Comments

  1. excy says

    She may be gorgeous but she IS ridiculous for backing off and toeing the line. I wonder what her daughter Meghan thinks about this stupidity. Anything she says from this point forward will be taken with a grain of salt. Her flip-flopping husband must be very proud of her now. They should both just go away.

  2. Shane says

    She doesn’t say she agrees with him, she said she stands by HIS STANCE on DADT. She can support him without agreeing with him, just like she can love him without being a total asshat idiot like him.

  3. says

    Cindy McCain must have some major issues to stay married to this warped creep. She provides the money. He abuses her, calling her a “c—” in front of friends, and still manages to intimidate her into publicly changing her stance on an issue.

    Power, even minority Senatorial power, is the ultimate aphrodisiac, I guess.

  4. Bobo says

    @shane There was a big BUT in her tweet,(that almost sounds like a euphemism), “But I stand by my husbands stance…”. Words have very specific meaning…it’s more then support, standing by someones stance means you are in agreement.

  5. Jonathan says

    He probably threatened to kill her. People who know them say she can’t stand him anymore. And I can’t imagine what power he has over her. He’s been living off of her money for as long as they’ve been together.

  6. TANK says

    He probably threatened to kill her? ROTFLMAO! How do you people take yourselves seriously? That diva drive must be in a lot of gay DNA.

    She’s a stepford wife, and has been since the beginning. Please, she has no one to blame but herself for this predicament, and as a political wife, which she obviously prefers to being consistent or coherent, dictates that she support her husband’s bigotry. She is fully culpable for her two step.

  7. TANK says

    And shane, your defense is very suspect (not just you, there are many queens, I’m sure, who feel the same way). Were you buying sequins at goodwill the other day? I jest…

    For your correction, there is no such thing as an lgbt “ally” who yet supports the homophobic bigotry of others, even if, given a more charitable translation (and she’s certainly not earned it, and didn’t mean it), they “disagree,” but support the mere right of them to hold that opinion–which sidesteps the issue entirely, and is irrelevant. For an ally, or anyone, there is no viable alternative to equal treatment under the law and social acceptance of lgbt people. It has no credibility to treat both sides as equally justifiable, or one as legitimate and defensible. This isn’t agree to disagree territory–this is shameless gamesmanship.

Leave A Reply