McCain: Contemplating a “pro-choice” running mate
The Weekly Standard has a story from a campaign plane Q&A with John McCain in which he says he’d be open to choosing an abortion rights advocate like Tom Ridge. Analysts said McCain appeared to be floating a trial balloon, and was also facing political realities, such as the need to win the keystone state of Pennsylvania:
IN A WIDE-RANGING INTERVIEW aboard his campaign plane this morning, John McCain said that he is open to choosing a pro-choice running mate and named former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as someone who merits serious consideration despite his support for abortion rights. McCain also criticized Barack Obama’s presidential campaign for attempts to “politicize” the debate over Georgia and criticized President Bush for failing to recognize the true nature of Vladimir Putin.
“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain said. “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.”
McCain’s comments came in response to a question about comments he made to several reporters during the Republican primary season. During that exchange, McCain was asked whether New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg would make a good running mate. McCain offered strong words of praise for Bloomberg but said that Bloomberg’s position on abortion–he is also pro-choice–would make it difficult to choose him as a vice presidential candidate.
In the interview this morning, McCain suggested that Ridge would be more palatable to social conservatives than Bloomberg.
“I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a–albeit strong–but just it’s a disagreement. [sic] And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far moreso than Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”
Of the four individuals most frequently mentioned as potential McCain runningmates–Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty–Lieberman and Ridge are pro-choice and Romney, by his own account, was pro-choice until at least November 2004. (During the primary, McCain’s campaign challenged this claim by highlighting a May 2005 press conference in which Romney said he was committed to the “status quo” on “abortion and choice.”)
How does this affect the discourse of several recent posts here? Or does it?
While I can’t say I’m pleased that he might pick a pro-choice veep, that is only because of what it measn in the future. McCain himself has strong pro-life credentials. But if he gets elected with a young, pro-choice veep, that person would clearly be the odds-on favorite to be the nominee in 2012 or 2016 (depending on whether McCain served one or two terms). The party then might split disastrously over whether to nominate a pro-choice candidate to the top slot … IF McCain could pick a veep who would be unlikely to seek the nomination later (ala Cheney by Bush–and fellow posters, PLEASE do not start Cheney bashing; I use him as a comparison ONLY for the fact that he was never likely to pursue the nomination himself due to his health problems), it would be less problematic. But given that McCain’s age requires a young, dynamic veep choice, that scenario is unlikely.
I suppose the best thing would be for this to just be a trial balloon that helps McCain look open to new ideas while, in the end, he actually picks a pro-life running mate. But if the most radical conservatives send this trial balloon crashing down in flames like the Hindenburg, the press and Obama will make it look bad for McCain … so a word to the far right: take a deep breath and then hold it until after the eelction, unless you wnat the whole country to turn as blue as your face likely will.
So given your scenario, don’t you think the split will occur earlier rather than later if he choses a pro-choice veep who’s young?
I guess I think it’s kind of the inverse of the Democratic plank discussion: choosing a pro-choice running mate won’t help him attract voters for whom choice is important, and will tick off one of the Republican Party’s core constituencies – which he really can’t afford to do.
David Gibson, my main man on Cathopolitix:
Not sure this tidbit goes in this thread, but got curious about how pro-life the GOP really is.
The only reference abortion I could find in the 2004 platform was this bit, tacked on to a protest that the United Nations doesn’t allow the Vatican a voice in international affairs:
“… we support protecting the rights of families in international programs and oppose funding organizations involved in abortion.”
If that’s all there is–and you can probably ferret this out better than I can–then I’d say the GOP is hardly a bulwark against abortion. They simply don’t mention it. Which may be a smart move.
The Democrats, by blabbering on about it, restrict a diversity of opinion among their candidates on the matter, and give pro-life contingents a lot of verbiage around which to build outraged rhetoric.
Jean: I had snagged these grafs from a PDF of the 2004 platform, under heading “The Culture of Life.” Oddly, when I searched for the word ‘abortion” I got that same single hit as well. Maybe a glitch. In any case, there is more verbiage. But I earlier called it a lot of bloviating, as it doesn’t seem to match in deed their righteous rage of words. But please, disagree…
“PROMOTING A CULTURE OF LIFE”
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of
Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to
life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution
and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that
right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion
and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges
who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of
support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be
punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose
abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who
have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption
services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to
adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in
supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud
President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.
We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him
for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that
every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is
considered a person under federal law.
We praise Republicans in Congress for passing, with strong bipartisan support, a
ban on the inhumane procedure known as partial birth abortion. And we applaud
President Bush for signing legislation outlawing partial birth abortion and for vigorously
defending it in the courts.
In signing the partial birth abortion ban, President Bush reminded us that “the
most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person,
however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world.”
It COULD help McCain if he picks someone who otherwise is so exciting a choice that he–or she–adds more in centrist votes than the move loses McCain in pro-life votes … if, for instance, he picked a well-liked pro-choice person such as Colin Powell (unlikely, of course, as Powell wouldn’t run and is supposedly poised to support Obama) or if he chooses a strong woman running mate who also happens to be pro-choice (and who certainly would cut into Obama’s votes among women) … but if he’s doing it so he can pick the oh-so-boring Tom Ridge, McCain will have blundered badly.
David, thanks. I encountered the same word search problem.
Sidetrack alert: The following has nothing to do with McCain’s running mate, so sorry in advance.
It’s heavy on the self-congratulation. I think the ban on partial-birth abortion was a good step, ditto the infants born alive measure. But these are not bills that will save many lives, as these are very rare instances. Their chief value is in drawing attention to the horrors of late-term abortion, which most people oppose anyway.
I don’t see where Republicans have offered much in the way of material support to women with problem pregnancies.
And while it’s nice to support judges who believe in family values and the sanctity of life, those in the lower courts can’t really do much to get around Roe v. Wade, so some of that is eyewash.
Going after doctors who perform abortions and letting mothers off as if they were victims has always struck me as irrational. If abortion is a crime, it takes two people to commit it–a willing doctor and a willing mother. The women I know who have had abortions knew exactly what they were doing, were not pressured by their husbands or boyfriends, and they were not what I would call victims, except, in most cases, of very sad and difficult circumstances.
It seems to me that expanding informed consent to include not only what an abortion does to a fetus, but providing information on how to cope with adoption, single parenthood, or a child with a disability might be a good idea. My obstetrician was plugged into such a program for couples expecting a child with Down Syndrome. Certainly nobody should consider abortion without having this kind of information.
Other than that, it’s a good plank.
It bears noting also that the GOP also provides for platform input on the RNC Web site.
“Going after doctors who perform abortions and letting mothers off as if they were victims has always struck me as irrational. If abortion is a crime, it takes two people to commit it–a willing doctor and a willing mother.”
How many people it takes to commit a crime depends on the legal definition of the crime. While making it a crime to perform an abortion but not to obtain one is an inconsistent mapping from the natural law to positive law, whether it’s irrational depends on the ends sought by the law. If the end is to have legislative and judicial protection of the right to life of unborn children, then criminalizing only one role suffices (at least in the case of procured abortions), and surely, given the current circumstances, the abortionist is the more rational role to criminalize.
A member of McCain’s Catholic Committee, Austin Ruse is not enthused.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/
Tom, thanks for explaining and helping me to see how some people might justify prosecuting only the “performer” and not the “procurer.”
I don’t find it a compelling argument, however. Prostitution might be an analogy here. It requires a customer/procurer and a prostitute/performer. But is it possible for the crime to be committed without the procurer also performing/acting in some way? I think you could argue that the mother, in the case of abortion, also participates in the performance.
Which is why I think, logically, if you believe in criminalizing abortion (which I don’t), you have to prosecute both mother and doctor.