Skip to comments.Ridge Does Not Think McCain Would Have Abortion Litmus Test
Posted on 08/03/2008 12:24:19 PM PDT by WilliamReading
ABC News Jan Simmonds reports: On ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," former Pennsylvania Governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge reaffirmed his pro-choice position on abortion, and said he did not think Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would make it a litmus test on whom he would choose to be his running mate.
"I would think John would never make it a litmus test, but when it comes down to a nominee selecting a vice presidential running mate, it's their decision exclusively," said Ridge. "And I would respect that decision one way or another."
When asked whether he thought having a pro-choice candidate at the top of a national ticket would turn off the Republican Party base, Ridge said, "I think, at the end of the day, I think the party would be comfortable with someone Sen. McCain was comfortable with. And that is ultimately his decision."
Ridge chose to hold his cards close to the vest, though, when questioned directly about whether he would accept the offer if John McCain makes it.
"I would have that conversation with my friend John and report back to you," said Ridge with a chuckle.
Ridge also took the opportunity to vouch for the Barack Obama/Britney Spears ad the McCain campaign released earlier this week. "The commercial elevates the whole question of energy policy in a way that some people like, some people don't like," added Ridge, saying the issue of the ad is an important one.
"John McCain has suggested that we have an all-above approach. Let's talk nuclear, let's talk drilling, let's talk biofuels. ... Let's get it all on the table, and Obama -- Sen. Obama, excuse me -- said no nuclear, no drilling," said Ridge.
McCain might not have a litmus test but the base of the party does. The fastest way to keep religious voters home is to put a pro-abort on the ticket.
For every vote that Ridge loses for being on the ticket, he can easily get 2 or 3 pro-choice voters.
I doubt it would be that high. If people are pro-choice they’d probably vote for Obama in the overwhelming majority of cases, all a pro-abort on the ticket would do is fracture McCain’s already shakey base.
... and move the party that much more to the Left, the new home of the Democrat-lite party.
I have a Litmus test.
Well, screw you Ridge. He’s off the Veep list. McCain may be puzzling at times, but he isn’t that stupid to put Ridge on the ticket.
McCain will have a Senate with a Democratic majority throughout his first term. Therefor, he will not have the political capital to go with a Strong Pro Life Justice.
That may be true but McCain is also in his 70s, how secure do you think the base would feel with a pro-abort waiting in the wings?
Mr Crayon thinks he’s got a shot. How amusing . . . unless he’s right.
Not really true in the Northeast. Nonetheless, I don't see Ridge picking up a lot of pro-choice voters who would otherwise vote for Obama, since the VP's position on the issue usually has very little impact.
I certainly hope not. When he has to work with Dim majorities, he proposes Dim legislation. We'll have McCain-Reid and McCain-Pelosi to go with the rest of the trash.
he will not have the political capital to go with a Strong Pro Life Justice
Even Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a Democratic Senate.
I have seen Tom Ridge run in Pennsylvania, a strong pro-life state. He lost a few votes from the Pro-life side, to be sure, but he always made them up, on the pro-choice side.
He has never lost an election . .
He doesn't have to have a strong "Pro Life" Justice. In fact, the less said about "Pro Life", the better.
All you need to overturn Roe v. Wade are strong "Constructionist" Justices that believe that the Constitution should say what it means and mean what it says.
John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
Agreed about the Northeast, a truly nasty and hostile part of the country towards traditionally minded folks. (I should know I was born and raised there) However many so called Republicans in the Northeast govern as Democrat-lites on the social issues and on some fiscal issues.
That maybe true for PA but it is not necessarily true for a national campaign. A pro-abort on a McCain ticket would be a recipe for disaster.
It appears that is the plan.
I agree. McCain won’t pick Ridge for VP, no matter how close they are. He might get a cabinet post, though.
He's going to have a hard enough time getting elected as it is. Select an abortionist as his running mate and there's no chance at all.
I would rather have Casey SENIOR, who won by bigger margins as governor, than that hypocrite ex-communicate Ridge.
Ridge would be a good way to get a lot of possible GOTV volunteers to decide their time is better spent on other matters.
I think McCain is either going to choose Crist or Liberman that will take FL off the board. That is why he not wasting his ad money there
Crist - maybe, Lieberman - no way in hell. I read he is vetting Rep. Cantor as well. McCain needs a young conservative in the VP slot.
Who exactly is Tom Ridge going to bring into the party?
That would be no one. People like to act as if a pro-life litmus test is a bad thing, it’s not, it’s a very good and sensible requirement. There’s issues we’re willing to compromise with, and then there’s issues we’re not. Abortion is in the latter category.
Amen to that.
But Obama will.
Nah, if McPain endorses homosexuality in the military do you really think he has the brass balls to say no to abortion? Killing the unborn? NO WAY.
McCain will not appoint a strong pro-life justice no matter what the make up of the Senate. Any strong pro-life justice would be almost certain to rule against his signature McCain-Feingold legislation
Who exactly is Tom Ridge going to bring into the party?
Obama’s weak point now is with White women (Hillary voters), especially over 40. You would be surprised how many of those people might cross over with McCain-Ridge.
I do not think McCain will pick Romney, they just don’t seem to click . . and Romney hasn’t been on a Sunday show for a few weeks.
Pawlenty is a possibility, but he is lackluster . . not that charismatic.
Cantor? I think this is just a head fake . . He is no way ready to be President of the United States.
LOL, riiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttt. Pro-life is the biggest net voting issue the GOP has. A pro-life position generally nets about 7% over a candidate with a pro-choice position.
Given McCain’s age it’s highly unlikely he can get my vote by running with a baby killing butcher.
Frankly, Obama has the baby killing vote all wrapped up and in the bank.
Dfinitely a problem if he has a Dem Senate. McCain almost invented the old “reacharound” business.
Pro-life is the biggest net voting issue the GOP has. A pro-life position generally nets about 7% over a candidate with a pro-choice position.
Maybe in Louisiana and Utah, but not in the Midwest. And that is where the election will be won or lost.
I am starting to think that it will indeed be Ridge . . that Cantor is just a way to get some publicity.
I’m already lukewarm on McCain because I think he is a RINO. If he picks a pro-abort running mate i’m staying some.
LOL, wow. Are you kidding me. The only place pro-choice is a good thing is in the north east. The only battleground states where it might be beneficial is Penn and NJ. Otherwise it is a big loser.
LOL, wow. Are you kidding me. The only place pro-choice is a good thing is in the north east.
Have you checked out who represents Michigan, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana , Minnesota in the Senate? At least 70 percent of those Senators are pro-choice.
That is in spite of their pro-choice positions, not because of. The Democrats gained control because of the war, wasteful spending by the GOP, and GOP scandals. I have never seen a pro-choice candidate in the midwest running on being pro-choice. They usually cover it up by claiming conservative values.
I have never seen a pro-choice candidate in the midwest running on being pro-choice
You must never have heard about a guy named Barack Obama or Dick Durban or Stabenow or Levin.
On Election Day former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican Thomas Melady worked the phones from Republican National Committee headquarters in southeast Washington. His job was to call 150 Ohio Republicans and encourage them to go to the polls. "George Bush stands for things I believe in," was a frequent response of the 141 Ohioans Melady ultimately reached that day.
"I was surprised that I only got three negative responses," said Melady. "I thought we'd hear a lot more about Iraq."
In fact, as Melady's experience demonstrated, the war on Iraq ended up far down the list of voter concerns. Surprisingly to some (including a good number of social conservatives) 21 percent of voters cited "moral values" as the number "one issue [that] mattered most in deciding" how they voted, according to a Washington Post survey of the national electorate. That's higher than the 20 percent who cited the economy, the 18 percent who mentioned terrorism, or the 15 percent who pointed to the war in Iraq. And, significantly, of those who made moral values a priority, 78 percent voted for Bush.
By Editorial Staff Published March 1992
Most Americans oppose the vast majority of all abortions being performed, according to the findings of a national poll of 750 people conducted in January.
The poll, conducted by the highly respected Wirthlin Group, found that pro-life Americans are also much more likely to vote single-issue than Americans who favor abortion. This means that pro-life candidates enjoy a seven percent voting edge, or increment, over pro-abortion candidates.
The poll also found that Americans support the primary provisions of a Pennsylvania law now before the Supreme Court. An overwhelming majority 85 percent support a womans right to know about abortion and alternatives, and 74 percent support spousal notification.
84 percent of Pro-Life voters don’t think it should be a litmus test.
88 percent of Pro-choice voters don’t think it should be a Litmus Test.
Your stat actually supports my point. There are more pro-life limit test voters than pro-choice.
I agree. While I cannot now imagine who I’d support other than McCain, if he chooses a pro-abortion running mate, he will not get my vote.
The LP is out since I discovered one of their planks is pro-abortion. Absolutely amazed me when I found that out.
The CP has their silly isolationist take on defense and they don’t really have a serious candidate.
Guess I’d just write in Duncan Hunter or leave it blank.
The pro-aborts can go straight to hell in this life as well as in the next. If the GOP adopts the murderous views of the Demonrats by allowing a national pro-abort nominee (and a pseudo-Catholic no less) there will be a truly historic and fatal (short and long term) exodus from the GOP. The GOP was not meant to be merely the party of blind materialism. It is meant for better things.
Your claim that the GOP would receive 2 or 3 baby-killer votes for every pro-lifer lost is ridiculous and utterly unsupported and unsupportable. The GOP vote would instead be limited to windtunnel Muffy of the Junior League and windtunnel Skipper of the local polo club.
It is no accident that the party that defends the babies also defends marriage, guns, the War on Terror, drilling here and drilling now, a military second to none used whenever necessary and desirable, militant nationalism, and a host of other conservative values. Tax cuts are part but only part of the package and by no means the most important part.
"Who cares if they kill another 50 million babies so long as I get my tax cuts and trust fund protection?" is not a campaign slogan for the GOP to go to political war with.
Tom Ridge has no business whatsoever having any chance to appoint federal judges now or ever.
Should we try for the Ku Klux Klan voters? the neoNazis??? the militant queers??? the, ummm, animal lovers? the Code Pinkers??? the SDS Alumni Association? the cannibal "rights" groups? No. That is also true of NARAL, PP, ZPG and the other babykillers.
As the pro-life party, we win more often than not. The babykillers have done whatever little damage they can do (as pro-lifers have damaged the Demonrats badly) and the babykillers have usually failed. Accept them at the top of the GOP and there won't be a GOP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.