I read the fact that McCain is pushing this so hard as a sign that McCain’s VP *will* be pro-choice, so he’s deflecting the criticism in advance by saying, “But look out how pro-life I am and always have been! The veep will have no say on abortion!”
I thought of that too. But if I had to put money on it I would guess it’s just not that complicated. McCain found his voice with the religious right and he wants to win. That’s my take away.
There is no way Obama can compete with this. McCain is going to get the same % of vote from the Christian Right as Bush if he keeps this up. Look at the Indiana polling.
————————–
At 11:00PM on voting day, I would like R408 to post a picture of Chris Matthews’ face on this site. This has, and will be my only request from R408.
The reason he’s reminding people of his 25-year pro-life voting record is because he’s incensed that’s not good enough on his part to offset a pro-choice Veep.
BTW, how is that poll after poll after poll after poll in 2007, confirmed that somewhere between 9 and 20% of conservatives would have an issue with a pro-choice TOP of ticket?
And now somehow a much larger number have a problem with a pro-choice BOTTOM of the ticket?
If this is McCain’s attempt to brace pro-lifers for a pro-choice VP, it’s stupid.
He’s lulling pro-lifers into a sense of security that he will pick an acceptable VP. If he shocks them with a pro-choice VP he’ll have done more damage than if he hadn’t tricked them.
Few voters appreciate a politician who deceives them.
MR (#13) I noticed that very careful language too. Was he keeping his options open, or just helping the pro-lifers feel good for when he picks a pro-life president?
I think McCain is just trying to pander to both sides as much as he can. He wants people to believe he considered a pro-life VP, but the tightening of polls means that he doesn’t need to go with a risky pick, which is what a pro-choice VP would be.
The problem is not that people don’t think McCain is pro-life enough. The problem is that he will be 72 years old when elected, which means the VP also needs to be trustworthy on judges.
Tim Pawlenty will be the pick, not because he is safe but because John McCain has faith in him to make the right decisions and he knows that Tim Pawlenty is the future of the Republican Party. Tim Pawlenty will surprise a lot of people, he is quite the politician.
So, is the careful pro-choice talk/promotion a tactic to:
a) prepare people for a pro-choice pick (Lieberman, Ridge, etc)
b) get pro-lifers even more firmly on McCain’s side when a pro-life pick is picked.
(b) includes people who weren’t previously enthused over by the socon evangelical base, like Romney.
So does this mean that McCain is not picking Romney as VP? Oh wait, Romney’s now pro-life, right? I guess all of his flip flops on the abortion issue have me confused….
I am watching what appears to be the dumbest segment on a national news show in a long time.
CNN is doing a segment where a guest is arguing that sexism is preventing female athletes from earning as much money as male athletes. He stated that he hopes if his daughters want to be professional athletes they will not be discriminated against.
He then went on to claim that it is unfair that an athlete like Phelps will get so much money in endorsements, but that someone who wins only one gold will likely not have any endorsements. He hopes the situation will be remedied so that life will be fair for those who only are able to win one gold medal.
McCain may be just moving the radical socons into check. It’s battlefield tactics. Make your opponent show himself (Obama picks VP first). Make your opponent fight two fronts (Romney is better than Ridge/Lieberman). This stuff is all the way back to the academy for him. (Even 6th lowest in the class learns something.)
This should be the time of the campaign for favorable self-revelation. It’s what is killing BHO. What we’re learning about him is at odds with the middle of America.
So, with that in mind, we think McCain should screw around with “unpredictable” or “risky” VP choices. Now is the time to show the country that his independent streak owes to his honor and character, but that he is still “knowable”. The VP choice should “instruct” voters about McCain.
#36 - There was a front page post here last weekend, about how McCain has asked Giuliani to headline the “shadow” convention in Denver. Mitt’s going along, huh?
WARREN: What point is a baby entitled to human rights?”
MCCAIN: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States , I will be a pro-life president. And this presidency will have pro-life policies. That’s my commitment. That’s my commitment to you.”
MCCAIN: Could I…are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices, or should I mention that?
MCCAIN: When we speak of the issue of the rights of the unborn, we need to talk about judges.
Metro, I concur that, contrary to the wishful thinking of single-issue social conservatives, this is McCain’s way of assuaging their concerns.
If Warren were to ask me that same question, I would also say from the point of conception onward. The issue, however, is at what point in the course of fetal development are the human rights of a pregnant woman trumped by the human rights of a developing child inside her.
McCain obviously does not believe the right of all fetuses trump the rights of pregnant women because he supports abortion rights for girls and women who were impregnated as victims of rape or incest.
Even the revered Justice Scalia is of the belief that fetuses are not entitled to the constitutional rights of personhood.
Here is what Scalia told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes in April:
“My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice.”
Just because I am an originalist who believes Roe overreached, and should therefore be overturned, doesn’t mean I conveniently ignore Blackstone’s Commentaries (1765-1769), which our Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting our Constitution.
At the time of our nation’s founding, previable fetuses in America were not considered “little humans,” and even the intentional killing of a developing child after quickening was treated legally as nothing more than a misdemeanor.
William Blackstone wrote:
Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick* with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.
An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother’s womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes. It is capable of having a legacy, or a surrender of a copyhold estate made to it. It may have a guardian assigned to it; and it is enabled to have an estate limited to it’s use, and to take afterwards by such limitation, as if it were then actually born. And in this point the civil law agrees with ours.
* Quickening occurs in the middle of a pregnancy. A woman pregnant for the first time typically feels fetal movements at about 20-21 weeks, whereas a woman who has already given birth at least two times will typically feel movements around 18 weeks.
If McCain does pick a Pro-Choice VP, I probably will not vote this coming in November. McCain is a liberal Republican. I was hoping Romney might be running for President-but he lost the primary election. I saw Romney on FOX’s H & C tonight.
Lieberman, Ridge and Guiliani are out. McCain would have a total collapse of support or a splintered convention if he tried to push a Pr-Choice VP. It ain’t gonna happen.
My guess is either Pawlenty or Romney, depending on Obama’s pick. Biden and Clinton will bring a Romney pick. Bayh or Kaine will bring a Pawlenty pick. Just an obvious reaction to the kind of campaign each would signal.
I think you may very well be right craig. I was almost hoping the polls would not get better so quickly. If McCain looked like he needed the best VP for votes, he would have had to choose Mitt, but its beginning to look as if Pawlenty would do the job if Obama picks a light weight for VP.
#9. McCain shouldn’t be able to argue it both ways.
He says he wants a VP with experience who is ready to lead in case he dies while in office, but on the other hand, it doesn’t seem to matter to him that if he dies he could leave a pro-choice VP to replace him.
McCain will probably pick Pawlenty. After he does hopefully the disgusting talk promoting abortion will die down. You’d think this wasn’t a conservative blog given all the liberalism here.
15. That is easy. Because the polls where using generic descriptions that people attached to specirfic candidates like Rudy amd Brownback.
If the poll asked pro-lifers would you prefer McCain to Rudy, the numbers would be different. There is an element of suspect with McCain from the people he called “Agents of Intolerance.” He is not percieved as the typical pro-life candidate, like Huckabee or Broawnback would have been. So a large majority of pro-lifers distrust McCain on all social issues because of the all encompassing comments frion before. So, they want him to prove his words are not just lipservice.
I don’t really care how he picks, just explaining the disparity you mention. All the facts aren’t in the polls.
Illinois Guy,
That doesn’t mean necessarily, I agree with these picks. I think a weak Pawlenty pick to offset a weak Bayh or Kaine pick means the VP’s are neutralized; i.e., offsetting weaknesses and the election is between McCain and Obama. Then, it becomes an issue of motivation, enthusiasm and GOTV effort as a direct function of only the Presidential candidates, with no VP contribution. Unfortunately, I think we lose in that area and in November. To offset the Democratic enthusiasm and ground effort, you need a really stoked GOP base. Pawlenty ‘ain’t the guy to do that. I might be wrong, but my wife and all of my six voting kids ( who voted in the primaries for Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani ) have no idea who Pawlenty is and it’s almost September 1.
Pawlenty opposed the surge, voted for a gay rights amendment, said the era of small government is over, said we should not listen to people who don’t believe in GW BS, imposed some of the strongest renewable energy mandates in the country and advocates for them nationwide, raised taxes, called for a gas tax hike under pressure but then backed off, and cozied up to the teacher’s unions claiming he can’t get anything done without them. Fine.
But let’s not pretend that he is more conservative than Romney because he isn’t, and he’s also not as qualified, prepared, intelligent, or as good a campaigner as Romney. He does not have as much support either. He’s one of the worst picks - Kasich, Portman and even Palin are much better.
I don’t want Pawlenty as the next leader of the party, that would be a disaster.
Some of the great things about Pawlenty - he plays hockey, talks about Sam’s Club a lot, jokes about more sex with his wife, is a good friend of McCain, and his wife is a member of a big mega evangelical church. All these things are mentioned as positives. Oh, and he’s apparently a nice guy.
If Mac chooses him, he will be doing a great disservice to the party and jeopardizing his own election. Polls show he’s a drag in MN, his own state. No one else even knows him, he CANNOT energize the base.
I think he’s an incredibly weak choice and that he is not the do-no-harm pick. He IS a negative.
If Perot started running commercials like Pickens, but with his “perot charts” as the focus. I think if America realized what kind of fiscal crisis we face they would tell BHO to get lost with his ridiculous expansion of government.
Even better would be if Perot added in the huge spending increases that Obama has proposed to show what kind of impact they would have.
This is just people trying to flex their muscles to attempt to force McCain’s hand. My guess is that a VERY small percentage of single issue pro-life voters would actually give the White House to Obama in order to protest a VP pick. That said, the election will be decided by a very small percentage of votes in some key states so a pro-choice VP would have to add votes in key states in excess of the losses.
I think the percentage that will actually follow through with the threat is so small because of how extreme Obama is on the issue. The opposition to BAIPA will motivate a huge number of voters, the critical tipping point of the Supreme Court will motivate even more people and the rest will be motivated by seeing ads of Obama saying that “he doesn’t want to see his daughters punished by a baby”, if they make a mistake.
Byron York makes a very convincing case that McCain is very serious about a pro-choice VP, and that he is not just posturing as many speculate. His basic idea is that McCain doesn’t care what any of these people think because they are the same ones who fought so hard against him in the primary.
Its funny how this site knows so much more than those who put their money where they mouth is. On intrade, Mitt is still on top. No one close but Pawlenty, and I get on here and see all this stuff about Lieberman, who is barely on their charts. Don’t you think those guys do a little homework too? People on here can just shoot their mouth off, but those guys are putting their money down.
It will be Mitt Romney, or Pawlenty. Mitt is the more qualified by a ton!
lieberman does zero damage to the pro-life movement. he is a democrat. his views do not effect the republican party platform. mccain would be signaling a unity government, not naming a successor.
think about it really, how does lieberman effect the pro-life movement? all he does is prove mccain’s maverick streak without mccain having to break with the base on core issues. that way mccain can claim independence without ever having to backtrack on his foreign policy or pro-life stands.
really, explain how lieberman hurts the party or platform? it makes mccain the bipartisan uniter, and makes obama’s words seem empty. lieberman will never be the gop nominee, and will never effect the platform, so how does he hurt?
and in the event that mccain were to die in office, do you think lieberman and the dem congress would jump up and try to remake the supreme court? i think lieberman would honor mccain and follow through on his policies for the remainder of mccain’s term.
lieberman cements mccain as MAVERICK, without mccain having to soften his actual policies. the question will be ’senator obama, you talk a lot about change, but john mccain chose a democrat to form a unity ticket, what have you done?’.
so relax kids, lieberman does no harm to the party, and gives us an open seat in 4 years either way, which is the best way for us to hold the WH.
Evangelical socins are distrustful of mccain. Abortion is a symbolic battle of the whole enchilada. It’s hard for some to reconcile 25 years of prolife record, and appearing in marriage ads in az yet reffering to their bunch as intolerant. A vp pick will help settle on their mindhow he well govern, it will box him in somewhat.
Wanting a prolifer on the top of the ticket is a totally different ball of wax than on the bottom of the ticket with McCain.
I just want to give a big thanks to Martha (in 49 & 50) for explaining why a Pawlenty pick SUCKS.
And I’m with Alex in 56, not so much about Giuliani though.
And for what it’s worth, when I mentioned to my grandmother (who’s about the staunchest Republican conservative old geezer that ever walked the planet) that Lieberman might be the VP candidate, she practically gushed with joy and said, “I love that man. I know he’s a damn Democrat and probably as liberal as everything, but I just love that man.” And she went on and on about how even though she disagrees with him on everything she would love to see him be McCain’s running mate. And I honestly think a lot of Republicans see Lieberman as non-threatening to the conservative agenda, even if he isn’t supportive of it, so they forgive him his liberalism and like him anyway. A Lieberman pick would actually not do as much harm as people think, in my opinion.
“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. 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.”
While the statement is cringeworthy, I think it’s also clear that McCain was referring to Bloomberg’s vocal support in favor of gay marriage; a position to which Giuliani has been consistently opposed. In fact, Rudy has expressed support for a federal marriage amendment in the event judges dismantle DOMA and compel more than a few states to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is a close friend and traveling companion of Mr. McCain, raised the idea of a running mate who supports abortion rights last week when Mr. McCain met with social conservatives in Birmingham, Mich. Mr. Graham asked if the group would rather have a running mate who opposed abortion but caused the Republicans to lose or a running mate who supported abortion rights and caused the party to win, recalled James Muffett, a social conservative who attended the meeting. Quite a few people, said Mr. Muffett, said they preferred to lose.
Some Republicans said that Mr. McCain could still choose Mr. Ridge and get around the problem with social conservatives by assuring them that the vice-presidential candidate would support the position of the presidential candidate and the party, no matter his personal views.
Such a formulation would be unlikely to satisfy Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio talk show host and longtime McCain nemesis, who on Tuesday sounded a siren for his listeners. “If he picks a pro-choice running mate, it’s not going to be pretty,” Mr. Limbaugh warned, adding that Mr. McCain would have “effectively destroyed the Republican Party and pushed the conservative movement into the bleachers.”
#65 Metro, I hate that you through that Palin thing at me, I have no argument. LOL!
#69, thank you.
What we need is for someone to get election President, then come out of the closet. Attitudes would change in this country.
The Conservative (LFP) leader in The Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn was going to win the election until he was murdered. He could have been a symbol of change.
besides, i believe this is all a ruse to intrude on obama’s media coverage leading up to the convention. this should be barry’s week of coverage, leading into the convention. how to intrude on such an occasion? float lieberman as your running mate, and throw in ridge to make it seem really believable. the media would have to swarm at the idea of a unity ticket, and former dem veep candidate at that.
if the pick was pawlenty or palin, i don’t think the ruse would be necessary. i think the headfake is to set up romney.
For those of you who like Joe Lieberman as a VP, why should he have to run with McCain who is a moderate on social issues and doesn’t share many of Lieberman’s social views. Could we get a different President candidate in Minneapolis so Lieberman would be more comfortable with the top of the ticket? How about another independent like Bernie Sanders from Vermont?
What the heck kind of party are we trying to become? We have to have some core values that do not change just for votes and elections.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Well it doesn’t get much clearer than that. I think it’s Pawlenty, with a very, very outside chance for Romney.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Chuck Todd just said McCain will pick Pawlenty or Lieberman.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I’m looking forward to the Pawlenty Presidential Library. To be built 2026!
August 19th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
DaveG, I have a feeling that Chuck Todd at MSNBC receives ZERO information from the McCain camp.
I also received this email, which is why I questioned LJ’s post.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Kristofer,
I get that feeling too. In fact, I suspect that McCain has zero use for David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell or any and all of the other NBC hacks.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I read the fact that McCain is pushing this so hard as a sign that McCain’s VP *will* be pro-choice, so he’s deflecting the criticism in advance by saying, “But look out how pro-life I am and always have been! The veep will have no say on abortion!”
August 19th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Seth,
I thought of that too. But if I had to put money on it I would guess it’s just not that complicated. McCain found his voice with the religious right and he wants to win. That’s my take away.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
This is not bracing pro-lifers for the trauma of a pro-choice VP pick.
This is leading pro-lifers to believe that McCain won’t push a repulsive VP on them.
If McCain does pick a pro-choice VP he will face much more difficulty than he needed to. He’ll be called out as a deceptive phony.
McCain politically *cannot* afford to choose a pro-choice VP after what he has said in the last two weeks.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I totally disagree.
All of those things are arguments to *offset* a pro-choice Veep.
He is building cover in the event he selects one.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
#6 and #9 - I’m with youse guys on this.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Mark Helperin has an interesting thought that should excite all the Rombots on this site.
http://thepage.time.com/2008/08/19/source-ridge-is-out/
“Could all the pro-choicer talk be a straw man to get pro-lifers more enthused about a Romney pick than they otherwise are now????”
August 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
There is no way Obama can compete with this. McCain is going to get the same % of vote from the Christian Right as Bush if he keeps this up. Look at the Indiana polling.
————————–
At 11:00PM on voting day, I would like R408 to post a picture of Chris Matthews’ face on this site. This has, and will be my only request from R408.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I’d say right down to the word choice. “*I* will be a pro-life President. This *Presidency* will have pro-life *policies*.”
If he wanted to say his Veep would be pro-Life, he’d say THAT.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The reason he’s reminding people of his 25-year pro-life voting record is because he’s incensed that’s not good enough on his part to offset a pro-choice Veep.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
BTW, how is that poll after poll after poll after poll in 2007, confirmed that somewhere between 9 and 20% of conservatives would have an issue with a pro-choice TOP of ticket?
And now somehow a much larger number have a problem with a pro-choice BOTTOM of the ticket?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
If this is McCain’s attempt to brace pro-lifers for a pro-choice VP, it’s stupid.
He’s lulling pro-lifers into a sense of security that he will pick an acceptable VP. If he shocks them with a pro-choice VP he’ll have done more damage than if he hadn’t tricked them.
Few voters appreciate a politician who deceives them.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Metro, I REALLY wish you were correct, but I doubt it.
McCain has done two things this summer.
1) He moved to the left to capture as many Clinton Democrats and indy’s as possible.
2) McCain is now moving to the right to motivate the base, and solidify the pro-life vote Obama has spent so much time and $ courting.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
It isn’t TRICKING them. He is saying what he means.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
MR (#13) I noticed that very careful language too. Was he keeping his options open, or just helping the pro-lifers feel good for when he picks a pro-life president?
August 19th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
I think McCain is just trying to pander to both sides as much as he can. He wants people to believe he considered a pro-life VP, but the tightening of polls means that he doesn’t need to go with a risky pick, which is what a pro-choice VP would be.
The pick is Pawlenty.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
BTW, I suspect Halerpin is right. It’s Lieberman, or if he can be talked out of it, Pawlenty. But he probably won’t be talked out of it.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
The problem is not that people don’t think McCain is pro-life enough. The problem is that he will be 72 years old when elected, which means the VP also needs to be trustworthy on judges.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Tim Pawlenty will be the pick, not because he is safe but because John McCain has faith in him to make the right decisions and he knows that Tim Pawlenty is the future of the Republican Party. Tim Pawlenty will surprise a lot of people, he is quite the politician.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
#18, How is this being reported in the media?
It’s being reported as McCain assuring pro-lifers that the VP will be pro-life.
If he picks a pro-choice VP his earlier words will be seen as deceptive trickery.
He may not have meant it but that’s how many voters will see it.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
If Obama picks a Senator, McCain *must* pick a Governor. That will give him another bump in the experience and change department.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
So, is the careful pro-choice talk/promotion a tactic to:
a) prepare people for a pro-choice pick (Lieberman, Ridge, etc)
b) get pro-lifers even more firmly on McCain’s side when a pro-life pick is picked.
(b) includes people who weren’t previously enthused over by the socon evangelical base, like Romney.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
For what it’s worth I think Pawlenty has a 60% chance.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I’m not aware the media is reporting it that way, but if they are, they are not paying attention to words.
Especially since Team McCain has openly talked about selecting a pro-choice Veep, mixed right in with these statements.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Kristofer (25) what does Bayh count as? He’s been both.
I agree that a Governor is better, but what if Obama picks a military guy (Zinni has had some press recently)? Who should McCain go with then?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
So does this mean that McCain is not picking Romney as VP? Oh wait, Romney’s now pro-life, right? I guess all of his flip flops on the abortion issue have me confused….
August 19th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I am watching what appears to be the dumbest segment on a national news show in a long time.
CNN is doing a segment where a guest is arguing that sexism is preventing female athletes from earning as much money as male athletes. He stated that he hopes if his daughters want to be professional athletes they will not be discriminated against.
He then went on to claim that it is unfair that an athlete like Phelps will get so much money in endorsements, but that someone who wins only one gold will likely not have any endorsements. He hopes the situation will be remedied so that life will be fair for those who only are able to win one gold medal.
Liberalism is a disease.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
McCain may be just moving the radical socons into check. It’s battlefield tactics. Make your opponent show himself (Obama picks VP first). Make your opponent fight two fronts (Romney is better than Ridge/Lieberman). This stuff is all the way back to the academy for him. (Even 6th lowest in the class learns something.)
August 19th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
This should be the time of the campaign for favorable self-revelation. It’s what is killing BHO. What we’re learning about him is at odds with the middle of America.
So, with that in mind, we think McCain should screw around with “unpredictable” or “risky” VP choices. Now is the time to show the country that his independent streak owes to his honor and character, but that he is still “knowable”. The VP choice should “instruct” voters about McCain.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Mitt will be on H & C in a few minutes
Rove just said that McCain/Romney should win Michigan.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Rove said Bush should win CA/PA back in 2000, and that the GOP would hold the Congress in 2006
I keep hearing about all the private polls showing how much Romney helps…curiously we never actually see any published
August 19th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
He said he would be in Denver during the Dems convention to counter them…he didn’t get too specific….does anyone know much about what that is about?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
#36 - There was a front page post here last weekend, about how McCain has asked Giuliani to headline the “shadow” convention in Denver. Mitt’s going along, huh?
August 19th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
yep
August 19th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
http://race42008.com/2008/08/16/mccain-selects-rudy-for-starring-role/
August 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Metro, I concur that, contrary to the wishful thinking of single-issue social conservatives, this is McCain’s way of assuaging their concerns.
If Warren were to ask me that same question, I would also say from the point of conception onward. The issue, however, is at what point in the course of fetal development are the human rights of a pregnant woman trumped by the human rights of a developing child inside her.
McCain obviously does not believe the right of all fetuses trump the rights of pregnant women because he supports abortion rights for girls and women who were impregnated as victims of rape or incest.
Even the revered Justice Scalia is of the belief that fetuses are not entitled to the constitutional rights of personhood.
Here is what Scalia told Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes in April:
Just because I am an originalist who believes Roe overreached, and should therefore be overturned, doesn’t mean I conveniently ignore Blackstone’s Commentaries (1765-1769), which our Founding Fathers relied upon in drafting our Constitution.
At the time of our nation’s founding, previable fetuses in America were not considered “little humans,” and even the intentional killing of a developing child after quickening was treated legally as nothing more than a misdemeanor.
William Blackstone wrote:
* Quickening occurs in the middle of a pregnancy. A woman pregnant for the first time typically feels fetal movements at about 20-21 weeks, whereas a woman who has already given birth at least two times will typically feel movements around 18 weeks.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
If McCain does pick a Pro-Choice VP, I probably will not vote this coming in November. McCain is a liberal Republican. I was hoping Romney might be running for President-but he lost the primary election. I saw Romney on FOX’s H & C tonight.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Lieberman, Ridge and Guiliani are out. McCain would have a total collapse of support or a splintered convention if he tried to push a Pr-Choice VP. It ain’t gonna happen.
My guess is either Pawlenty or Romney, depending on Obama’s pick. Biden and Clinton will bring a Romney pick. Bayh or Kaine will bring a Pawlenty pick. Just an obvious reaction to the kind of campaign each would signal.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I think you may very well be right craig. I was almost hoping the polls would not get better so quickly. If McCain looked like he needed the best VP for votes, he would have had to choose Mitt, but its beginning to look as if Pawlenty would do the job if Obama picks a light weight for VP.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
#9. McCain shouldn’t be able to argue it both ways.
He says he wants a VP with experience who is ready to lead in case he dies while in office, but on the other hand, it doesn’t seem to matter to him that if he dies he could leave a pro-choice VP to replace him.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
McCain will probably pick Pawlenty. After he does hopefully the disgusting talk promoting abortion will die down. You’d think this wasn’t a conservative blog given all the liberalism here.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
15. That is easy. Because the polls where using generic descriptions that people attached to specirfic candidates like Rudy amd Brownback.
If the poll asked pro-lifers would you prefer McCain to Rudy, the numbers would be different. There is an element of suspect with McCain from the people he called “Agents of Intolerance.” He is not percieved as the typical pro-life candidate, like Huckabee or Broawnback would have been. So a large majority of pro-lifers distrust McCain on all social issues because of the all encompassing comments frion before. So, they want him to prove his words are not just lipservice.
I don’t really care how he picks, just explaining the disparity you mention. All the facts aren’t in the polls.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Illinois Guy,
That doesn’t mean necessarily, I agree with these picks. I think a weak Pawlenty pick to offset a weak Bayh or Kaine pick means the VP’s are neutralized; i.e., offsetting weaknesses and the election is between McCain and Obama. Then, it becomes an issue of motivation, enthusiasm and GOTV effort as a direct function of only the Presidential candidates, with no VP contribution. Unfortunately, I think we lose in that area and in November. To offset the Democratic enthusiasm and ground effort, you need a really stoked GOP base. Pawlenty ‘ain’t the guy to do that. I might be wrong, but my wife and all of my six voting kids ( who voted in the primaries for Huckabee, Romney and Guiliani ) have no idea who Pawlenty is and it’s almost September 1.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
#46: Still doesn’t make sense.
Let’s say 80% of conservative were OK with Rudy as the top of the ticket.
So they don’t trust McCain. So what? Worst case, he is Rudy on those issues. But they are OK with that.
Still does not compute.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Pawlenty opposed the surge, voted for a gay rights amendment, said the era of small government is over, said we should not listen to people who don’t believe in GW BS, imposed some of the strongest renewable energy mandates in the country and advocates for them nationwide, raised taxes, called for a gas tax hike under pressure but then backed off, and cozied up to the teacher’s unions claiming he can’t get anything done without them. Fine.
But let’s not pretend that he is more conservative than Romney because he isn’t, and he’s also not as qualified, prepared, intelligent, or as good a campaigner as Romney. He does not have as much support either. He’s one of the worst picks - Kasich, Portman and even Palin are much better.
I don’t want Pawlenty as the next leader of the party, that would be a disaster.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Some of the great things about Pawlenty - he plays hockey, talks about Sam’s Club a lot, jokes about more sex with his wife, is a good friend of McCain, and his wife is a member of a big mega evangelical church. All these things are mentioned as positives. Oh, and he’s apparently a nice guy.
If Mac chooses him, he will be doing a great disservice to the party and jeopardizing his own election. Polls show he’s a drag in MN, his own state. No one else even knows him, he CANNOT energize the base.
I think he’s an incredibly weak choice and that he is not the do-no-harm pick. He IS a negative.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
#48 And then it makes it even more incomprehensible that they are OK with Rudy on the top of the ticket but NOT on the bottom.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Martha can you show any evidence that Pawlenty did what you accuse him of?
August 19th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
You know what would be awesome?
If Perot started running commercials like Pickens, but with his “perot charts” as the focus. I think if America realized what kind of fiscal crisis we face they would tell BHO to get lost with his ridiculous expansion of government.
Even better would be if Perot added in the huge spending increases that Obama has proposed to show what kind of impact they would have.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Check out http://www.perotcharts.com to see what I am talking about.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Metro,
This is just people trying to flex their muscles to attempt to force McCain’s hand. My guess is that a VERY small percentage of single issue pro-life voters would actually give the White House to Obama in order to protest a VP pick. That said, the election will be decided by a very small percentage of votes in some key states so a pro-choice VP would have to add votes in key states in excess of the losses.
I think the percentage that will actually follow through with the threat is so small because of how extreme Obama is on the issue. The opposition to BAIPA will motivate a huge number of voters, the critical tipping point of the Supreme Court will motivate even more people and the rest will be motivated by seeing ads of Obama saying that “he doesn’t want to see his daughters punished by a baby”, if they make a mistake.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I’m more convinced than ever that it’s Lieberman, Ridge, or Giuliani.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Alex,
You can make a fortune by putting money on Zinni and one of those three, or even all three of them.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Al3ex might be correct. I am so confused. Read this. http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/aug/20/gop-officials-try-to-head-off-lieberman-pick/
August 19th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Byron York makes a very convincing case that McCain is very serious about a pro-choice VP, and that he is not just posturing as many speculate. His basic idea is that McCain doesn’t care what any of these people think because they are the same ones who fought so hard against him in the primary.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGVlY2ZhZjY3MmRjN2MyNDIyODVjY2M0NGViMzZlOGI=
August 19th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
DSkinner, that acticle should be a front page post on R408.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Lieberman Is Acceptable to Me
by Patrick Ruffini
August 19th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Its funny how this site knows so much more than those who put their money where they mouth is. On intrade, Mitt is still on top. No one close but Pawlenty, and I get on here and see all this stuff about Lieberman, who is barely on their charts. Don’t you think those guys do a little homework too? People on here can just shoot their mouth off, but those guys are putting their money down.
It will be Mitt Romney, or Pawlenty. Mitt is the more qualified by a ton!
August 19th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
McCain said the VP will be mostly based on skill. That leaves only two Rudy or Mitt.
I am thinking the trial balloons are paving the way for Rudy! Yes!!!!!
August 19th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
#63, McCain said a “pro-gay” VP would not work.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
#64: No, I think that’s just the first thing that came out of his mouth to try to describe how liberal Mike Bloomberg is, beyond being pro-choice.
It’s easier to be pro-gay than pro-choice. Just look at Palin and how much the SoCons love her.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
lieberman does zero damage to the pro-life movement. he is a democrat. his views do not effect the republican party platform. mccain would be signaling a unity government, not naming a successor.
think about it really, how does lieberman effect the pro-life movement? all he does is prove mccain’s maverick streak without mccain having to break with the base on core issues. that way mccain can claim independence without ever having to backtrack on his foreign policy or pro-life stands.
really, explain how lieberman hurts the party or platform? it makes mccain the bipartisan uniter, and makes obama’s words seem empty. lieberman will never be the gop nominee, and will never effect the platform, so how does he hurt?
and in the event that mccain were to die in office, do you think lieberman and the dem congress would jump up and try to remake the supreme court? i think lieberman would honor mccain and follow through on his policies for the remainder of mccain’s term.
lieberman cements mccain as MAVERICK, without mccain having to soften his actual policies. the question will be ’senator obama, you talk a lot about change, but john mccain chose a democrat to form a unity ticket, what have you done?’.
so relax kids, lieberman does no harm to the party, and gives us an open seat in 4 years either way, which is the best way for us to hold the WH.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
metro,
Evangelical socins are distrustful of mccain. Abortion is a symbolic battle of the whole enchilada. It’s hard for some to reconcile 25 years of prolife record, and appearing in marriage ads in az yet reffering to their bunch as intolerant. A vp pick will help settle on their mindhow he well govern, it will box him in somewhat.
Wanting a prolifer on the top of the ticket is a totally different ball of wax than on the bottom of the ticket with McCain.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
I just want to give a big thanks to Martha (in 49 & 50) for explaining why a Pawlenty pick SUCKS.
And I’m with Alex in 56, not so much about Giuliani though.
And for what it’s worth, when I mentioned to my grandmother (who’s about the staunchest Republican conservative old geezer that ever walked the planet) that Lieberman might be the VP candidate, she practically gushed with joy and said, “I love that man. I know he’s a damn Democrat and probably as liberal as everything, but I just love that man.” And she went on and on about how even though she disagrees with him on everything she would love to see him be McCain’s running mate. And I honestly think a lot of Republicans see Lieberman as non-threatening to the conservative agenda, even if he isn’t supportive of it, so they forgive him his liberalism and like him anyway. A Lieberman pick would actually not do as much harm as people think, in my opinion.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Here’s what McCain said:
While the statement is cringeworthy, I think it’s also clear that McCain was referring to Bloomberg’s vocal support in favor of gay marriage; a position to which Giuliani has been consistently opposed. In fact, Rudy has expressed support for a federal marriage amendment in the event judges dismantle DOMA and compel more than a few states to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:03 am
#67: Right, a different ball of wax. OK to have a pro-choicer on top of the ticket, but not a probably pro-lifer.
MAKES NO SENSE.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:05 am
As if McCain needed any more reasons to say GFY to tantrum-throwing, single-issue SoCons threatening to take their ball home and lose out of spite…
Talk of McCain’s No. 2 Concerns Conservatives
August 20th, 2008 at 12:11 am
#65 Metro, I hate that you through that Palin thing at me, I have no argument. LOL!
#69, thank you.
What we need is for someone to get election President, then come out of the closet. Attitudes would change in this country.
The Conservative (LFP) leader in The Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn was going to win the election until he was murdered. He could have been a symbol of change.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:13 am
besides, i believe this is all a ruse to intrude on obama’s media coverage leading up to the convention. this should be barry’s week of coverage, leading into the convention. how to intrude on such an occasion? float lieberman as your running mate, and throw in ridge to make it seem really believable. the media would have to swarm at the idea of a unity ticket, and former dem veep candidate at that.
if the pick was pawlenty or palin, i don’t think the ruse would be necessary. i think the headfake is to set up romney.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Maybe all these “testing the waters” ruses to see if a pro-choice vp would be acceptable to the base is just the build-up to a Condi Rice pick?
Just kidding…
August 20th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I think the Pro choice stuff was set up for a Romney pick.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:08 am
For those of you who like Joe Lieberman as a VP, why should he have to run with McCain who is a moderate on social issues and doesn’t share many of Lieberman’s social views. Could we get a different President candidate in Minneapolis so Lieberman would be more comfortable with the top of the ticket? How about another independent like Bernie Sanders from Vermont?
What the heck kind of party are we trying to become? We have to have some core values that do not change just for votes and elections.