirty Sexy, Politics, will be published in August.
Snooki Talks to Meghan McCain!
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com. Her new book, Dirty Sexy, Politics, will be published in August.
Why I Love Huge
Meghan McCain is a columnist for The Daily Beast. Originally from Phoenix, she graduated from Columbia University in 2007. She is a New York Times bestselling children's author, previously wrote for Newsweek magazine, and created the Web site mccainblogette.com. Her new book, Dirty Sexy, Politics, will be published in August.
FarLeftFist
Hmmm, it easy to answer those questions, harder to come up with solutions to those questions. Republicans never have and never will have the answers to those questions, for example, take question 1- The last 3 republican president's have all expanded the size of Govt, expanded the size of the debt, and the only one's that got lower taxes were multi-millionaires. Ronald Reagan himself, Mr. "conservative", expanded Govt. by 98% and ballooned the deficit, as did Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. so while that political ideology sounds all well and good, it actually is a mythical political ideology and platform. You can't even point to a republican president that accomplished that in history. Major Fail.
Number 2 speaks for itself, defending the status quo is unacceptable, only in America do we rely on the sick and dead to raise the GDP. Disgusting and Pathetic.
3- I could go on forever.
The rest is RW propaganda with NO real substance.
The fact that this "purity" test even exists is a little....well....
Nazi-like.
kayjay
2 and 3 are easily the most amusing. 2 because it contradicts number 1 ("universal healthcare" - be it in conjunction with (france/germany/uk) or in place of (canada) a free market - has been proven to result in less government spending than the US has every time).
3 because it contradicts itself. "cap and trade" is a market-based approach to energy reform.
This is the biggest problem with the Republican party: stupidity. I think there are better market-based approaches to energy reform than "cap and trade" (heavily taxing gas prices for instance), but when the people writing the purity test can't even understand the concepts they're against -- how can you trust their intellect for ANYTHING else?
FarLeftFist
True, also number 3 eludes to the fact that innovation in that field will be sparked by doing nothing, these people need a swift kick in the ass, republicans like to kick the can down the road. They never try to fix anything before all hell breaks loose, they would rather all hell break loose then confront the problems with bad policies and ideas. New innovation could take years, maybe even decades to accomplish, why not start now, now they have incentive to innovate. The questions don't even give 'for example' type alternatives, it's just propaganda used to prey on weak-minded individuals. How about some progressive ideas to thrust America forward, we have lost ground to other countries on so many different issues. Reagan really f**ked us.
Marionetta
We don't have free market healthcare in Canada. We have a universal single payer system. And that system spends 2/3 of what is spent in the U.S. (10% versus 15% of GDP). That anyone would support people not getting healthcare in the US just shows how mean, cold hearted and nartsty they are.
What is wrong with Americans? Don't they care about anyone except themselves?
And Meghan, you fail the purity test everytime you fixate on your "boob" stories, honey; BTW your Dad is a boob too.
jaydeekay
I wouldn't mind seeing Meghan's.
AlPike
If you tax gas heavily the price of all goods will go up (including food). This could only worsen the current economic condition and those hit hardest by it. Unemployment goes up with gas prices as well. People go out less, spend less money and the whole thing continues to snowball. There are no easy answers.
bgeasyas123
Great post farleft! Way to point out the contradictions in the "Purity" test....i.e. McCain denies universal healthcare on the basis that we have no way to pay for it, but is all for continued fighting in the middle east with no regards to what it is doing to the financial stability of our country.
I am so sick of hearing all the harping about adding to the deficit for plans that will directly benefit US citizens, but no EVER, EVER acknowledges the black hole that is the so-called war on terror.
Hey Meghan, I bet if you did some homework you'd be surprised to find out how much a healthcare plan could financed by the amount of money that has been handed over to private defense firms....such as Haliburton. That would be a table of statistics that no one could deny.
libertarianrepub
youre comparing apples and oranges. more liberal rhetoric for ya.
what about medicare? medicare has cost 30% more than the iraq and afghan wars have... but no one EVER, EVER acknowledges. typical liberal thnking their "better" than everybody else.
libertarianrepub
youre a far left idiot... republicans have no solutions? theres some liberal rhetoric for ya. just tell the truth that you simply dislike ms. mccain because of her views. although i do agree that the last 3 repubs have expanded gov't.
what is unacceptable about number 2? you realize that govt already controls and regulates our health care? thats the reason the costs keep going up... whern was the last time an american went to canada for care?
Alan Goldstein
when was the last time an american went to canada for care?
Why not ask Palin, genius?
overdue
They called you a "Ms."?! They accept gender equality, but not marriage equality?
Are the Young Republicans wannabe feminists?!
NowThis
You know, Meghan, I wouldn't even mind that you're such a shameless attention addict if you actually had a clue what you're talking about, but you don't. You're a pretender, a phony, and someone who plays the victim card NON-STOP in order to get noticed.
The problem is...you're just spinning your wheels. It will definitely get you the attention you so desperately need, but nothing more. You don't have the smarts, the personality, the maturity, or the work ethic to have even the tiniest impact on the Republican party.
You have the opportunity (because of your last name) to land a good job, and yet you choose not to work because you're a pampered, spoiled child. You'd rather spend your time concocting stories about how unfair things are for you, like people failing to appreciate your real (not fake!) boobs. Damn that Heidi Montag. Why does SHE get all the attention??
Sajwert
@NowThis
You never said one word about the article's subject. All you did was tear down, insult, denigrate this young woman's point of view.
THAT is not a rebuttal. It is the only way far too many of you people (I am assuming you are a purity Republican) seem to be able to answer what I consider a fairly reasonable article.
She is the coming Republican party whether you and those like you want it to happen or not. Either that, or the Republican party will be peopled only with rigid, bigoted, know-nothings who add nothing to the country except war, no taxes for the rich, and contempt for anyone who disagrees with them.
NowThis
"She is the coming Republican party whether you and those like you want it to happen or not."
Oh okay. I'll be watching with excitement as Meggie McMoron leads the Republican party forward.
Alan Goldstein
She's the coming Republican Party? ROFLMAO. Dems have nothing to worry about.
Colonel-Burton
I must agree with Sajwert, what your argument boils down to is what we call Ad Hominem, latin for "To the man." It is a type of logical fallacy. Instead of critiquing a person's argument or position, you attack them personally. I have heard it refered to as "flinging chairs across the room" because you do not have any really options.
For example: "My opponet supports raising taxes on smoking, something that would raise money and improve public health, but you forget that his wife is a former adult film star. Is that the kind of person we want making policy?"
The argument above has nothing to do with the issues at stake, but many people would make it and consider it valid, though it isn't. I must conclude that you, NowThis, are such a person. One who ignores issues to attack opponents. Why? Usually, it is because the attacker doesn't understand the argument, doesn't agree with it or know how to properly refute it, has some level of contempt for his opponent, doesn't respect the rules of polite discourse and debate, or is simply childish. I do not presume to know your motivations, but I do suggest you improve the quality of your posts if you want people to take you seriously. As it is, you sound like an 11 year old who is loosing at online gaming.
NowThis
Oh God it's you again. The pitiful amateur psychiatrist.
FarLeftFist
You just completely explained fox news. Thank You.
Colonel-Burton
NowThis,
Actually, my degrees are in Philosophy and Military History. I never intended to portray myself as a psychiatrist, though I am flattered. Still, I am obligated to point out that you are again reverting to Ad Hominem.
satsuma girl
It's spelled l-o-s-i-n-g. I suggest using an online dictionary.
sophia5
Another article from Ms. Provocative.
Like taking Ambien.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
libertarianrepub
You sound very smart. Good thing you use logic and reason and facts to back up your claims. Just like every other liberal... (sarcasm for the dumb liberals that have never taken sarcasm 101)
satsuma girl
Ummm. We don't need to take courses on sarcasm. Sarcasm is more of an intelligence based skill. But I'm certainly open to the idea of conservatives lacking frontal lobes putting forth the effort to learn about humor. I don't think it's as easy as learning to draw the cartoons in the back of the comic books, however.
FarLeftFist
Ronald Reagan would have scored a 4 out of a 10, essentially failing the purity test. Bush would have failed according to those questions too, as would your father John McCain. Seriously, do the research yourself. Don't you know republicans run on a platform of Govt. In-efficiency. Don't just listen to their words, actually see their actions, check their voting records on issues, look deeper. It's all a sham. They are just an opposition party against the progression of America b/c it doesn't always serve their own self-interests.
libertarianrepub
Who cares if they would have failed it?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
AlanD2
I think you're projecting again, superdad.
kswimmy
I always find it strange that the right thinks it's the left that fights against the "sanctity" of marriage. Especially since the red states have WAY higher divorce rates (but you think it's the left that hates marriage?). As far as hating the military, the left's the side that wants to find the quickest way to get those men and women we love home. Asking for a few rules, like having the same waiting period and background checks at gun shows as there are expected at regular storefronts doesn't equal "hate". Hate Bush? Maybe. But not quite as much as hate Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The Christian thing? Seems the Christians are the ones who hate everyone. Hate homosexuals, hate feminists, hate anyone who's not Caucasian, hate Muslims, hate atheists (and will do anything to make sure they don't have freedom of speech). I mean really, the list goes on and on, doesn't it?
Sajwert
@kswimmy
I was raised in a Fundamentalist home and have some family members of that religious point of view even now. They believe that their brand of Christianity is the ONLY passage to 'right living' and see nothing wrong with the hatred that they spew daily.
Many of the elders I grew up with used to say that they hated that which their God hated: and at that time, it included the black race and anyone who disagreed with that hatred. They hated evolutionists, women who were "uppity", government interference in their moonshine liquor making, and the list is far too long.
ElzeeM
I live in the reddest of the red states. Divorce is so common you'd think we had passed a law mandating it. We even have common-law marriage, so you don't have to be married at all to be considered married. (Seriously, I think if you want your marriage to stay together, don't get married in the South and don't stay there. I think there's something in the water.)
The only sanctity of marriage thing that's going on is that gays cannot get married. Everyone else can do whatever they want -- and they do. Ask about our teen pregnancy rates, our child poverty rates, etc. (through the roof). But if you dare wonder why all these Christians don't seem to even make an attempt to match their rhetoric with their actions, you get accused of hating God. It makes no sense.
As to Meghan's Republican beliefs, fine. Let me know when the Republicans ever stop growing the government. I'm not excusing the Democrats, but like our marriage mess, it's hard to understand how people like McCain can say small government is it after nearly 30 years of Republican leadership. They're all enriching themselves.
libertarianrepub
You forgot to mention the Muslims that try to kill us... more liberal propoganda from you
This user is no longer registered.
KGBeast
Ok, I'll give it to you that they hate bush, but hate the military? That's stupid. My family has served in every American conflict since the American Revolution. Hate gun owners? No, but they hate gun violence, and some of the ways they go about containing the violence seems misguided, but it's not out of hate. They don't hate marriage, they hate inequality. They just believe that since Gay people pay taxes and what they're doing isn't illegal they should be afforded all the same rights and protections as a heterosexual couple under the constitution. Lastly they don't hate christians. You'll find that most democrats are christians. What they don't like is when Christianity is given preferential treatment over other religions. They also don't like it when churches enjoy tax exemption while espousing politics, because they believe that if the public is going to shoulder the cost of their operations, then they shouldn't be allowed to endorse a political standpoint, as that would amount to the public paying to further their private political agendas. Their are lots of ways you can dissect the viewpoint and argue it's flaws, but just saying "You guys hate freedom and marriage and the troops" gets us nowhere. It doesn't change anyone's mind. It doesn't bolster your viewpoint. It just makes you look like a simple, child-like neanderthal with a black and white outlook on the world.
No matter what your politics, try to understand that both sides mean well. Baseless, ad hominem insults don't further the discourse or bring us any closer to an agreement.
maspring
My scores.
3 "yes"
1 "No"
2 "Need more information"
4 "Not real questions / false choices"
How many yeses do you have to have before you can be in the club?
carolinem
One of my biggest pet peeves with Meghan McCain is the way she constantly talks about what her generation of Republicans wants. How presumptuous and ignorant it is of her to assume that she can speak for a generation. I'm in your generation, Ms. McCain, and you do not speak for me, nor do you speak for millions of others who are also in this generation. The arrogance of appointing yourself spokesperson for anything, let alone an entire generation, is beyond arrogant. It's also delusional.
jaydeekay
Is there anyone else?
The Jonas brothers?
dreaday19
don't forget Heidi Montag... now there's a role model.
DakLak
She might be a No! Republican but she sure ain't PURE!
Poor dress sense, too.
cmhandy
Gawd would somebody shut her up...
Ceilidh
I didn't think it was possible but this woman gets more and more stupid with each passing column!
It's obvious that by referring to yourself as a young Republican, you are more likely to get attention from the media but most of us have seen how incredibly ignorant you are on the issues you claim to support (Real Time with Bill Maher anyoone? You pulled the blonde card, you actually made me embarassed.) If you had any other surname in the world, people wouldn't give a damn what you were saying. Go back to tweeting your dear friend Tila Tequila, you both have the same love of attention and ignorance.
maryblair
Surprise, surprise! It's Meghan McCain writing about Meghan McCain!
joel19801
Haha! That is funny.
sandyej
Who the heck cares?
Challenged by many comments to write a serious piece, this is what we get? A story about Meghan McCain by, no ............... don't guess.......... that's right -- Meghan McCain. To quote "maryblair", "Suprise, surprise! It's Meghan McCain writing about Meghan McCain!
I would never join a group that would have her as a member. (Actually there is nothing the Republicans could do that would entice me to join them!)
LanceL
You care, or you wouldn't have bothered to respond.
broogha
good point sndyej. someone said she is a journalist by trade. a journalist who has spent most of her work life writing stories about her self....now that is truly a credible journalist.
nstick13
Being against "universal health care" is the most pathetic thing one can write. It completely lacks compassion, and shows the greed and selfishness that overall drives the Republican party.
It's one thing to be against "government run health care" but quite another to be against "universal health care" ie everyone getting care for their health.
Not being able to distinguish between the two is why Republicans, straight up, have no solutions for the health care and insurance issues that financially plague our country.
LauraNo
Not only is this a reflection of republican's disdain for the people, it reflects their real agenda - support of 'market based' anything. These reform plans do all any reform could possibly do to maintain the health insurance industry while trying to bring down long term costs but do they care? No because it might help people and/ or hurt profits of the immoral health care deniers called insurance companies.
jaruss
Why do people refuse to understand that this woman is a journalist......someone who writes, whatever she writes, as a paid professional? That's the definition of a j-o-u-r-n-a-l-i-s-t. She's got a job, and in my opinion, does pretty well with it, even though she probably doesn't have to work, all things considered.
I loved this article. Why? Because I'm not a pure Republican, according to the 'test'. I've been a registered R all my adult life since turning 18, save for a year or so as a Libretarian. I believe government's role is governing, not deciding individual behavior and certainly not curbing individual freedoms, at whatever the costs. This is where I split, for the most part, from the masses of bowing Rs. That, and I haven't voted for an R for POTUS since Bob Dole, the last true R, a war hero, and nice guy. I just can't like the leaders of the party.
Anyhow, thanks for the article Meghan. As an impure R, I like your style.
attilathehunny
read my post-agree with you completely. My only problem with Prop 8 here in CA is that 68% of the people voted against it. Ok, so it is unfortunate, BUT, you cannot overturn the will of the people. If 68% voted for it, the minority against it would not be allowed to do what is being done now. That is the hypocrisy of the liberal left that I so despise. Want to pass Prop 8? Then you must legislate the change as all state's constitutions dictate. Anyone who wants help here doing that, count me in.
meglon978
If the will of the people (the majority) is to remove the constitutional rights of the minority, then yes, they can overturn that. It's why the Constitution exists, and why the Bill of Rights was written; not to give power to the majority, but to protect the minority from the abuse possible from the majority (when trying to codify that abuse into laws).
PicklesandOJ
attilathehunny.... you are incorrect when you say 68% voted against Prop. 8. The final results were 52.24% for Yes and 47.76% for No. However... we appreciate your support in changing the constitution! :-)
fltnspl
Excuse me, sir or madam, but you apparently weren't paying attention to the election results, because the actual percentage for/against Prop 8 was:
52% YES
48% NO
Therefore, applying mathematical principles to our analysis, we find that Proposition 8 actually PASSED. Furthermore, your understanding of the intent of Prop 8 is exactly bass-ackwards, in that a vote against the measure was probably from the "liberal left" that you "so despise".
Obviously, then, a vote for this proposition would likely have belonged to a member of the conservative faction, because the question on the ballot read as follows:
"Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?"
Here is the summary prepared by the CA Attorney General:
"Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
And here's a recommendation: always check your statements for accuracy before submitting them. Otherwise (regardless of your political inclination) it might appear that you were suffering from the ignorance of the "conservative right"* which I hold in such contempt.
___________________________________________
*Redundant, I realize, but I wanted to preserve the flavor of the original construction - "liberal left".)
You know, that phrase reminds me of the time I opened my car door in a parking lot, barely bumping the right-hand door of the adjacent vehicle while doing so. The driver had already left his truck, but I noticed after the fact that there was an adolescent waiting in the passenger seat. After I returned from my errands, there was a note on my windshield stating that I had put a dent in his dad's truck, and I had better supply all pertinent information to this particular e-mail address; otherwise, he was prepared to unleash his "pre-paid legal lawyer" and send the fellow in my direction. :-)
But that's another matter entirely...
flyoverland
Can Scott Brown's daughter's column be far behind?
donquijoterocket
She is, according to her daddy, "available". He didn't say for what. Presumably he'd leave that up to her; him being a liberty loving republican and all.
flyoverland
Being the child of a politician (who doesn't want to go into the family business) seems to be the only requirement for fame these days.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.