From the roundtable discussion on Sunday morning’s This Week:
George Will: [Hillary Clinton's] supporters are going to be rallied by, among other things, John McCain. Probably a substantial majority of Americans do not know that John McCain is pro-life.
George Stephanopoulos: Big time. Yes.
George Will: And when they start advertising that, the Hillary Clinton cohort is going to rally around Obama.
George Stephanopoulos: I think that’s exactly true, and the Obama campaign is counting on that.
Hence the reason McCain’s real VP short list, to the chagrin of single-issue pro-life voters, probably looks something like this:
Considering Rudy Giuliani is the only of these four to support the following restrictions on abortion:
…and has said that strict constructionist judges could overturn Roe on the grounds that “it was wrongly decided.”
The question becomes: Does Giuliani thread the needle for McCain, sufficiently assuaging the concerns of pro-choice women who presently support Hillary Clinton, but are leery of Barack Obama, and would be receptive to voting Republican in November, provided the GOP ticket didn’t commit to taking away a woman’s existing right to choose…while, simultaneously, satisfying social conservatives who are terrified by the thought of Obama having several Supreme Court nominations that would put the overturn of Roe permanently out of reach?
To pro-life Republicans who’d prefer not to have a pro-choice vice president, which of these prospective running mates is the lesser of four evils?
Click here to watch the roundtable discussion in full. The excerpted segment begins with 7:02 remaining in the video.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
If McCain picks a pro-choice nominee, I’ll bet you a million dollars almost all of the social conservative/Christian Right leaders will be beating that third party drum again.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
If McCain picks a pro-choice VP, I’ll bet you a million dollars almost all of the social conservative/Christian Right leaders will be beating that third party drum again.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Well i just feel that if McCain picks someone who is pro choice he is making a mistake b/c it would upset alot of conservatives. I feel like some of Clintons supporters will go to Obama but some will go to McCain b/c they see him as a straight shooter who has alot of experience and who is very honest, and that’s why they support HIllary b/c they see the same qualities in her as well. But Obama doesnt have the experience and has said numerous things that werent true and therefore cant be trusted. So i feel like people will go to McCain b/c of those reasons, and not just b/c of the social issues.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Aron:
I don’t want to get in a fight about Giuliani. (I know metro is lurking somewhere.) I know you’re pro-choice, but for many Republicans (which you’re only a recent convert), the life issue is important, if not the most important issue. For starters, George Will is pro-choice and has stated that position a number of times. (Ditto on Steph). So both are biased there. Second, the life issue has always been a net positive for the GOP. Even liberal commentators have conceded this. There are not enough affluent, social liberals to create a conservative majority ala metro. If this could happen, it would’ve been done by now b/c DC Republicans are pro-choice. As is the case in the UK, conservatives need the votes of the middle-class and the working class. Along with this, many of Hillary supporters are pro-life. Jack Murtha is one. She’s done the best in places populated with pro-life dems, i.e. WV, KY, OH, PA, TN, etc. Just ask Sean. I know in a number of these states if not a majority of dems, then pretty close to half are pro-life. So, I think George Will is wrong. He’s actually wrong most of the time: He was a former Rudy shill.
BTW, I would take bloomberg. If I’m getting a pro-abortion guy, I want someone who’s militantly pro-environment. But then again, I’m not a full conservative either.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
My God, if that’s McCain’s shortlist I’m leaving the party. Absolutely horrendously awful. You might well be right that a substantial number of Democrats think McCain is pro-choice, but undoubtedly a substantial number of independents think Barack Obama is a post-partisan, moderate, uniter. Images are shattered and rebuilt. So it goes. But, I suspect that John McCain and his team are well aware of this, and have a shortlist which is substantially more pro-life. As in, almost exclusively pro-life.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
IR-MN: Of course I’m lurking.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I do believe that Rudy is under consideration.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Funny thing about #4 is that it’s not the affluent who are having so many abortions.
On a related note, the biggest pro-lifer I know personally, and his wife, ended up using embryo-destroying fertility treatments in order to have their baby.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Matt,
You’re right. Electorally, Pawlenty is a better choice b/c he’s economically moderate but socially conservative. But I still think you need to prove your hypothesis. I don’t know who said it in the last thread, but Pawlenty should be known by now in IA. IA gets some of its news from MN. Pawlenty also campaigned for McCain in IA. It might be what you say that Pawlenty is not well known. If Huckabee does the best in IA, then Pawlenty is similar enough to Huckabee that he may make a impact. But that hasn’t been the case as of yet. Also, he’s not doing too hot in that MSNBC matchup. You know you’re in trouble when Chuck Todd downgrades your chances.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
IR-MN,
I agree with that. It’s simply nonsense to say the abortion issue hurts the GOP. We had this debate way back in November and December and January, etc, etc. The pro-life position is not a majority position, but those most concerned about the issue are pro-life, pro-lifers are more likely to be single issue voters, and pro-lifers are relatively likely to be considerably less conservative on other issues, relative to the GOP establishment. The abortion issue only hurts the GOP when our candidates are stridently pro-life and use worrying and frightening language to describe their position (calling abortion murder, etc).
May 27th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
I think both Rudy and Ridge are under consideration, but I don’t think that either is on the shortlist. And I don’t think that, despite some silliness from the chattering classes, that either Lieberman or Bloomberg are on any serious lists.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Metro,
You’re right b/c the affluent/educated use birth control. I actually found it very insightful how ostensibly racist PP can be. Maybe you’ve been following this but some UCLA students called up some PP locations wanting to donate under the guise of an anti-AA motivation. In two cases, the PP affiliates accepted the donations and seemed to validate the motivation. I guess this doesn’t surprise me b/c when you’re in the business of taking life, you probably don’t have that many scruples.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Silly post he has already intimated that he WON”T pick a pro choice VP.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
IR-MN, that’s just ridiculous. Huge pockets of racist liberals? Yeah, right.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
There is not a chance any of those 4 are on the short list. Besides the fact that it would utterly destroy the winning coalition of the last quarter century, McCain has also said it will not be a pro-choicer.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
IR-MN:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/04/27/oreilly-looks-planned-parenthood-racist-phone-call-controversy
May 27th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
It’s quite possible that the biggest problem with the Ridge/Lieberman/Rudy/Bloomberg set isn’t even their pro-choice positions. They share something else in common; they’re all awful on guns. What happens if Obama selects A rated Jim Webb, and McCain selects “no one ever needs to own a handgun” Bloomberg? Not only doesn’t the NRA endorse McCain, they probably don’t even “support” him (minimal phone banking, etc). This is inexcusable given that Obama is the worst nominee on gun control in decades. In fact, every single major grassroots GOP organization would sit on it’s hands in the face of Lieberman or Bloomberg, and perhaps even Ridge. Rudy would benefit from some support from the weakest (in terms of financial and organizational support) element of the coalition; the club for growth, CATO set. I respect almost everyone who posts here, but there’s an awful lot of senseless ideas flying about these days.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Aron,
For me at least, it’s horrifying.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
#15: Gary, I disagree. McCain said it would make it a difficult decision, which may actually be paving the way for a Rudy pick.
Also, many many words have been written about that coalition no longer being viable. Political coalitions don’t last much longer than a quarter century.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Gary,
McCain never asserted that his running mate would not be pro-choice. What he did say, in reference to the possibility of Tom Ridge being tapped as his VP, was: “I don’t know if it would stop him, but it would be difficult.”
A reminder of McCain’s personal (not political) views on the subject of abortion…
In January of 2000, McCain was asked what he would do if his then-15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion. He said it would be a “family decision.”
“The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel,” McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy.
“I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else. Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel.”
May 27th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
#17: It’s the Club for Growth set that donates the most money to the GOP. Volunteering is a totally different demo.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Thanks, Aron. Master of the quotes!
May 27th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Aron, let me know if you’re ever in L.A. We think alike.
May 27th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Matthew,
Actually, when watching the recent RNC ad, in which they attacked Obama’s stance on gun control, what stuck out to me as, perhaps, intentional, was that the positions by Obama that were highlighted were markedly more extreme than anything Rudy ever advocated or implemented as mayor of NYC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/video-new-rnc-ad-hammers-obama-on-second-amendment/
May 27th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Keep in mind, McCain still has to get his VP past the convention delegates - most of whom, I doubt, will tolerate a pro-abortion candidate being set up as our heir apparent, particularly considering which justices are probably going to be up for replacement between 2012 and 2016.
If McCain tries to screw the party with a pro-choicer, it might be time to look into how to replace him as the nominee.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
act, the majority of Republicans, even social conservatives AND Evangelicals, were OK with the TOP of the ticket being pro-choice in 2008, as polling demonstrated through the end of 2007.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Second, the life issue has always been a net positive for the GOP.
It’s managed to hold about 25% of the electorate in close association with the GOP and scare almost everyone else away. A significant majority of the population is “pro-choice” as defined by rigorous pro-lifer standards. That’s why the game in abortion politics is currently at the level of arguing over “partial-birth abortion” and such things. Hard core pro-lifers see that phrase and recoil at the idea of abortion itself, while many others only take issue with the “partial birth” part. Since elections are won in the center, it may not be a bad idea (politically speaking) for the GOP to have a pro-choice VP who is comfortable with more restrictions on abortion than currently exist in most of the country.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Arianna Huffington, as if on cue…
Unmasking McCain: His Reactionary Record on Reproductive Rights
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/unmasking-mccain-his-reac_b_103580.html
May 27th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Big S, well said.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Metro,
Will do. Likewise, let me know if you’re ever coming down to Miami…
May 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I’ve actually said that, as a practical matter, I was fine with a mildly pro-choice, but anti-Roe, candidate, ala Fred Thompson. And I’d vote for any of the above tickets, with the exception of McCain/Bloomberg. But, it’s absolutely awful for a short-list to include no pro-lifers in a majority pro-life party.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Fred was my 2nd choice for the top spot, after Rudy, before Newt. Do I recall Fred ruling out VP a few weeks ago? I don’t think it was Shermanesque.
Fred is one of those SoCons who doesn’t scare non-SoCons (like Reagan and McCain are). But he comes across as older than McCain. Is two old guys the image we want? Probably not.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Senseless ideas are the ones coming from the far-right-wingers that post on here. To say that “a pro choicer would force convention delegates to consider replacing McCain” is LUDICROUS. If we want the presidency, we can’t have a reactionary xenophobe who lives in a “Leave it to Beaver” world. Independents and Moderates will undeniably reject anything that comes even close to that. So, if you honestly want to put Barack Obama in charge for four, probably eight years, go ahead. Shoot the moderates out of the party. But don’t complain when you get Universal Health Care crammed down your throats because you don’t have a chance to govern.
You guys get my blood pressure going.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I don’t like that short list one bit, and I’m not a one-issue voter. I think it would be moronic to to cast aside the pro-life voters in order to pick-up Hillary’s voters. Count me as one who would become completely disenchanted if one of those were to be selected.
Fortunately, I don’t think that that’s what the short list looks like anyways.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Unfortunately Robbie, you’ll have the same result if you boot the so-cons out of the party.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I’d like to see some polling on McCain/Clinton vs Obama/?.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Actually I’d REALLY like to see polling on McCain/Meg Whitman vs. Obama.
Problem is name recognition. I think that ticket could be unstoppable.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I’ve actually said that, as a practical matter, I was fine with a mildly pro-choice, but anti-Roe, candidate, ala Fred Thompson.
Being anti-Roe is not a big winner among pro-choice voters. The decision is viewed as guaranteeing a “right” that otherwise would be taken away by social conservatives in many parts of the country. Rather than trying to overturn the decision, a better strategy, both politically and practically, would be to try to modify it (and other decisons) to allow for more restrictions on abortion without overturning the whole thing. That is, bans on late term abortions, or other such options. Fred Thompson ran on a pro-choicer’s dream position of overturning Roe. Even if he’s “personally” pro-choice, that makes him a hard core pro-life candidate politically.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Aron, I mean this entirely in a friendly way: I would like to bet you $100 that the veep nominee will be none of the 4 you name.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Actually I’d REALLY like to see polling on McCain/Meg Whitman vs. Obama.
Problem is name recognition. I think that ticket could be unstoppable.
I don’t think a CEO is a wise pick. No matter what economic conservatives would like, the perception of very wealthy CEOs is not too positive these days. It’s better to select someone who is solid on economics, but has managed from a position in government rather than the top of a corporation. The “greedy CEO” stereotype would be too easy for Democrats to spin. Besides, we already have a successful businessman as VP, and look how much that has helped the perceptions of the current administration’s economic policies.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Big S, I don’t think Meg Whitman would suffer from that, based on her persona.
Also, I think it helps that eBay is seen as a grassroots community, and being head of it is more of a political role than your typical CEO.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Matthew,
Incidentally,
Fred Thompson might have been third on the list, but I took him at his word when he had this exchange one month ago with Sean Hannity:
HANNITY: …It’s a call, and it’s from Senator John McCain, and it’s to you. And it’s, “Senator Thompson, will you run with me? Will you be my vice president?”
THOMPSON: No. That’s not in the cards, Sean. That’s not what I want.
HANNITY: Why?
THOMPSON: Well, it’s not — it’s not — mainly, it’s not what I want. And I don’t think that call would ever happen. I think John needs somebody else. I would advise him, if he asked me, that he needs somebody else and of a different profile.
It’s not what I want. The presidency is the only job in town that’s worth going through what you’ve got to go through to get it. And that includes the vice presidency and all of the rest of them, as far as I’m concerned.
And I thought I had an opportunity to do some things a different way. And if I was successful, I could lead in a different way. That didn’t work out. I’m interested in absolutely nothing else other than doing what I can to help those who are trying to help this country, and be a good citizen and do those things that I can do now in the private sector to help these kids and grandchildren.
But that does not involve, you know, going to state funerals in faraway places.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
McCain-Bloomberg would be my dream. It’s probably not socially conservative enough to appease the religious crowd though.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I’ve advocated both pro-life veeps (Pawlenty) and pro-choice veeps (Ridge) for McCain. The reason is that I don’t think the veep’s abortion position will matter.
Since I believe that McCain’s running mate should be a strategic choice to basically help McCain win a few votes here and there, and since the voters that McCain needs to win are the working class whites who voted for Hillary in states like MI, OH, and PA, I think that economic policies and cultural cues are far more important than the running mate’s abortion position. Hillary Clinton won the sorts of voters who reside in the Catholic Midwestern industrial town where I grew up. These voters go to Mass, are personally culturally conservative, but almost always vote for Democrats because they simply don’t vote on issues like abortion. They do vote on a broader cultural platform (i.e., for the “pro-America candidate”), but social issues aren’t big movers among working class Democrats, because otherwise they wouldn’t be Democrats. The religious working class types who do care about social issues have all become Republicans.
The point is, the Mass-going, culturally conservative working class Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton did so with little regard for her abortion position. It didn’t stop them from voting for her, but it probably didn’t cause them to vote for her either. Thus, since abortion is such a non-issue in these voters’ minds, the last thing McCain should do is select a running mate based on the issue of abortion.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Metro,
I don’t know much about her personality, or eBay’s corporate structure, but you should be careful not to fall into the business vs. economics trap. Those two things are very different fields, and most voters rightly percieve that they are.
May 27th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Big S,
So even though Roe is a blatantly unconstitutional decision, we should advocate judges who will “modify” it instead of overturning it? Isn’t this the height of results oriented jurisprudence?
Metro,
Doesn’t Meg Whitman strike you as a tad too…butch, to be terribly appealing to conservatives or disenchanted soccer moms?
Robbie,
Who said anything about choosing “reactionary xenophobes”? Who do you suppose falls into that category, among the folks most commonly discussed? Mild, “Minnesota Nice” Tim Pawlenty? Charlie Crist? Soccer Mom Sarah Palin? Calm, poised Rob Portman? You’ll perhaps notice that folks like Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback aren’t even seriously discussed in connection with the Veep spot? So who precisely are you referring to?
May 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
So even though Roe is a blatantly unconstitutional decision, we should advocate judges who will “modify” it instead of overturning it? Isn’t this the height of results oriented jurisprudence?
Most voters are results oriented, and most of them think that some forms of abortion should be legal, but with restrictions.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
rnst_p: Bloomberg turns off we small-govt types too. Why on earth is that your dream ticket?
Big S: Right. But she’s got the right economics combined with the business success.
Matthew: No. I think the lack of makeup would endear her to the crowd DaveG describes in #44. A no-nonsense successful (and religious) woman. Were you implying she may be a lesbian? I assume she is married. Will have to Google it.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Yeah, she’s married.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Not to start this whole argument, but if you believe the Constitution was intended to uphold the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I believe it was and is the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments, then Roe is not Unconstitutional at all.
It was an imperfect document having to deal with the compromise of slavery primarily. But over time we’ve sorted out the gray areas, excising discrimination, so that we may enjoy its full meaning today. And that includes the right to one’s own body, meaning to abortion, contraception, sodomy, etc.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Big S,
Sure, then why not advocate this message “look, I think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, and should be restricted in different ways after that. But, it’s not a federal issue, was never a federal issue, and it’s poisoned our politics for more then three decades because the Supreme Court made it a federal issue. We will never come to closure as a nation on this issue, while it remains the province of unelected judges. It’s an issue of too many passions, and America is too Democratic”.
Frankly, I’m in favor of the whole anti-abortion platform all the way to the constitutional amendment. But, the above has been a winning position for more then three decades and it remains a winning position today. It’s a good first step for pro-lifers like me, ergo I judge it acceptable. But, what you’re suggesting offers serious pro-lifers absolutely nothing; because all these minimal restrictions don’t actually prevent ANY abortions. I don’t give a fig about waiting periods or parental consent, and while I’m horrified by partial birth abortion, I must confess to agreeing with the majority in the first Stenberg decision; D&E seems roughly as horrible to me. Until the issue returns to the states, pro-lifers can no terribly meaningful triumphs.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
#50 ‘Living’ Constitution translation: The Constitution is whatever I want it to be.
The Founders gave you a magnificent tool to create new constitutional rights for abortion, contraception and sodomy: Article V.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Big S: Right. But she’s got the right economics combined with the business success.
I’m trying to think of the last great businessman or businesswoman elected to national office, with or without a history of public service, and I can’t come up with one. Sure, many were successful, but that’s not what they were known for. Whitman would be pretty much without precedent, and billionaires are not a big enough demographic to risk breaking that precedent for.
Also, if a CEO was to be the pick, don’t you think someone whose company has real logistical problems to solve would be a better pick? eBay just facilitates transactions, so while your point that it is a “grassrrots community” is taken, I don’t think that really helps with peoples’ perceptions of her executive prowess.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Big S:
By and large, being pro-life doesn’t scary mild pro-choice voters away. If it did, we wouldn’t have Sen. Gordon Smith, Sen. John Sununu and almost Gov. Dino Rossi. Even in strong pro-choice states, we had Sen. D’Amato and Gov. Deukmeijian. There are the Emily’s List and NARAL ladies, but they don’t have enough votes to sway elections. (They have money though). Most pro-choicers are (1) ambivalent at best about the issue (and just go along with the majority flow) and (2) are not as pro-choice as you might think. Despite what you said, the country has become much more pro-life since the 90s. The country is approaching a 50-50 split on the issue and the next general is more pro-life than the past ones.
If we really cared about attracting the voters Aron was alluding too, I would pick Sarah Palin. Look, these women have been bitching about sexism and misogyny. I really do think these people will vote on gender grounds. Sarah Palin is attractive and is the type of person who personifies many of these moderate women. As for the white workers DaveG was talking about, McCain, himself, should be able to scoop those people up.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Metro,
Oh, I don’t think she’s a lesbian. But, I think that she doesn’t send terribly feminine signals. Business-women always have that difficulty, but Meg Whitman seems especially vulnerable here. Sarah Palin, for instance, walks around in stylish clothes, with stylish hairdos, and she has a very feminine demeanor. Granted, Hillary Clinton, who these women have apparently fallen in love with, isn’t terribly feminine herself, so I could be wrong.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Gary, no, I don’t support the idea of a Living Constitution in the sense that liberals do. I do not wish to deviate from Constitutional principles. But I believe that the Founders aimed to have the Constitution protect the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They simply had to make it vague for the slavery compromise, figuring we’d figure it out later. And we have.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Big S, there are better CEOs, but along with being conservative, this one is female, and this year that could lock it up.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“Not to start this whole argument, but if you believe the Constitution was intended to uphold the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I believe it was and is the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments, then Roe is not Unconstitutional at all.
It was an imperfect document having to deal with the compromise of slavery primarily. But over time we’ve sorted out the gray areas, excising discrimination, so that we may enjoy its full meaning today. And that includes the right to one’s own body, meaning to abortion, contraception, sodomy, etc.”
GAG. Try reading the Federalist Papers or Blackstone’s Commentaries, and say the above with a straight face. The people who created the constitution didn’t even have the framework necessary to create such an inane conception of a constitution. The living constitution is revisionist nonsense.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Rudy’s oddball strategy during the nomination race (not to mention oddball antics like taking his wife’s calls in the middle of speeches) doesn’t make me feel good about him as a potential POTUS. He gets a thumbs down from me.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I’ve read the Federalist Papers among other things. What I described is not the lefty meaning of a “living Constitution.”
I’m against what the left did to the Constitution in the first half of the 20th Century, and support the same kinds of justices you do in the hope a lot of the New Deal jurisprudence is overturned.
By the way, regarding “such an inane conception,” when the Founders shouted to the world that we were independent, the FIRST thing they said was that we have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If you find THAT inane, I’m not sure what you live about America.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Metro,
The constitution was a legal document, and one that largely revolved around the framework of government. Watch John Roberts’ confirmation hearings. It wasn’t intended to protect nebulous conceptions like “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. It was intended to form a government, which would protect, or fail to protect, these ideas in certain circumstances. And it was understood the future generations could use the amendment process to “perfect” the imperfect document.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Metro,
I find it wonderful for a philosophical treatise of rights. I find it inane for a legal document intended to set-up a meaningful framework of government.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
And the Bill of Rights…? And the fact that the Founders declared their independence based on the idea of Rights…?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
To declare that man has rights, only to focus on a legal framework that could just as easily embody socialism?
I don’t think so. Starting with… the Bill of Rights.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Whoever posted about the NRA was right on target. The GOP is undefeated when it has the endorsement of the NRA. Since the NRA started endorsing candidates for President, there are two years where they have not endorsed anyone because they felt neither ticket was strong enough. The years were 1992 and 1996. Anyone care to take a guess what those two years have in common?
McCain’s record on it’s own is fairly good on guns. He vored against the AWB, the Brady Bill, licensing and registration, he signed the amicus brief in Heller, etc… But he also favored the gun show thing with Lierberan and McCain-Feingold wasn;t a big hit with the NRA. I could easily see them sitting this one out and focusing on state and local races. For those who counter with the fact that Obama is awful on guns, remember, so was Clinton, and they didn’t back Bush 41 or Dole.
I think his speech at their convention was a help, and support from someone like Huckabee is a help, but the wrong VP choice could be disastrous. I guarantee you that if he picks Giuliani, Lieberman, Bloomberg, they will not endorse him. And his chances of winning drop dramtaically.
With the NRA endorsement, his chances rise drmatacially.
So, aside from abortion, their position on guns is enough to DQ the 4 names mentioned.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Metro,
The Bill of Rights is quite important and was a key issue in the constitutional debate. But, I think it’s, again, revisionism to put it at the heart of that debate. It was largely a document concerned with the structure and powers of government. Of course this doesn’t diminish it’s power; structure and power were a great concern of all the enlightenment thinkers. They’re not as “sexy” as rights, but they’re every bit as undergirded by philosophical principles.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I doubt many endorsements have ever been granted or withheld based on a running mate selection.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
#66: See #64.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I believe Rudy in on the short list. Honestly if he had it all to do over and put a different strategy together for his bid we might be talking about who he would choose as veep. He brings a lot to the table and I believe he would be the best man for the job if something happened to Mac. Last time I checked that is the main characteristic Mac should be looking for in his VP.
He will also bring votes, leadership, and a high profile name to the ticket.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Also, for those who think that being pro-life will drive away women, think again. Polls show that women are actually MORE pro-life than men.
The candidate that got the higest % of the vote among white women in the past 20 years was not Bill Clinton, as many would think, but George W Bush in 2004 with 55%. And Bush was pro-life and campaigned on appointing SC Justices who would reverse Roe v Wade. The guy who got the highest % among white women since the Roe decision in 1973 was Ronald Reagan in 1984. 2nd place was Ronald Reagan in 1980. Bush in 2004 is 3rd. They were all pro-life and anti-abortion. So, it’s not a drag at all. It’s a plus because the party needs the pro-life activists and social conservatives to win. They can’t win without them. Just can’t.
They key is to not be too strongly pro-life. Reagan and Bush never were too in your face about it. In 8 years, I don’t Bush has ever saod that Roe should be overturned. Not one time. Like, Reagan, he’s never appeared at the March for Life. Reagan had the pro life leaders snuck in through the back door at the WH. He never relaly focused on the isssue. When he was running for President from 1974-1980, only 1 of the 1044 speeches and commentaries he gave dealt with abortion. 0 dealt with gay rights or homosexuality.
But the leaders and those who mattered knew he was with them, just like Bush. Based on rhetoric about Roe and abotion, McCain is actually stronger than Bush in that regard.
And a GOP ticket with a VP who is not only pro-choice but anti-gun as well has no chance whatsoever. None.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
But, even if you accept that rights ought to be a focal point, there’s a rather distinct difference from rights in general, and rights in specific. The Bill of Rights left a good deal of room for state governments to enact laws. Thus, the 10th amendment. And the 9th amendment has been woefully misinterpreted in the modern era.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
NORMALLY, people don’t vote based on who the VP is … but normally your nominee isn’t 72 freaking years old! Even if he survives his first term, there’s a very good chance that McCain is a one-termer and his VP is the nominee in 2012.
McCain is already seen as a liberal outsider by half the GOP. If he picks a pro-choice running mate then I think Bob Barr will challenge Ross Perot for the best finish for a 3rd-party candidate in recent history. McCain won’t get 100 electoral votes … which is why he won’t do such a stupid thing. McCain is not an idiot.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
#71: You don’t announce a world-historical revolution about inalienable rights and then forget about them in the Bill of Rights. The only reason the BofR omits “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was the slavery compromise. The Founders figured we would be smart enough to remember the Declaration and realize the 9th and 10th referred to THEM. I guess they underestimated some of us, however.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Picking an anti gun VP tells the NRA that you don’t really care about gun rights and that it’s not a priority for you. It’s a big slap in tha face. I can;t see them endorsing a ticket that has an anti gun candidate on it.
Same goes for the pro-life groups.
I can see the NRA endorsing McCain with a strong pro gun VP. With an anti gun VP, they won’t.
There was a Gallup poll a few months ago that said that the NRA’s endorsement mattered to more people than any other single person or group, that it it wa th emost influential endorsement out there. McCain should do nothing to jeopardize it.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Metro,
Why shouldn’t the legal framework allow for socialism? From a constitutional perspective, I think decisions like Lochner v. New York (undoubtedly the sort of decisions you’d want to “undo New Deal jurisprudence”) were unwarranted. The constitution, the constitutional debates, etc, have a great deal to say about property rights in some respects (look to the common law of England to have a sense of these ideas), but they don’t have much to say about whether socialism, in general, is legally permissible or not. They wouldn’t have been fans of it to be sure, but they understood the difference between opposing a policy politically, and opposing it institutionally (as a constitution does).
May 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Also, for those who think that being pro-life will drive away women, think again. Polls show that women are actually MORE pro-life than men.
But not the sort of women that we want to win over from the Clinton camp.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Also, it seems very odd for conservatives, who are allegedly pro-American, to be the ones so vehemently denying or downplaying the primary statement of this nation’s founding.
The Constitution was a brilliant tactic, but the real revolution of the Founders was the recognition of inalienable rights. To uphold the former at the expense of the latter is to miss the entire historical picture. It would be akin to saying the great achievement of the Wright Brothers was putting the town of Kitty Hawk on the map.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
#75, see #77.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Just because it’s not in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right — so says the 9th Amendment.
What exactly do you think that’s for, Matthew?
(I’m not arguing one side or another: I’m listening. I’m interested in hearing both sides.)
May 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“And that includes the right to one’s own body”
..which doesn’t include abortion. There are two separate beings, two different DNAs, meaning there are two different lives involved.
—
And abortion is, as we have discussed before, one of the most difficult issues to poll on. Yes, a [slim] majority call themselves pro-choice, but when it is broken down by situation, a much larger percentage oppose abortion when “the pregnancy is simply unwanted” - and that accounts for more than 90% of all abortions.
—
Also, for those saying that McCain should pick a lefty VP, what do you propose we do four years from now, when McCain is not on the ballot (for whatever reason)? McCain’s Veep pick is the instant frontrunner for the next round, and, as I have said before, no sitting VP has ever been beaten for their party’s nomination, and three of the previous four VPs who ran have gone on to win the popular vote at one point (Nixon/Bush became Prez., Gore won the popular vote, but the whole FL fluke…)
May 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Gary,
I would take you up on that bet if I had some degree of confidence in McCain making the decision independently. This may well be what McCain’s personal list looks like, but that’s not to say that he will ultimately succeed in resisting the pressures from the ‘litmus test’ wing of the GOP that threatens to stay home. I maintain doubts whether McCain will choose wisely, and if forced to wager, my money at this moment would be on him being talked into ‘playing it safe’; succumbing to the will of the loudest in the pro-life community.
With Obama being painted as a black liberationist, terrorist-sympathizing Marxist who supports infanticide, it would behoove McCain in this particular election to play it safe by occupying the center on as many issues as possible while Obama positions himself to the off-the-chart left. Once elected, then McCain can risk nominating originalists to the bench and safely govern as President as the just-right-of-center Senator he is today.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Abortion is tough to poll because people misunderstand what Roe v. Wade is — they think that if it’s overturned, abortion is banned.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Also, why did conservatives decide that insisting that rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — the sentence that gave birth to this nation — are BAD things, things we must deny are enshrined by the Constitution?
How un-American were the motivations behind THAT?!?
May 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Metro,
No, they left “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” out of the document because they’re nebulous concepts, suitable for a philosophical treatise, as an ideals to be sought, but woefully inadequate in a legal document, intended to form a framework of government that could endure for the ages. What does “life, liberty, and property” mean in practical terms? Well, you have liberty, so I can’t tax you. Taxes remove ability to spend your money as you please and therefore constrict your freedom. You have life, therefore you can’t receive the death penalty. You’re allowed to pursue happiness, therefore I can’t do…well…much of anything to do, or restrict your action in any way. Even these nebulous concepts were originally placed in a particular context. They were understood to mean somethings in particular, not everything in general, by the men who envisioned them.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I agree with Aaron Goldman’s article 100% . McCain is not hinting anything yet, but Rudy is
foremost in his mind.He is pro-choice but the restrictions that were pointed out, to make an argument to appease the conservative bloc of the Republicanparty. should assure the base.Then
the fact that he is pro-choice will then draw the Hillary voters to our fold. I’m pretty sure they cannot stand Obama, who is very much to the left, these voters are more at the center of
of their party’s idealog. Rudy will help McCain with states as Ohio, PA, NY, Mass. New Jersey
Florida, Michigan, and the other blue states.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I agree with Aaron Goldman’s article 100% . McCain is not hinting anything yet, but Rudy is
foremost in his mind.He is pro-choice but the restrictions that were pointed out, to make an argument to appease the conservative bloc of the Republicanparty. should assure the base.Then
the fact that he is pro-choice will then draw the Hillary voters to our fold. I’m pretty sure they cannot stand Obama, who is very much to the left, these voters are more at the center of
of their party’s idealog. Rudy will help McCain with states as Ohio, PA, NY, Mass. New Jersey
Florida, Michigan, and the other blue states.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I agree with Aaron Goldman’s article 100% . McCain is not hinting anything yet, but Rudy is
foremost in his mind.He is pro-choice but the restrictions that were pointed out, to make an argument to appease the conservative bloc of the Republicanparty. should assure the base.Then
the fact that he is pro-choice will then draw the Hillary voters to our fold. I’m pretty sure they cannot stand Obama, who is very much to the left, these voters are more at the center of
of their party’s idealog. Rudy will help McCain with states as Ohio, PA, NY, Mass. New Jersey
Florida, Michigan, and the other blue states.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
“Also, why did conservatives decide that insisting that rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — the sentence that gave birth to this nation — are BAD things, things we must deny are enshrined by the Constitution?”
Last time I checked it wasn’t the Conservatives trying to deny those things - it was the liberals and pro-choice libetarians.
You can say what you want, but all other rights, liberty, prosperity, pursuit of happiness, speech, press, religion, assembly, petition, voting, etc. - are dependent on being alive.
Without life, there are no rights, no freedoms, nothing.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
#84, they are everything. Everything we are. And have a lot more meaning than “unreasonable” or “cruel and unusual.”
May 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
…and what do we do four years from now, when we will have our greatest opportunity to finally get rid of Roe?
I’m sorry, but a pro-choice VP would be VERY hard for me to support. I’m simply not sure I could justify setting up someone who sees no problem with Roe as the next leader of the GOP.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
What does “life, liberty, and property” mean in practical terms?
Who knows? What does “cruel and unusual” mean? What does “speech” mean? What does “unreasonable” mean?
There are dozens of words in the Constitution with no “practical” meaning.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Alex,
“Just because it’s not in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s not a right — so says the 9th Amendment.
What exactly do you think that’s for, Matthew?”
As I said, the 9th amendment is one of the most widely misinterpreted amendments in the constitution. It was essentially meant to be read this way by contemporary colonists “yes, you’ve long enjoyed many rights as Englishmen. They’re in the common law. We’re not touching most of them, but we can’t list all of them. So the rest assured, you still retain these rights, unless we specifically say something has changed”.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Matthew, I suggest you read a history of the 9th Amendment and the arguments put for for its inclusion.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Geez, the language of the 9th Amendment is so freakin clear! There is no question what it means.
Why are conservatives so afraid of rights, the idea upon which this nation was defended?
May 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Alex,
Cruel and unusual means what it meant to the men who drafted the constitution; certain punishments were considered cruel and unusual, certain types of actions were considered punishments, certain punishments were widely and explicitly practiced and in no way considered cruel and unusual. And while there’s some difficulty precisely where the line is drawn, it’s no more trying then an average historical task. Many of the 17th and 18th century writers specifically used terms like “cruel and unusual” or “due process of the law” to mean very specific things.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Why would the 9th Amendment not say that specifically, Matthew?
Maybe for the same reasons that “unreasonable” and “speech” and “cruel and unusual” aren’t clearly defined.
I’ve been thinking of arguments made by the judicial activist set and a lot of them do make some good sense.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I consider myself to be something close to the original intent folks, as opposed to the textualists or the activists.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Metro,
“Geez, the language of the 9th Amendment is so freakin clear! There is no question what it means.”
Yes, it is, it’s quite clear.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
What do you suppose the phrase “retained by the people” means? Is that just, like, a cool linguistic bit Madison sort of liked? Or does it mean “we’re not going to take away the rights you ALREADY have”. Retained. Look it up. I gotta go watch a friend in a band.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Retained = inalienable.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Take the pledge:
http://www.lifepriority.net/PledgeFinal.pdf
May 27th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Also notice, OTHERS retained by the people, i.e., ALL rights are retained, because they are inalienable.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
So do we consider certain rights inalienable or not?
Exactly, Metro.
And I notice that I never got a definition, from Matthew E. Miller, of “speech” “unreasonable” or “cruel and unusual” …
Why?
Because they weren’t SUPPOSED to be defined.
They were supposed to EVOLVE.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Alex,
Sigh. Like I said. I have to go and don’t have time to debate all this. But, if you’ve fallen for the “cruel and unusual…see…that’s vague. what does that mean? Gee, we can’t figure it out, ergo the constitution must have been intended to be vague” then I suspect you’ll be a full-bore liberal in half a decade.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
100 — Imagine if pro-choicers pulled idiotic stunts that.
Good God.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Sigh. Like I said. I have to go and don’t have time to debate all this. But, if you’ve fallen for the “cruel and unusual…see…that’s vague. what does that mean? Gee, we can’t figure it out, ergo the constitution must have been intended to be vague” then I suspect you’ll be a full-bore liberal in half a decade.
A full-bore liberal?
What exactly does thinking that interpretation sensible do for my position on the war against jihadism or laissez-faire capitalism?
May 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Metro,
Precisely….all rights are retained by the people. But, only certain things were thought of as rights in 1789. All rights are retained. Not everything is a right. If you want to figure out what the rights are, look to the rights of Englishmen in the decades preceding the Revolution. It’s not a hard concept to grasp.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
#105: #103 is a confession of intellectual inability. Unusual for Matthew.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
#106: Good God!!! The Founding Fathers screamed it to the world in the first sentence of the Declaration!!! (After the preamble.)
Why do you pretend the #1 defining characteristic does not exist???
May 27th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
defining characteristic of this nation
May 27th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Having a pro-choice Veep on the ticket for McCain is a very, very dicey proposal. I don’t see it happening. It’s a whole lot easier to keep 1 “customer” happy then it is to go out and find a new “customer.” Replace the word “customer” with the word “voter” and you see what I’m saying. Piss off a large portion of the base and you lose.
Period.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Precisely….all rights are retained by the people. But, only certain things were thought of as rights in 1789.
So “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (inherent rights) meant —
English common law..?
May 27th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
The most important document in human history defines rights in its first sentence, written by the very same people who wrote the Constitution.
Yet Matthew finds himself needing to go some obscure documents. Good Lord!
May 27th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Thomas Jefferson was a fabulous writer and orator. His first draft of the document included a ton of stuff berating King George (and Parliament by extension) for slavery permitted in the colonies. That language was removed in order to get the Southern colonies to “buy-in.”
This is a very clear example that the Founders had ideas that they didn’t codify in the documents, an argument in favor of a “living document.” That said, they put in the documents what they could agree in. They left out of the documents what they could NOT agree on. The Founders were, by and large, God-fearing and responsible individuals. I do not believe they would have ever seen abortion “just because I don’t want this baby” as a right to liberty. They understood that liberty does not equal separating consequences from actions.
No way, no how.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Rudy doesn’t really make much sense as a VP for McCain. He’s somewhat moderate and his perceived strength is national security … just like McCain. Johnny Mac already has the national security vote sewn up. What he needs is someone who is strong on domestic policy.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
A notable number of the Founders were most certainly NOT “God-fearing,” as many were diests or even agnostics.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“deists” - Thomas Jefferson was in this category.
He certainly respected the fact that God could exist and he understood that unleashing the worst in human behavior upon a society through “liberty” to do anything you want was NOT desirable for any society or people.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
And you haven’t contested my claim that personal responsibility is a highly desirable trait, especially when looking through the lens of our nation’s Founders. Think about Ben Franklin, who tried to perfect himself…
May 27th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
I have no quarrel with individual responsibility, quite the contrary! That is why I’m a conservative.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
OK, I should say libertarian hawk. Or Republican.
May 27th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
The Founders generally believed in Nature’s God, which could be found not through any revealed truth but empirically through rational examination of the world around us. The Founders believed that society ought to be ordered in accordance with nature, and not with the many unnatural human frameworks that men had tried in the past, including those which men had attributed to God, and still do.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
All of these choices are unacceptable, and I’m starting to have questions about McCain too.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
McCain loses if he picks a pro-choice nominee - end of story. Metro mocked me when I said Rudy had no chance 6 months ago for the same reason.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
#120. I think that’s a pretty good definition for a deist. Deists and Agnostics were among the minority among our nation’s Founders, I believe.
A deist believed in a God who created the universe, and then walked away from it. The Great Clockmaker, so to speak. Again, I believe they were in the minority, but it makes them no less worthy or less valuable for it.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
#121 and #122 are right.
I just don’t think there’s time for McCain to recreate the party between now and the election, especially with the MSM on Obama’s side and conservative talk radio not willing to go with McCain on so many issues (immigration, Global Warming to name a couple).
McCain has got to win with his base (Republicans), plus the right independents and Democrats. McCain loses the a big part of the base unless he nominates a pro-life.
I think the issues of the campaign will be Economy, Security, and Social Issues, in that order. McCain isn’t impressing on the Economy or Social Issues so far, IMHO.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Have you served in the military Metro?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Isn’t Metro 19? Or is that Alex Knepper?
Having put as much time in studying as they have, I’d find it difficult to believe that someone who is 19 would have had time to study that much AND serve in the military. Perhaps by 21 or 22…
May 27th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Alex Knepper is 18 or 19. Metro is older. He’s just very hawkish, so I wondered if he had served. And to Aron Goldman, I saw screw these pro-choice women, we can win without them.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Of all the fanciful VP selections Rudy & Whitman even top Jindal!
Face it Rudy was not even that popular to republicans. He won what 1 delegate!
Whitman no-one even knows - except that she supported Mittens which hardly augurs well for her to be on McCain’s ticket!
May 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Heath, I’m afraid you’re confusing Meg Whitman with Christie Whitman.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
No, I didn’t serve in the military. I’m hawkish because I’m an American exceptionalist, and appeasement and withdrawal have hurt us again and again and again.
Regarding the last part of #127, a Republican President is elected with the votes of approximately 8 million pro-choice women.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Clarence,
Can I ask why it is important if Metro served?
May 27th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
No, he’s got it right. Meg Whitman supported Mitt.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Interesting post from Amspec blog. How can anyone deny abortion is murder btw?
The future of the abortion debate - Tuesday, May 27, 2008 @ 5:54:48 PM
An orthodox Catholic I know cares more about abortion than any other political issue. He votes for candidates based largely on his expectations about the kinds of judges they’ll appoint or confirm, behavior I completely understand given the certainty he feels that every abortion is a murder. At the other extreme are pro-choice voters whose number one issue is protecting Roe vs. Wade from being overturned, preventing any restrictions on abortion, etc.
These are by their nature long term political struggles, or so you might think: the composition of the Supreme Court is always going to change, legislatures can be influenced to hue closer to one side or the other, etc.
But I predict that what we now think of as the abortion debate is going to radically change within our lifetime in a way that makes many of the strategic gambits employed by both sides irrelevant, or at least beside the point.
Specifically, I think that technology is going to make fetuses viable outside the womb earlier and earlier. In fact that is already happening. And eventually there will be artificial wombs, enabling doctors to extract a fetus from a pregnant woman during the first trimester with a procedure no more invasive or dangerous than abortion, and to keep that baby alive in an incubator.
Today we are used to thinking about a woman’s right to end a pregnancy as the functional equivalent of ending the fetuses’ life. In the future, however, that need not be so. A woman could be afforded the right to end her pregnancy, but be denied the right to end the life of the fetus. Although I am not an expert in abortion jurisprudence, it is at least conceivable that this could happen without any need to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
It is conceivable that adoptive parents would step in to raise children who would’ve been aborted prior to artificial womb technology, though it is unlikely that enough adoptive parents could be found to raise all the children now aborted. It is possible that society’s views about killing fetuses would change in the pro-life direction once that change didn’t entail forcing women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, and that the government would be in the business of funding large scale orphanages.
It is even conceivable that women would find themselves in the same position that some men find themselves in now: forced to pay for the upbringing of a child they’d rather have aborted. Were I a strategist at a pro-life or pro-choice advocacy group I’d be spending a lot of time and effort figuring out when changes like these are going to happen, what I thought about them, and how I could shape them to advantage my side.
This paper considers similar arguments in far greater detail.
(Cross post at Megan’s place, where I’m guest blogging.)
Posted By: Conor Friedersdorf
May 27th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Heath, we can deny abortion is murder according to the very arguments of pro-lifers.
Excepts for rape and incest, for one. Why do you have a right to kill me if my dad was a rapist?
Not wanting to prosecute women for first-degree murder, for another.
Don’t call it murder unless you REALLY think it is. And you don’t.
So you’re doing your own cause a grave disservice, for nothing.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Heath,
Can you see how some people see it as a gray area? Partial-birth abortion is clearly murder to me. RU-486 is clearly not. And somewhere along the way it just becomes… human. I recall someone showing me a weekly time series of pictures of fetuses (feti?). I think I remember picking out Week 9 as where I became uncomfortable with aborting it. I am not advocating that my position is right, just that I can see how people have a different view of it than I do.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Well, having pro-lifers Dick Cheney in 2000 and 2004 and Dan Quayle in 1988 did not stop these 8 million women. I’m not sure where you get these numbers anyway. I would be against appeasement and withdrawal if I thought there was something we could win, but I think at this point we should let Iraq work out their own problems. If they don’t want to be a democracy, that’s their problem.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
If you ACTUALLY want to reduce abortions, then do it this way:
Don’t call it murder. Call late-term abortions where the mother’s life is not at risk a humanitarian outrage, worse than animal cruelty.
Once you’re finished outlawing partial-birth abortions (outside of extenuating circumstances), work to make abortion illegal in the last trimester. Show high resolution images. Call for a stop on humanitarian grounds. You will win.
Fast forward a few years. Campaign to move the mark back by 4 more weeks. Eventually you will win. Repeat.
You will actually reduce abortions. The debate will be over #s of weeks and circumstances.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Actually I agree there should be no exceptions for rape or incest.
Adam I know (usually reasonable) people disagree but to me it’s black and white.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I just wonder, if we had a draft and they could be called up at anytime, whether Metro and Alex would be as gung ho about war as they are now. They figure, “Let the people who aren’t smart enough to do anything else serve in the military.”
May 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
The fastest way to reduce abortions is to criminalize them.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
#139
That seems rather harsh Clarence. I’m sure everyone here would serve if called.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Heath, the item you posted may show that the abortion debate will become a moot point. Wouldn’t that be fantastic?
Except you’ll still wage war against women during their first week of pregnancy.
Clarence, we are winning. Not just according to Petreaus’s graphs, but simply by not showing weakness to our enemies we are winning. Simply by having a strategic presence alongside Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, we are winning. By drawing terrorists to Iraq instead of your city, we are winning. That’s not even getting into the absolute nightmare of withdrawing, and everything that would follow. No responsible person can accept that.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Clarence,
I’m not Metro or Alex, but I am as much of a hawk as they are. To answer your first question, though I am 27 now (as of yesterday, woo!), I would have been and still am absolutely in favor of war against Islamofascism if there were a draft.
After 9/11, I had a long period of introspection. I seriously considered enlisting in the military. Even starting filling out the paperwork and working through some initial tests with the Navy. At the end of the day, I thought my services could be best used in the research field. Given where I am now, and the job I am starting next week, it is something I regret. Given my expertise and what my job will entail, I could have done the same thing in the military.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
No, a draft is one of the worst violations of individual rights. I would not consider the country worth defending if it tried to draft me.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
#144.
I think that answer’ll make you about as popular as a tick, Metro.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
ogrepete, I would not have supported the GOP during the days it supported a draft. Plain and simple.
We are free, we are not slaves.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Clarence wrote: “The fastest way to reduce abortions is to criminalize them.”
“Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” - John McCain, August 19, 1999
McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion “litmus” test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, “we all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations.” - John McCain, August 22, 1999
May 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Metro #144:
A draft is what helped this nation win the large-scale wars of the past. The draft made the mass mobilization needed in the Civil War, World War I and World War II. I’m not in favor of a peace-time draft, but if there was a large-scale war, it would be useful.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Jonathan, history later proved it wasn’t necessary. We have enough volunteers even for UNpopular wars!
May 27th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Metro: 149
During the Civil War a draft was absolutley necessary, on both sides of the War. In 1865 the South was so short of men that they started drafting slaves to put into their army. Volunteer soldiers waned in the North to such a degree that immigrants just off the boat were put into the army.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Metro, it was Democrats who supported a draft, not Republicans. I oppose one also. Being in the military is not something I would be very good at because I’m not the most structured person in the world. I was harsh in what I said to you. However, I’m just saying that there are people out there who are not like us and are very military-minded. I just don’t think we should take advantage of them by fighting frivolous wars. If the surge is working now, I don’t mind continuing for a little longer, but this can’t go on forever. I also think the public sees it as unclear what McCain means by victory. It is not our responsiblity to make Iraq a democracy. The neo-cons have damaged the party in that way.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Aron, if that’s the case, McCain is a “flip flopper” on abortion like Romney. Why did the media cover the fact that Romney changed his mind, but they did not cover the fact McCain changed his mind?
May 27th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Wow, McCain basically contradicted himself within three days.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
It is not our responsiblity to make Iraq a democracy.
If you want to argue that knowing what we know now, that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in 2003, I can buy that.
But to cut and run now would cause a power vacuum in Mesopotamia that would clearly be consumed by Iran. That is not something we can allow to happen for our national security.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Guys, take a look at this. Why did the press not cover that McCain is a flip flopper? Within days even! http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL999/mccain.html
May 27th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Clarence:
At least McCain knows where Auscwitz is.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
AdamPSU, I agree with you there. I’m not sure why Jonathan is bringing up Auschwitz.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Clarence:
I was just showing how regardless of McCain’s many flaws, he is much better than the alternative.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Politics is getting too discouraging for me. I’m thinking of never volunteering for any candidate again. I’ll always vote though because I believe it’s my patriotic duty. I endorsed John McCain on this blog, but I had a disclaimer that I reserve the right to withdraw it if there are extreme circumstances, and I have had it up to here.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
The same things that make Clarence nearly hate McCain make me tolerate him.
That’s probably how you assemble a winning coalition to win the Presidency.
May 27th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I’m not even sure McCain is better than the alternative. Without a doubt, he’s much better on virtually every issue than Barack Obama, but on a personal level, Barack Obama is just a nice, mild-mannered guy who happens to be a bleeding heart liberal. John McCain is a very cold man. He left his first wife while she was sick in the hospital for a much younger and wealthier woman. His kids didn’t talk to him for a few years. Now perhaps McCain can be given a pass because he went through so much in Vietnam, but if he went through that much, he might not be stable enough to be President. Senator Thad Cochran said the idea of McCain as President sends shivers down his spine. Obama just be