Even as recently as six months ago, I could not imagine a presidential election that is more offensively opposed to life as the Obama v. McCain drama. Could you? As if it were not enough to see the Democrats push a candidate whose pro-choice record is unmatched in presidential politics, the Republicans fail to forward a candidate who would bring that record into high relief. This failure will ultimately be the reason that Obama wins the Catholic vote (though I will not be a part of that particular bloc).
Well, things have become even more squalid. MSNBC and CNN have both run stories on McCain’s apparent indifference on the abortion question with respect to his vice presidential selection. With each passing day, Tom Ridge, the former Security of Homeland Security, is looking more and more like McCain’s choice for the second highest office in American politics. When the Weekly Standard asked the presumptive Republican nominee generally about choosing a pro-choice running mate and specifically about selecting Ridge, McCain had the following to say:
I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party…I also feel that–and I’m not trying to equivocate here–that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.
—
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.
The selection of Ridge would do more than merely display the alleged inclusiveness of the Republican Party, but would effectively exhibit the party’s willingness to put a pro-choice leader in the second highest and, by implication, the highest political office in the U.S. This trend has been swelling in the Republican Party, so this comes as little surprise. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani highlight the emergent prominence of pro-choice figureheads of the Republican Party, which ultimately will lead to the reality (if it is not already a reality now) that there really is no longer a major pro-life party in the U.S.
McCain is not pro-life, not even close. And here I’m actually talking about “pro-life” in the reductionist, minimalistic manner that we see touted in many conservative circles, i.e., as only concerned with abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia. Well, McCain fully supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. McCain’s position on abortion is ambivalent at best — he voted against it a few times in the Senate, he boasted to Democrats that he supported the appointment of pro-choice Supreme Court justices, he opposed George W. Bush’s campaign promise to keep the unequivocal anti-abortion plank in the party platform, and he told the media that, hypothetically, he would like his daughter to make the choice of whether or not to have an abortion.
There’s no pretending with Obama. Catholics know that he is not going to change on the abortion issue. But those Catholics who prop McCain up as a pro-life champ or claim to possess the prescience to know that he will not do as much harm as Obama to the pro-life cause are living a fantasy. McCain (among others) is erasing the pro-life traits of the party, which will have far ranging implications beyond a one or two term presidency. If McCain chooses Ridge, what will his Catholic supporters do then? Obstinately cling to their “hero” or have the courage to reject a candidate who does not care for their real interests beyond a campaign bid?
August 14, 2008 at 3:00 pm
If McCain chooses Ridge, what will his Catholic supporters do then?
I’m guessing if Ridge is selected, Steve Dillard won’t be willing to erect a “Catholics Against Tom Ridge” website.
Do yourself and your faith a favor–take down those McCain banners from your blog. Stop allowing NARAL and NRLC to do the thinking for you. Otherwise, stop belittling your Obama-loving counterparts. At least they are willing to admit that their candidate is pro-choice.
Well said.
August 14, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I actually removed that last quote from my post, as I thought that it deflected from the problem that is McCain. His supporters who throw their faith behind him, who are in themselves a real concern, may be the subject of a future post. The McCain banners on Catholic blogs are ridiculous (as would be Obama banners).
August 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm
If McCain chooses Ridge, what will his Catholic supporters do then?
Wild Guess: Find some reason to support him anyway?
Naw.
August 14, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I think this is more a political ploy to make religious conservatives believe they have influence. Rightly, the campaign anticipates religious conservatives will be up in arms about such speculation, so, when a pro-life VP is selected, they will be able to convince themselves that they still have influence. The only caveat I would offer is that Ridge is former military, and I believe ultimately any McCain VP will have military experience.
August 14, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Rightly, the campaign anticipates religious conservatives will be up in arms about such speculation, so, when a pro-life VP is selected, they will be able to convince themselves that they still have influence.
Good point. It would also make McCain look a bit more heroic, as if he really is pro-life, wouldn’t it?
August 14, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Why is there an assumption that Catholics against Obama due to his proclivity to kill babies are going to vote for McCain?
August 14, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Even as recently as six months ago, I could not imagine a presidential election that is more offensively opposed to life as the Obama v. McCain drama. Could you?
Giuliani?
August 14, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I’m guessing if Ridge is selected, Steve Dillard won’t be willing to erect a “Catholics Against Tom Ridge” website.
My guess is that he would. Since I doubt McCain will end up picking Ridge, I suppose we’ll probably never find out.
August 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Why is there an assumption that Catholics against Obama due to his proclivity to kill babies are going to vote for McCain?
I’m pretty sure what is being referenced here are Catholics who have explicitly stated their support for McCain
My guess is that he would.
Only if he didn’t take it seriously… There is no way he would oppose him in the sense of opposing that ticket.
August 14, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Obama v. Giuliani would have been more offensive.
August 14, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Why is there an assumption that Catholics against Obama due to his proclivity to kill babies are going to vote for McCain?
Whose assumption?
Obama v. Giuliani would have been more offensive.
Which is why I said six months ago…Giuliani bowed out in January.
August 14, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Hillary Clinton vs Donald Rumsfeld would have been far, far worse…
August 14, 2008 at 3:58 pm
There is no way he would oppose him in the sense of opposing that ticket.
Why not? I mean, presumably he would have opposed the ticket had Giuliani been on it. Or do you think he wasn’t serious about that either?
August 14, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I wouldn’t want a pro-choice VP, but the VPs do not pick the Supreme Court justices.
I also seriously doubt McCain would pick Ridge.
August 14, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Why not? I mean, presumably he would have opposed the ticket had Giuliani been on it. Or do you think he wasn’t serious about that either?
No, I’m sure he would have figured out someone else to support had Giuliani won. I don’t see him stepping away from McCain if Ridge is chosen, though. He seems to have an awful lot invested in the McCain campaign, and had defended his choice repeatedly, even claiming that doing so is not a compromise. But he could prove me wrong.
August 14, 2008 at 4:14 pm
McCain should pick Gingrich. It could be the Womanizer ‘08 ticket.
August 14, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I wouldn’t want a pro-choice VP, but the VPs do not pick the Supreme Court justices.
They are often consulted on the selection of nominees to the SCOTUS, they are in a direct position to assume the presidency, they cast tie breaking votes in the Senate (think of hypothetical situations with respect to abortion and ESCR), and they get a head start when it comes to securing party nomination for the presidency after their vice presidential term(s) is over. In a word, I care about VP choice.
August 14, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I’m shooting for McCain to choose Senator Clinton, mainly just for the entertainment value.
August 14, 2008 at 4:23 pm
McCain should pick Gingrich. It could be the Womanizer ‘08 ticket.
The pro-family ticket exemplar.
August 14, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Whom a presidential candidate chooses for VP also tells us about his political strategy and the kinds of issues he is trying to address in his campaign.
August 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm
A McCain and Giuliani ticket – helping to kill babies in the lab and in the womb at home, giving the order to kill terrorists and civilians abroad…and think of all the free beer and medical supplies they’ll get to sedate their consciences!
H-Y-P-E-R-B-O-L-E
August 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Poli,
I care about the VP too.
I think the importance of the VP can be overstated, though.
August 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/no_party_for_prochoicers.php
August 14, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Taking into account his multiple flip-flops of latr and his willingness to allow his campaign to resort to the lowest and most childish of tactics, along with this revelation, I think it is safe to say that the elderly McCain believes in nothing, save war.
August 14, 2008 at 6:52 pm
For the record, if John McCain does selects a proabortion running mate, I will not support the GOP presidential ticket. I will publicly resign from all of my positions with the McCain campaign, and throw my support to a third-party candidate.
And the notion that I would have “found a way” to support Rudy Giuliani if he was the GOP nominee is patently ridiculous. I made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that I wouod not vote for Giuliani under any circumstances.
August 14, 2008 at 7:06 pm
For the record, if John McCain does selects a proabortion running mate, I will not support the GOP presidential ticket. I will publicly resign from all of my positions with the McCain campaign, and throw my support to a third-party candidate.
I respect that. Not sure that I see much difference between having a pro-abortion running mate and being a sorta anti-abortion presidential candidate, but hey. Whatev.
And the notion that I would have “found a way” to support Rudy Giuliani if he was the GOP nominee is patently ridiculous.
That’s not what I said. I invite you to read it again:
“No, I’m sure he would have figured out someone else to support had Giuliani won.”
August 14, 2008 at 7:18 pm
MI-
I apologize as to the second point. I did not read that portion of your comment carefully. My bad.
August 14, 2008 at 7:23 pm
[...] Much is being made of Senator McCain’s comment that Tom Ridge’s proabortion views would not necessarily rule him out as a potential running mate. And in many respects, I can appreciate Policraticus’s reaction. It goes without saying that Senator McCain was not my first choice, and his pro-life record is certainly far from perfect (albeit light years ahead of Senator “Born Alive” Obama’s abysmal record on culture-of-life issues). That having been said, I have been repeatedly assured by the McCain folks that the good senator will choose a pro-life veep. [...]
August 14, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I think the difference here is that Catholics don’t try to push McCain like you guys do Obama. I know I’m not an enthusiastic supporter, and I’m supposedly in the republicans back pocket.
August 14, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Tim – Who here is “pushing” Obama?
August 14, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I think the difference here is that Catholics don’t try to push McCain like you guys do Obama.
Since you said “you guys” in this comment thread, I assume you mean the “you guys” who are contributors of Vox Nova and have commented in this thread: Michael I., Blackadder, M.Z. Forrest, Jonathan, Henry, and I. Of these six, only M.Z. supports Obama. The other five of us have declared in unequivocal terms that we do not and will not support Obama. In fact, I noted as much in this very post. Now, I suspect you have something valuable to offer to this conversation. But please do not just paste some caricature that has no foundation within the context of this post.
N.B.: Vox Nova has no “Obama” and no “McCain” banner on our blog. In fact, I have yet to find an Obama banner on any Catholic blog, but I have found a few McCain banners. If there are Catholic bloggers “pushing” a candidate, then that candidate is most certainly McCain.
Also, in an email exchange with Feddie, which occurred even before his brief time at Vox Nova and while Giuliani was the GOP front runner, he indicated to me that he would support a third party candidate if Giuliani secured the nomination. So, Michael I’s assumption is correct, and I believe every word from Feddie on the matter.
August 14, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Tim – Who here is “pushing” Obama?
Are you serious?…
Maybe I’m just mistaking the over-done attempts at justifying enthusiastically supporting a candidate like Obama as “pushing”.
August 14, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Somehow we’re pushing Obama here but those who openly support John McCain and have McCain banners in their blogs and justify “somehow” how Catholics have to vote for McCain are not really pushing McCain on Catholics. Please.
August 14, 2008 at 10:29 pm
“Are you serious?…”
Tim, I have a feeling that you think anyone who is critical of McCain is “pushing Obama.” We invite you to be more critical of the choices our political system offers Catholics.
MZ, thus far is the only who endores Obama. I believe MM and Michael said that IF they were to vote they would favor Obama.
The rest of us are not enthusiastic about anyone.
August 14, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Maybe I’m just mistaking the over-done attempts at justifying enthusiastically supporting a candidate like Obama as “pushing”.
Which one of us in the combox has pushed Obama? Michael I.? Henry? Jonathan? Blackadder? Me? Could you be more specific and site your evidence? Or are you just importing your preconceived caricature?
August 14, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I am not enthusiastic about Obama in particular. I am somewhat enthusiastic about a black president. If I were to vote, I would probably vote for Obama. I may or may not vote. I don’t necessarily think casting a vote means “supporting” the candidate in the way we often think. If I vote for Obama, I “support” him insofar as he shares my values, and he overwhelmingly does not. I have not sent him money, nor have I placed a banner on my site for Obama, nor have I encouraged anyone in any way to vote for him. It is clear that there is no acceptable candidate. When I vote, if I vote, I approach it asking myself how to keep the biggest evildoer out of the most powerful office on the planet.
So forgive me, Tim, if I
laugh my butt offdo not buy your charge that I or anyone else on this blog is “pushing Obama.”August 15, 2008 at 7:52 am
Which one of us in the combox has pushed Obama? Michael I.? Henry? Jonathan? Blackadder? Me?
Interestingly, you left out the contributor who does it! Seriously, there have been many instances of mental gymnastics for the sole purpose of displaying that a vote for a candidate who just happens to be hypothetically identical to Obama would be OK.
August 15, 2008 at 8:09 am
If partisan supporters of McCain are trying to falsely claim a Catholic can’t vote against McCain, then it is proper for response to show what the true Catholic teaching is, which is not “one must vote for McCain.” It’s not mental gymnastics, it’s actually following basic moral theology; but since many people who try to force their candidate on others can’t argue on issues, they must argue under false religious duties.
Talk about an idol.
August 15, 2008 at 8:31 am
As someone who has a banner on his blog supporting Senator McCain, I am hard pressed to understand how this is any more objectionable than having contributors openly support a candidate or routinely criticize one of the two major presidential candidates more than the other. One could posit that having a banner is, at the very least, more intellectually honest.
August 15, 2008 at 8:55 am
Seriously, there have been many instances of mental gymnastics for the sole purpose of displaying that a vote for a candidate who just happens to be hypothetically identical to Obama would be OK.
It would be “OK.” This hardly amounts to “pushing” Obama.
As someone who has a banner on his blog supporting Senator McCain, I am hard pressed to understand how this is any more objectionable than having contributors openly support a candidate or routinely criticize one of the two major presidential candidates more than the other.
Depends what one means by “openly support,” I think. Merely criticizing one candidate more than the other does not mean an endorsement of the latter. From my point of view there is overwhelmingly more to criticize about McCain, but I do not endorse Obama, even if I were to cast a vote for him.
One could posit that having a banner is, at the very least, more intellectually honest.
Making distinctions in this case seems to be even more “intellectually honest.”
August 15, 2008 at 10:29 am
The New Republic recently ran an article on how McCain is a “pro-life zealot.” She means anti-abortion, and she cites a number of people who have known him well for his whole political career. it’s an interesting read, and it reassured me a little that he does seem to care about overturning Roe, and not just for “states’ rights” reasons. The article is here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3483eb20-9228-4700-9557-57a47a676e0b