McCain Hints at Pro-Choice Running Mate
(Hat tip: Victor Morton)
From The Washington Times:
Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that he would not rule out naming a pro-choice vice-presidential nominee, saying the abortion issue amounts to "a disagreement" and that he thinks conservatives would accept former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who is pro-choice, as a potential running mate.My Comments:
"I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party," Mr. McCain told the Weekly Standard in an interview published on the magazine's Web site Wednesday afternoon. "And I also feel that - and I'm not trying to equivocate here - that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out."
But social-conservative leaders say a pro-choice nominee would cripple Mr. McCain politically with the Republican Party base.
[More]
Is anyone really surprised by this? "The Maverick" is bound and determined to do it all his own way, pro-lifers be damned. He's going to try to prove that he can win without us.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:22 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I just wish he'd stop hinting and say.
Nominating a pro-choicer would really set a lot of people off, myself included.
I have such little interest in this election, it's a shame really.
if he does he is toast. I wonder if he wants Lieberman or Ridge? I certainly would go from holding my nose to holding another body part to tell McCain to piss off.
PErhaps he is being diplomatic? Handling the more Pro Choice wing of the party takes work. He can't tell them do not apply without starting off a huge controversy.
My guess - or perhaps, my hope - is this is a sort of ploy to feign interest in picking a pro-choicer in order to demonstrate the "big tent" bona fides of the GOP. Again it is my hope/guess that even he realizes he'd be toast he actually selected Ridge or Lieberman.
On a side note, I was watching some hack from the Obama camp on Fox news yesterday (my mother-in-law is in town, and that's all she watches), and he was boasting about Casey speaking at the Dem convention. "The GOP would never allow pro-choicers to speak at their convention," was what he said - or words to those effect. I stopped laughing long enough to say, "I wish." I'm sure Rudy Giuliani and Ahh-nuld will be surprised by the news.
"The GOP would never allow pro-choicers to speak at their convention..."
Is that guy kidding? Colin Powell even made a big deal about being a pro-abort while speaking at the 1996 Convention.
And, as you point out, Rudy and Arnold spoke at the 2004 Convention. So did Tom Ridge, who was a co-chairman of the Convention.
It really doesn't make much difference because McCain himself, is pro-choice. Sure he has a "pro-life" voting record, but he has taken no steps to make abortion illegal, only to regulate it in order to get that "pro-life" rating. His own statements on the issue indicate he does not want to see legalized abortion end. He has exceptions for rape and incest, and as long as those exceptions exist, as Judie Brown says, "exceptions make the rule". So even if McCain picks a "pro-life" VP running mate, they will do nothing to end legalized abortion. We need a miracle from God and we need to stop compromising.
Who cares about politics, let's get to the important stuff:
Zummo wrote:
my mother-in-law is in town, and [Fox News is] all she watches
While a general commiseration is always required for any male of the species with a mother-in-law in town ... I must congratulate you on no longer being around "chicks to the left of Castro"
Victor:
Great memory there, dude. But yes, I am indeed fortunate. I'm not exactly complaining about my mother-in-law's viewing habits - after all, she is a woman who thought that Hillary Clinton was the anti-Christ. And the woman's Jewish.
Speaking of memory lane, man, I forgot about the exchange that followed my comment. Wow.
Anyway, lest we derail this thread any further, back to the topic at hand:
It really doesn't make much difference because McCain himself, is pro-choice.
Look, I have many issues with John McCain, but this is a blatant falsehood. The man is not the most open champion of the pro-life cause, but he has consistently expressed his opposition to abortion. He has done no less than any other person in the Senate (granted, that's not saying much) to end the Roe regime.
He's lost my vote if he goes Pro-Choice.
I'm voting for Alan Keyes or Bob Barr if McCain is this stubborn of a politician.
I've always said that my plan was to vote McCain and come home to bathe immediately afterward. This makes him even less palatable.
I have no idea what to do because a vote for a third party is a vote for FOCA.
I wish I didn't live in a battleground state (Wisconsin) because then I'd have no qualms about voting Constitution Party, but I just don't think I could live knowing that perhaps a vote for McCain could have stopped FOCA.
I've thought for some time that Lieberman will be the pick. The delight that McCain takes in jabbing sticks in the eyes of conservatives seems to have no end.
He probably figures that, although such a pick would drive away a significant portion of conservatives, it would help him capture at least as many former Hillary supporters and "independent" types.
Further infuriating the already-seething Republican right-wing base, John McCain is has been dropping the name of Tom Ridge as his vice presidential running mate. Tom Ridge? The abortion-rights supporting former ex-governor of reliably Democratic and blue collar Pennsylvania?
Let's get a rundown on the guy who might inadvertently tip the scales for Barack Obama: http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/14/i_want_to_be_number_two_tom_ri_8288.php
Maybe if McCain had not been pushed on us in the first place, and maybe if pro-lifers had not been urged to support McCain in the primaries, we would not be in this situation.
Compare -- "John McCain's character, courage, record, and life experience make him the best candidate of either party to meet today's challenges . . . Senator John McCain has a long-standing pro-life record. What’s more, he has the ability to secure the Republican nomination and to prevail against any Democrat nominee, each of which is strongly pro-abortion . . . Here is the way we thought about our decision. It was made at the intersection of three issues: defense of the unborn, defense of our nation from the Islamic terrorists, and electability. When these issues are taken into consideration together, we believe there is no candidate who is better than John McCain. We urge all pro-lifers to consider John McCain in precisely this way."
--Two Catholic Pro-Life Advocates Endorse John McCain's GOP Presidential Bid
With -- "Right now McCain is skating on the thinnest of ice. At best, the election is tied. In many polls, he is 4-5 points down. He has yet to crack 45 percent in any national poll and is behind in key states. At worst, he is facing a blowout. Now is not the time to pussyfoot around with a guy like Tom Ridge. . . . McCain is already suspect among social conservatives. And picking a pro-choicer will have the further effect of cooling whatever ardor he has been able to gin up among them mostly because of the fear of Obama. Social conservatives are largely not for McCain, they are against Obama. A lack of enthusiasm among McCain supporters could spell disaster for him come Election Day. . . . At the moment, McCain can expect at least tepid support among faithful Catholics, those who go to Mass at least once a week and who support the teachings of the Church on core issues like abortion. He needs this group to win the election. He is putting them in an untenable position if he decides to pick Ridge . . ."
--Defeat and Disaster if McCain Picks a Pro-Choice Catholic
We are in the situation that the second writer describes largely because of what the first writer and others like him were enthusiastically saying about McCain in the primaries, even though most other pro-lifers were very suspicious of McCain. But guess what, the second writer and first writer are the exact same person.
This annoys me to no end. If John "most electable" McCain had not been kept afloat by such endorsements when his campaign was floundering, we might have a different nominee. A better nominee. A truly authentic and enthusiastically pro-life nominee, and not merely some guy who has happened to cast a few Senate votes on the pro-life side.
Anonymous: Amen!
Cranky: Blatent falsehood?
If he favors "choice" on abortion in the cases of rape and incest, he favors "choice" on abortion. Either he believes preborn children are persons and have the unaliebable right to life or he doesn't. To claim that he is pro-life is a blatant falsehood. Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home