SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home John Mccain: For, Against, Then For A Pro-choice V.p.

THE PLANK AUGUST 15, 2008

John Mccain: For, Against, Then For A Pro-choice V.p.

He was for a pro-choice running mate before he was against it before he was for it.

That would be John McCain, who on a Wednesday morning campaign flight, told The Weekly Standard he'd consider a pro-choice running mate to share his ticket this fall. Which is odd, because just four months ago, he told Chris Matthews that it would be "difficult" to choose someone who is pro-choice. Which itself is odd because the last time he ran, McCain made clear that if nominated, he would indeed consider a pro-choice candidate. Which in turn is odd because for twenty years before that, McCain held a nearly perfect anti-choice voting record and firmly held anti-choice views.

What's even odder is that the pro-choice candidate McCain praised in Wednesday's Standard interview was Tom Ridge: "he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out." That would be the same Pennsylvania governor whose pro-choice views Matthews asked McCain about in April. Would the governor's views preclude him from sharing the ticket? "I don't know if it would stop him, but it would be difficult," McCain said then. "[T]he respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn is one of the fundamental principles of my party. And it's a--a deeply held, deeply held belief of mine." Just the kind of straight talk that could make a person dizzy.

What's going on is nothing more than McCain trying to have his cake and eat it too. After cozying up to the far right this election cycle--calling Roe a "flawed decision that must be overturned," and promising judges in the mold of Alito and Roberts--McCain is now minding the middle. In the interview with the Standard, he renewed his pro-life commitment, but also tried to reassure pro-choice Republicans that the party's pro-life stance "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."

McCain should know by now that this kind of fancy footwork really doesn't work. For one thing, eight years ago, he said just about the same thing, suggesting that the party revert to it's 1980 platform, that included a pro-life measure but also tolerance language on the issue of abortion. "I believe we are an inclusive party and we can be so without changing our principles," he said then. Of course, the highly sensitive hard right creamed him for his centrist comments, just as it could again if he keeps this up. (Update: Already pro-life activists have responded to his Standard interview, saying that picking a pro-choice candidate could "doom" him and that it would be the "kiss of death.") For another, it's just not believable coming from a candidate who has voted in favor of every possible abortion restriction, in favor of every possible any-choice judge, and against every possible form of federal support for family planning, low-income women's health services, contraceptive access, comprehensive sex education. Evidence says McCain is intent on overturning Roe--whether or not Ridge is at his side.

--Sarah Blustain

Related: Life Sentence

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 18 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

18 comments

Going from "I don't know if it would stop him" to "I don't think that would necessarily rule [him] out" is probably McCain's smallest shift this election

- Simon Greenwood

August 15, 2008 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd guess that abortion's the least of McCain's concerns now. The hard right's falling in line, esp now that nat sec'y's zoomed to the top of the national agenda. He doesn't need to cover his flank on social issues.

Per the London Times' reporting in tomorrow's edition, it appears McC's going to take a one-term pledge, which further reduces the already remote likelihood that he'd send a pro-life SCOTUS nominee up to an  overwhelmingly Dem Senate that would in any case reject whoever was chosen.

On top of which, I'd bet good money now that he'll choose pro-choice Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman will bring with him a large number of those nat-sec'y Dems who voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004-- 100,000 in the Miami area alone by my estimate.

- teplukhin2you

August 15, 2008 at 12:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you writes:

-- On top of which, I'd bet good money now that he'll choose pro-choice Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman will bring with him a large number of those nat-sec'y Dems who voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004-- 100,000 in the Miami area alone by my estimate.

And what's teplukhin2you's estimate of the number of Democrats who would KNOW that Joe Lieberman, who eight years ago was given the parties second highest honor, is no more than a lying scoundrel?

- ndmackenzie

August 15, 2008 at 5:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the (London) Times,Tom Baldwin reports:

-- Mr McCain, who will celebrate his 72nd birthday while the Democratic convention is held this month, would be the oldest first-term US President ever. A pledge to limit himself to four years in office might go some way to assuaging concerns about his age.

The phrase "lame duck from day one" comes to mind but is overwhelmed by how much this idea reminds me that the Republican candidate is, to put ot kindly, "pre-senile."

www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article4534921.ece

- ndmackenzie

August 15, 2008 at 5:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have to say that this article is kind of offensive. McCain's own words indicate that he is neither deviating from his long term pro-life stance, nor frothing at the mouth to choose a pro-choice veep. At best, it appears that McCain is attempting to have his cake, and pose for photographs with a piece of cake on a fork that is being held as if he intended to place that cake in his mouth. I would agree that this does amount to a bunch of fancy footwork, but as the presumptive Republican nominee I am pretty sure the pro-life groups will do their best to bite their tongue while McCain attempts to pander to the pro-choicers; given McCain's tendency to talk from either side of his mouth, based on which audience he is addressing, I have no doubts his conservative backers will hear enough plattitudes and pro-life gibberish to keep them happy until november 5th.

- GSpinks

August 15, 2008 at 6:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This could be his effort to once again try and reclaim the "maverick," party-bucking mantle. He may have decided that that's his only route to the White House and is just going to hope that his right wing falls into line.

But it also seems to indicate that he very likely is trying to lay the groundwork for either Lieberman or Ridge to take the number two slot. I'm betting that it's the latter, since they've had a long, well-established friendship.

As for the one-term pledge, I say bring it on. The problems this country faces are too deep and too broad to be adequately tackled by a one-termer who'll be hobbled with lame duck status from the minute he walks into the Oval Office. This will be seen as the shameless, short-sighted gimmick it is.

- BHLnyc

August 15, 2008 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with tep; I don't think McCain is interested in abortion one way or the other.  Which means, of course, they'll he'll probably toe the line of his conservative base so long as it doesn't cause him any major political trouble.

- ratnerstar

August 15, 2008 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Again, I'm with the Spinks wing. But a pro-choice VP will be proof that he's willing to ditch the party to win the Presidency. Since he declared, we've seen nothing but tactical moves which are closer to gimmicks and it's clear his only ideal is 'to win'. I imagine if he was 15 years younger he'd follow TR and end up as a 3rd Party candidate before he quit. The one term pledge-threat may be aimed as much at his base as indies in hopes that the far right will swallow him if they know he's on his way out.

A quick look at the age of GOP voters shows most are at the dying end of demos & at least 7 (maybe 10) Senators won't show at the convention. I doubt they thought (a year ago) they'd be facing Barack and ol' Johnny ended up being the worst match. Too close to Bush yet not a hero for the base? And he's aging weekly. The wires are saying he'll restrict access, cut the town hall meetings and he appears gassed.

It's more than "The myth of '00 is gone" because that short primary run wasn't enough to make for a legend. It's clear a Salter yarn isn't much good when something like Georgia requires more than a promise to ride up San Juan Hill. Barack still has a tough road but McCain's assets are drying up along with his stamina. Some of the ugly and desperate may work but not all of his tricks will pass muster with the GOP. It will be interesting how far the people with something to lose allow him to go. He has no future and but plenty of office holders aren't prepared to squander theirs so he can complete his final mission.

- michael

August 15, 2008 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Maverick wants to win PA and (wrongly) believes that Ridge will help him do that.

- propositionjoe

August 15, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ridge won't be his VP, he is even more lackluster and uninspiring than McCain. If McCain does pick a pro-choicer he will lose a lot of votes in the evangelical base, they will stay at home before voting for a pro-choice candidate. The question is can he pick up enough independents to make up the difference? Personally I think taking a pro-choice VP, or even worse Lieberman, would be a disaster. There are a lot more single issue voters than people here seem to realize. McCain will be the first non born again President in a generation, (Obama identifies himself as born again) if he takes Lieberman he might as well concede today. He might even manage to lose half of the south. Anyway, idle speculation, he will take a bona fide Conservative like Pawlenty.

- blackton

August 15, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh and Tep, re the Supreme Court, what are you smoking this morning? All McCain has to do is put forward a Conservative Catholic jurist like Alito or the Chief Justice. There is no way the Senate doesn't confirm someone like that. Do you really think they want to be painted as Anti-Catholic bigots? I can see the Conservative headlines now "Democratic Senate says to Catholics, don't bother with Law school, you aren't wanted."

McCain will choice a Pro.lifer and he would get one or two Conservatives confirmed if he is elected.

- blackton

August 15, 2008 at 10:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God, I do hope tep is right and that McCain chooses Lieberman.  I cannot think of anything more certain to assure that McCain loses the election.  The effect in galvanizing Democrats to come out and vote would be an order of magnitude greater than the impact Hillary would have had on Republicans.  Alas, I don't think that even McCain, who I think is pretty stupid, is that stupid.  But one can hope.

- roidubouloi

August 15, 2008 at 11:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If McCain picks Lieberman, he wins FL for sure, and probably MI and PA as well. Not game over but certainly gives him an edge.

- teplukhin2you

August 15, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are correct - Lieberman is not "The One".

- jemerk

August 15, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tep, do you ever get out of California? Fl. yeah, but Pa.? Have you ever been to Pa.?

- blackton

August 15, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tep,

I live in Pennsylvania and grew up in Michigan, and may possibly know a lot more people (including lots of Jewish people, of all religious and ideological shades) in these states that you do (I will concede Florida to you).  Trust me, Joe Lieberman is not especially revered in either state (although, on the plus side, he is probably not considered an especially toxic choice either among most people -- I think that the general perception is that he is a moderate Democrat who became disillusioned when Democratic voters didn't show more enthusiasm for him in the 2004 primaries).  I recall that he was swamped in the 2004 Dem caucus in Michigan, finishing almost dead last.  Given the fervor his spot on a McCain ticket will inspire among Democrats and the disappointment that will arise from religious and social conservatives everywhere, he would be one of McCain's more foolish VP choices.

- wildboy

August 15, 2008 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Fair enough, wildcat, I could be wrong. You know PA better than I. As to MI, I have to think Lieberman would play well in the battleground Detroit suburbs, esp Oakland County. Maybe I don't know Detroit and MI anymore, but my hunch is that whoever wins Oakland County wins Michigan.

- teplukhin2you

August 15, 2008 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...I'd bet good money now that he'll choose pro-choice Joe Lieberman as his running mate....

On line bets are felonious and are a sure way to eternal damnation. Other than that, if I took bets, I'd take this one. I'd bet no way he makes that choice.

- basman

August 16, 2008 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close