Good point.

A quick Internet search reveals that McCain told gay & lesbian media outlet Washington Blade just before the election that "he would leave it up to military leaders to decide whether the DADT law should be retained or repealed. But he suggested that he would support a review of the policy."

This was in an article dated Oct. 1st, 2008. While again, he may have been pandering, it is possible that his position has shifted gradually (which one might take to be an honest change of heart). Basically:

June 2007: I support DADT
October 2008: Maybe the generals should think about reviewing it
June 2009: Yeah, we should definitely review it

I didn't realize that D.C. was completely surrounded by water.

LOL, sometimes we wish it was. Or perhaps covered by water.

There has been a lot of movement from the social conservative positions to the more socially liberal/libertarian positions on the issue of gays both in marriage and military service over the last 10 years. I think it is fine if a politician changes his mind.

The real question here is did he change it because he believes in the new position or because he saw some political advantage to it.

reach across the isle

I didn't realize that D.C. was completely surrounded by water. [/grammar nazi]

I also enjoyed Huckabee's call to keep moderates out of the GOP (or something close to that)Not bad from someone whom many considered a moderate at best.

The problem is "study the efficacy" doesn't mean anything, and what would constitute evidence that it isn't "working."

Some number of dismissals? Hardly ... having any policy that provides any grounds to dismiss anybody will, by definition, produce more dismissals (and therefore "not work") than not having that policy.

I agree with PDShaw ... a "study" of this issue is meaningless and will do nothing more than dig up what the finders themselves already buried. The reasons cited to keep homosexuals out of the military -- either as a moral absolute and as a threat to the software of unit cohesion and fraternal love -- are not "hard" matters that submit easily to any kind of empirically rigorous study.

Could be indeed. So... what? Are we supposed to giving him credit for stating his true position now he's in no position to do anything about it and runs no real risk of it hurting him? I find much to admire in Senator McCain but given all the above he's hardly in any position to trump Obama on the issue, given that Obama is, at worst, merely working to very similar standards as McCain in terms of telling it "how it is" when it's convenient and not when it isn't. Both men have been in favour of repeal when talking it up doesn't being any political costs and have fudged when it gets tricky (in office for Obama, when seeking the support of conservatives for McCain). Big whoop.

I guess with politicians, the answer is usually "pandering".