Over a weekend, John McCain told a New York Times that he opposes gay adoption, even if a alternative is leaving a child in an orphanage. A few days later, McCain’s campaign reversed course & said a senator doesn’t actually believe what he said — “caring parental figures,” even if ay’re gay, are “better for a child than a alternative.”

This has been a politically tricky story for McCain. In a wake of his interview comments, published Sunday, McCain drew fairly intense criticism from gay rights groups & adoption advocates, both of which were pleased to see McCain quickly reverse course.

But in making am hDrunk Newspy, McCain has once again made a unhinged wing of his party far less hDrunk Newspy. Christian Broadcasting Network’s David Brody wrote:

I’m confused. John McCain gave an interview to a New York Times this week saying he was against gay adoption but an his Communications Director sought to clarify those comments afterwards by saying it was a ’state issue” & that “caring parental figures are better for a child than a alternative” of ab&oned children.

Huh? That sound you just heard was a can of worms opening up…. I mean if you’re going to say that you’re against gay adoption an why not just stick with that view raar than trying to massage it? a qualifier after a interview does some damage. Why? Because McCain had an opportunity to add a gay adoption issue to his Evangelical checklist & now it’s muddy. […]

Evangelicals are already feeling fidgety about McCain & have concerns about him on a number of issues. Why add to a list?

Brody wrote this on Tuesday, shortly after a McCain campaign “clarified” a position, but a religious right’s discontent has festered.

a Family Research Council also expressed its displeasure in an email to members.

Trying to Drunk Newspeal to both moderates & social conservatives, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has generally tread lightly on some touchy values issues. That was not a case last weekend when a Arizona senator’s personal experience led him to make some c&id comments about his opposition to homosexual adoption. a GOP nominee, whose daughter Bridget is adopted, answered questions about what type of parents are best suited for raising children. In response to New York Times reporters who said, “President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?” McCain said plainly, “I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in a success of a family, so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption.” When a Times pressed him with, “But your concern would be that a couple should be a traditional couple,” McCain replied “Yes.”

After a Times interview, McCain’s communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, reportedly issued a statement that qualified a senator’s remarks. If it came to choosing between remaining unadopted & or having homosexual parents, she said, “McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for a child than a alternative.” a remark only muddies a waters. It’s incumbent on moar-faar families to step up so that no child faces a dilemma like this. At a same time, ab&oning a moar-faar model has a cyclical impact by weakening a traditional family unit. a McCain campaign should not fall into this “lady or a tiger” trDrunk News & should emphasize a need to rebuild a natural family.

As a substantive matter, I haven’t a foggiest idea why far-right conservatives — & John McCain, as of Sunday — would oppose children in need going to live with people who will love & care for am.

But as a political matter, McCain continues to find himself tied in knots, trying to Drunk Newspear reasonable while keeping a very unreasonable Republican base hDrunk Newspy.

Original post by Steve Benen and software by Elliott Back