That is all.

Who do they think they can woo with such non-answers and evasions?

What can he say? He's a member of the party that believes all citizens are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I wouldn't vote for McCain if you tied a bomb to my neck, but what is any Republican supposed to do with those questions?

You can put this pig in a blonde wig, high heeled pumps and falsies; he still smells like pig shit.

What's he supposed to do with questions like that?

Oh.... try.... answer them honestly, forthrightly and clearly.

Wouldn't THAT be refreshing? In particular from a Republican. As a party there are a lot of things the Republicans are for that a large number of people (in some cases majorities) are opposed to, including some of the "social issues." Their time tested strategy to deal with this is to simply lie, or at least obfuscate. Why? Because they know that if they're honest they risk a greater chance that they won't be elected.

Heck, around here in the very blue western PNW most of the Republicans won't even put that word on their campaign signs. Dino Rossi - rerunning for the governor's seat in Washington - wouldn't even use it in his voter's pamphlet; opting for GOP.

If you belong to the party that villifies gay people?

I mean, this is not McCain going on Ellen and trying to appear openminded to a wider audience - which was still hypocritical but at least you can see the logic. Why even respond to questions from a gay paper?

It is insult to injury (the legislation he supports is injurious to gay people and anyone who care about justicve and equal rights) and seems like it has way more potental harm than good. Why not just stay home, or in this case email it in to friendly papers?

I don't get why they would even bother or whom they could hope to move in the readership of a gay paper.

John McCain's a politician without integrity. Where's the news?

He must! Even if I wanted to run for President as a Republican, I could not disrepect and disremember all the gay people I have known all my life, including people I have known since we were kids, when they themselves did not even know they were gay.

If McCain thinks that he does not know any gays, he is nuts. That would have been the normal attitude, right up into the 1970s, but the USA has changed.

He should be ashamed of himself for pandering in this manner. John McCain is a macho old war eagle, but he also is a world-stage celebrity. He has been around. Does he pretend he does not know gays? Or, if so, does he contend that those gay people are not fully people?

Cryin' out loud, he would gain votes if he said, "I fully support my many gay friends, including Elton John and Ellen DeGeneres." He moves in that world; he should lead benighted middle Americans toward the light. McCain is a creep.

Speak your mind, Straight Shooter [irony on "straight" intended], or else don't take the interview.

I know there's an attitude out there about being disingenuous put toward anyone starting a statement with "some of my best friends are.. [fill in blank]." But don't forget, please, that such a statement can be sincere. Geez, even at my wedding last year (at my age 48 and husband 52, so I'm not talking youngsters), when several of my long-time gay friends/couples were there, plus a whole bunch of beloved family members who happen to be conservative Republicans, at least three different family members (dad? mom? who's gonna take this one?) had to respond to their kids who were wondering why men were dancing together, hugging, even kissing occasionally! I have to say, I was fairly impressed with most of the answers they told me they gave to the kids, and I'm not disowned. If my lesbian couple friends with their web-site-selected-sperm baby had been able to attend, no doubt the baby would have been oooh-ed and ahhh-ed over--until they had to think about the baby having two mothers--and oh, that's too much to handle.

Sarah Palin made a "different choice" from her (supposedly) lesbian friend of many years...I agree with other posters: ask Palin when she made her "choice" not to be gay?

Me, I'm still wrestling with the concept of: Black Gay Republican Conservative (male or female).

"The Blade shouldn't have given him the space....John McCain's a politician without integrity. Where's the news?"

Maybe they gave him the space (smartly) to help accentuate the fact that John McCain is no longer standing for (if he ever did truly stand for) anything remotely resembling gay rights.

It certainly wouldn't hurt his Republican base (whatever that means anymore) since he didn't say anything contrary to them and they don't listen to that "gay stuff" anyway. Perhaps The Blade was helpful to the Dems in booking him for an interview more likely to shore up their base...which overall isn't the Republican ticket?

The question I have NO answer for is why he took the interview in the first place...?

lame

...like I needed another one. But it's apparent to anyone who's ever actually listened to his pronouncements on gay marriage and adoption that he's got some homophobic stuff going on. And he loses points for being gutless and refusing to answer these questions honestly.

Straight shooting maverick, my butt.

Yes, his answers are perfectly consistent with his small government, states rights political philosophy. In that sense, his answers said little. But they imply answers to unasked questions that he couldn't answer. For example, the follow up question should have been asked as to whether if the Arizona legislature introduce legislation expressly permitting discrimination against gays and lesbians, would he support that or oppose it. Of coures, he'd probably answer that he won't engage in hypotheticals. The problem with these kinds of "leave it up to the states" answers is that they are the same answers that would have been given in the 60s in response to Brown v. Board of Ed. or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They amount to a statement that he's willing to permit all kinds of racism, sexism, sexual orientation-ism, or any other kind of -ism just so long as its not Federalism.