This post is reprinted from Newsweek. See the original column here.

Tony Snow has died. A young man (with my next birthday being number sixty, I am entitled to the folly of calling a fifty-three year old “young”), with a facile mind, an easy smile, and a quick wit; a man who had a perpetual twinkle in his eye when he was doing what he he born to do; a man who loved his wife and his children; a man who loved politics and maybe a little more loved the verbal sparring that comes with politics well-played; a man who desperately did not want to die. And when he died, I cried. I know I cried not just for him, but—filled with fear—for myself as well. The diagnoses of our cancer recurrences (“recurrences” being one of those misnomers we simply endure) tumbled out upon one another by days, and I felt—and feel— connected to a man who loved what I loved, although we came to nearly every argument from opposite corners of the ring.

Last week—when Tony was still alive and I was not so afraid—I rode my bicycle in a small Fourth of July parade at the beach to which we have gone for close to two decades. When I got to the celebration and stepped off the bicycle, an older man approached me. I hope you are doing well, he said, and then he added—oddly, it is more often the case that people do feel obliged to confess the gap between us—”although we don’t agree on much of anything.” I thanked him for his good wishes and then I added—as I often do—”and I suspect we agree on more than you think.” He smiled, I smiled, and that was that. And then Tony died. And I thought more about the things on which we agree and the things on which we disagree. And as with my parade companion, I suspect Tony and I agreed on more things that we might have guessed. Read more

Our guest bloggers are Winnie Stachelberg and Robert Gordon. Stachelberg is is the Senior Vice President for External Affairs at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Gordon is a senior fellow.

This weekend, John McCain staked out an extreme position on “gay adoption.” Here’s what he said:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain: I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Q: Even if the alternative is the kid staying in an orphanage, or not having parents.

Mr. McCain: I encourage adoption and I encourage the opportunities for people to adopt children I encourage the process being less complicated so they can adopt as quickly as possible. And Cindy and I are proud of being adoptive parents.

Q: But your concern would be that the couple should a traditional couple

Mr. McCain: Yes.

McCain not only expressed his opposition to adoption by “gay couples”–as if that weren’t bad enough. He said he wants “both parents” involved and therefore doesn’t believe in “gay adoption.” This approach rules out adoption by gay individuals–even though these adoptions are permitted in every state except Florida. In fact, it seems to rule out adoption by single heterosexuals too.

There’s a reason that nearly every child welfare organization in the country, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Child Welfare League of America opposes bans on adoption by gays and lesbians, and no state has followed Florida’s lead in banning these adoptions. About 130,000 children wait in the foster care system each year for a permanent, loving home. And every year, half of these children are never placed, and 20,000 children “age out” of the foster care system without ever finding a permanent home.

Children are placed in foster care on a case-by-case basis. Every potential parent undergoes extensive screening before a child is placed with them. A ban on certain adoptions eliminates potential parents and wastes child welfare agencies’ time and resources implementing it—in Texas alone, a ban would cost more than $75 million over 5 years.

Does John McCain really think hundreds of thousands of children should sit in foster care and orphanages while we wait for “Ozzie and Harriet” families to appear? As someone who himself made the admirable decision to adopt a child, Senator McCain surely knows better.

UPDATE: McCain walks it back. Via Andrew Sullivan:

“McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.

McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative,”
- Jill Hazelbaker, Director of Communications

We think the last sentence means McCain personally doesn’t agree with Florida, but it’s hard to say. How about a little straight talk? Barring gay people from adopting is morally wrong.

UPDATE II: McCain’s “clarification” doesn’t square with his position 8 years ago. Asked in 2000 about adoption by same-sex couples, McCain responded that he didn’t “believe it’s appropriate.” (San Francisco Examiner, March 1, 2000)

Today, the Senate plans to vote on the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief or PEPFAR, an international health initiative dedicated to combating HIV/AIDS around the world.The Wonk Room has previously argued that the bill is imperfect and that its ideological restrictions place unnecessary obstacles in the path of effective prevention policies. Now, a small group of conservative senators, concerned about the cost of the bill, seek to further hamper access to life-saving information and services:

A main sticking point is a current program mandate that requires 55 percent of the money go to treatment programs. Writers of the new bill dropped the provision, arguing that health care workers on the ground – not Washington politicians – can better determine what programs are most effective.

But Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and a longtime supporter of PEPFAR, has spearheaded an effort to get the requirement restored, saying the mandate is necessary to prevent money from getting diverted into unrelated development and poverty-relief programs.

Access “to treatment, while vital, cannot reverse the spread of HIV.” In fact, “given that there are about 2.5 new HIV infections for every person starting on AIDS drugs, there is no way to control the pandemic through treatment alone.”

The “real issue is how wisely the money is spent.” And, according to both the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and the Government Accountability Office, “earmarking a specific percentage of funds to be spent on particular activities hampers the flexibility and effectiveness of the program.”

The requirements also wastes aid resources. As Michael Gerson, President Bush’s former speech writer, points out:

And because treatment is less expensive than it used to be, PEPFAR is meeting its treatment goal for less money. The 55 percent treatment floor would force the program to waste money in pursuit of an arbitrary, nonsensical spending target — the worst kind of congressional earmark.

Since 2003, “PEPFAR has been getting life-saving treatment to nearly two million people,” but ideological and spending restrictions have wasted millions and “failed to slow the infection rate.” Self-professed fiscal conservatives should take note and drop their opposition to this imperfect, but certainly necessary, piece of legislation.

UPDATE: RH Reality Check has more on the pending PEPFAR vote.