The Candidates
Good morning, this is John McCain, speaking to you at the end of an eventful week in the presidential campaign. All the talk today is about my opponent’s selection of his running mate. To his new running mate, my congratulations and I’ll get back to you real soon on your debating opponent.
The week began with a debate of sorts between Senator Obama and me at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. In case you missed it, the discussion yielded the line of the week, and maybe even of the campaign, when Pastor Rick Warren asked my opponent a very serious question. He wanted to know at what point, in my opponent’s view, does a baby have human rights? Senator Obama thought about it for a moment, and came back with the reply that the question was, quote, “above my pay grade.”
Here was a candidate for the presidency of the United States, asked for his position on one of the central moral and legal questions of our time, and this was the best he could offer: It’s above his pay grade. He went on to assure his interviewer that there is a, quote, “moral and ethical element to this issue.” Americans expect more of their leaders.
There seems to be a pattern here in my opponent’s approach to many hard issues. Whether it’s the surge in Iraq that has brought us near to victory, or the issue of campaign reform, or the question of offshore drilling, Senator Obama’s speeches can be impressive. But when it’s time for straight answers, clear conviction, and decisive action, suddenly all of these responsibilities are — well, as he puts it, “above my pay grade.” As mottos of leadership go, it doesn’t exactly have the ring of “the buck stops here.”
Often, too, Senator Obama’s carefully hedged answers obscure more than they explain, and this was the case in his conversation with Rick Warren. Listening to my opponent at Saddleback, you would never know that this is a politician who long since left behind any middle ground on the abortion issue. He is against parental notification laws, and against restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortions. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation to prevent the horrific practice of partial-birth abortion. Senator Obama opposed that bill, voting against it in committee and voting “present” on the Senate floor.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for babies who survive abortions — living, breathing babies whom Senator Obama described as, quote, “previable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law, and Barack Obama voted against it.
At Saddleback, he assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, “lying” about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn’t withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama’s campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.
For a man who talks so often about “hope,” Senator Obama doesn’t offer much of it in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. His extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion and his refusal to provide medical care for babies surviving abortion should be of grave concern to reasonable people of goodwill on both sides of this issue. There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn. We need more of the compassion and moral idealism that my opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. No one is above the law, and no one is beneath its protection.
Upholding these principles, and bringing Americans together on the side of life, is the work of leadership. And I can assure you that if I am president, advancing the cause of life will not be above my pay grade. Thanks for listening.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
No Lieberman VP. “Extreme advocacy in favor of partial birth abortion”. Does anyone in the world think Mac says that a few days before he selects Liebs?
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Oh, he’s definitely going with a pro-life VP.
The question is who.
If Romney was leaked intentionally as a headfake to reassure the Obama camp that he was going with a conventional veep, and thus to prevent Obama from going with Hillary or Zinni at the last minute, that means that McCain is actually going with someone who is quite unconventional. Does that mean McCain is going with a woman? Or a non-Caucasian? Or Petraeus? I really do think McCain wants a “holy crap!” pick. But whoever it is, they’ll be pro-life.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
No need to rock the boat now. This is so, so winnable, and all we need to do now is pick someone with broad appeal that won’t make anyone angry. Lieberman, Ridge, and, sadly, Rudy — all are probably out of the picture.
Petraeus or bust.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Petraeus is where he is needed most.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Why Petraeus? I think the guy is awesome! But McCain is already strong on the military side. He needs economic strength.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Oh, he’s definitely going with a pro-life VP.
Dave, I understand you are pro-life, and would prefer a pro-life VP, but why do you continue to make such assertions when nearly everything McCain has said recently points to the contrary?
Do you not realize that on each and every one of these abortion-related issues that McCain highlights (parental notification, Hyde Amendment, Mexico City policy, ban on partial birth abortion), that Rudy Giuliani holds the pro-life position?
By the way, FNC’s Brett Baier interviewed McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds an hour ago to get the campaign’s reaction to Obama’s selection of Biden. Here’s the transcript:
BAIER: What’s your take?
BOUNDS: Well, you know, our take is, it’s an interesting choice, and I think the timing is actually pretty revealing. If you look at the way they rolled this out in the middle of the night last night, moving into a weekend, which is generally sort of a slower news cycle, it’s like this is sort of a disguise move. I think if you’re really looking to analyze this, I think the Obama campaign recognizes that this election underscores their inexperience. Barack Obama is going to be, probably, actually, most certainly, the most inexperienced presidential candidate in the modern era, and by bringing on someone with a little more experience, what you do is expose Barack Obama’s inexperience. So, as we move through the campaign, you’re going to see Joe Biden talk more and more about his experience, but there will be a subtle contrast with the candidate he’s actually running with. There’s only one Commander in Chief. Barack Obama has shown he’s very inexperienced, and he’s shown poor judgment on the issues that matter.
BAIER: You’ve already come out with a campaign ad, referring back to some of the things Senator Biden has said in his campaign this year about Barack Obama. Will this choice affect John McCain’s pick?
BOUNDS: No, I don’t think so, Brett. John McCain is going to make a very principled choice about who he will stand with. It will be somebody that is ready to lead, that shares his vision to change Washington, and begin to deliver the things that the American people expect. They want their tax dollars to go further in Washington. They want wasteful spending to go down. They want food prices to come down, gas prices to come down, and someone that has a steady hand with foreign policy. It’s a dangerous world. This is not the time for a rookie in the White House, and I think that’s going to make the real difference in November.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“Petraeus is where he is needed most.”
—
Glad someone else can see clearly.
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Aron,
DaveG isn’t pro-life, or at least not meaningfully pro-life, as he’s made clear in numerous posts. He’s been supporting Ridge/Lieberman for Veep relentlessly, until this last week.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Matthew,
If Dave is personally pro-life, which I believe him to be, then he is meaningfully pro-life.
I support the overturn of Roe and an outright ban on third trimester abortions, with very few exceptions. Many pro-choice women would argue that makes me meaningly pro-life, but neither you nor I would say I’m meaningfully pro-life because I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to tell a woman what she can do with her body until the constitutional rights of a developing child inside her trump her own. It’s silly and divisive to get stuck on semantics.
As John McCain said earlier this morning: “There is a growing consensus in America that we need to overcome narrow partisanship on this issue for both women in need and the unborn.”