Posted on 08/14/2008 8:54:39 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
Top social conservative leaders in key battleground states are urging John McCain not to pick a running mate who supports abortion rights, warning of dire consequences from a Republican base already unenthused about their nominee.
McCain’s comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge’s pro-abortion rights views wouldn’t necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain’s pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.
“It absolutely floored me,” said Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values. “It would doom him in Ohio.”
Burress emailed about a dozen “pro-family leaders” he knows outside Ohio and forwarded it to three McCain aides tasked with Christian conservative outreach.
“That choice will end his bid for the presidency and spell defeat for other Republican candidates,” Burress wrote in the message.
He and other Ohio conservatives met privately with McCain in June, and while the nominee didn’t promise them an anti-abortion rights running mate, his staff said they could “almost guarantee” that would be the case, Burress recalled.
Now, Burress said, “he’s not even sure [Christian conservatives] would vote for him let alone work for him if he picked a pro-abortion running mate.”
James Muffett, head of Michigan’s Citizens for Traditional Values, met with McCain along with a handful of other Michigan-based social conservatives Wednesday night.
“A good portion of us were urging him to pick a pro-life running mate,” Muffett said, noting that they were doing so before even getting wind of the Standard story. “That choice would go a long way to solidify his credentials.”
Muffett said McCain didn’t offer any promises on the issue, but rather reiterated his anti-abortion record and assured them that he was aware of how critical the base was to the electoral success of Republican presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan.
To select a running mate who supports abortion rights would be “wrong-headed, short-sighted, fracture the Republican Party and not allow us to capitalize on the Democratic Party’s fracture right now,” Muffett argued.
“If he does that, it makes our job 100 times harder. It would dampen enthusiasm at a time when evangelicals are looking for ways to gin up enthusiasm.”
McCain, Muffett said, got that message in their meeting.
“Some people in the movement say it would be the kiss of death. He heard that in the room last night.”
With polls showing McCain and Obama still neck-and-neck in many competitive states, conservatives argue that their candidate must turn out Christian conservatives in large numbers to win.
In Iowa, for example, many in the GOP say Bush won in 2004 after losing there in 2000 because he bolstered turnout among the religious right in the conservative western part of the state and in exurban areas.
“Bush only won by 10,000 votes,” recalled Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance and a Republican committeeman from the state. “You’re going to have to have a huge turnout of that base again for McCain to win.”
And, Scheffler noted, it’s not just a matter of ensuring that social conservatives vote – picking a supporter of abortion rights could erode McCain’s volunteer base.
“Ninety percent of the workforce for Bush in ’04 came out of that constituency,” he said, alluding to the Christian right. “Picking a Ridge or a [Joseph] Lieberman would not be helpful at all.”
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, who represents a conservative, heavily Dutch district in western Michigan where Republicans traditionally pile up huge margins, said a pro-abortion rights running mate “would be problematic.”
“That’s not where they’d want him going,” Hoekstra said of the party base.
McCain’s campaign sought to tamp down the uproar, suggesting the candidate had merely been overly expansive about a sensitive topic and hadn’t intended to float a trial balloon.
“The point that McCain was making is that people can differ on one issue and still be a vital member of our party,” said an aide. “The fact that Governor Ridge is not perfectly in line with the party platform does not make him any less of a Republican.”
In the interview, McCain said “the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party.”
“And 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 [for vice-president].”
He added: “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.”
The GOP base aside, some observers believe that picking an outside-the-box running mate such as Lieberman could help McCain with the broad middle of the country who are fed up with the political status quo and enable him to pick off even more Clinton backers.
“This move to a pro-choice running mate such as Lieberman could help reshape his message to appeal to swing voters,” said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster who worked for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he was a Republican and has written a book about moving away from the two-party system. “The right-wing is not going anywhere and choice is a key issue for over-40 women who voted for Hillary in the primaries.”
But to some in the GOP who supported other candidates in the primary and are having trouble mustering much enthusiasm for McCain, the mere mention of a pro-choice running mate is disheartening.
“A lot of the troops here are on the fence or disappointed,” said Elizabeth Sipfle, a Michigan Republican and former leader of Mike Huckabee’s grassroots “Huck’s Army” organization who contacted Politico to register her concern. “Let’s not get our blood boiling.”
“Be smart,” she urged McCain. “There’s a big group here that’s already feeling marginalized.”
With all that is going on in the world, McCain might still win.
But if he picks a pro abortion running mate, it will be without my vote.
McLiberal ... the other Democrat. The GOP is dead.
I hope you are right CT, but I don’t trust McCain. He’s literally the lesser of two evils.
I didn’t like him the first time I heard his RINO BS looong ago. Now I’m close to not voting for him.
If he had any depth to his “Pro-Life” stance he would have made a statement that his VP had to at least share his position—lame as it is. He’s a PLINO - Pro-Life In Name Only.
At one point today I thought: why don’t Johnny and Barry just forgo the election and become Co-Presidents.
I think the problem is not that we disagree, but in that the small amount of difference lies in something none of us can, at least immediately control. If Roe V Wade could be ripped out of history and the Supreme Court understood its true purpose, none of this would even matter. What does matter is that we vote in whomever is going to appoint the most strict Constitutionalist judges.
In the meantime, here we are... we know the Supreme Court should not be involved but they are. We can fight to change the future but we’re bound by the present.
On the other hand, we do have direct immediate control over ourselves and how we raise our children... it must not be overlooked what an important part this plays.
If we do nothing but scream from the mountaintops “Overturn Roe” but do nothing to change ourselves and our charge, then we have done little.
If we do nothing but raise our children and live right but are eventually enslaved by a more and more intrusive government, we have only saved ourselves and lost future generations.
So we have to fight on both fronts... it ain’t everybody’s cup of tea to fight the same way. God made us like that so we could each strengthen the others weakness.
The battle will only be won in the public eye if we all do what God has given us to do and take the time to encourage and uphold the other.
I’ve not seen a bad point out of either one of you concerning abortion... keep up the good work and lets save fight for the enemy.
I’m afraid we’re gonna need it.
Yes! Teach truth. Don’t stop.
Repeat. Repeat. Then repeat again.
Ignorance is the weapon of tyranny.
I think his present campaign staff is more on the ball and would understand the huge problem McCain would have. Right now the Republicans are more unified than the Dims, but that would change overnight if he double-crossed pro-lifers.
“McCain Alarms Base” is a headline that will never end.
Well... Do you need a good enema?
FOUND THE ESPERANTO BOOK.
Our visitor was from Budapest, his name was Gabor Vigh.
He was Department Head for the Institute of Cultural
Relations. Dorottya u.8. Budapest 5. Hungary, Europe
He wrote the following to me in Esperanto...
Kara (Jo),
Mi skribas leteron al vi en Esperanto.
Hi esperors, ke vi homprenos gin. Se vi
lernas Esperantou diligente, vi niceos
leteron de mi el Hungario.
Dankon pro la bela vojago inter Los Angeles
and Santa Barbara. Hi veriam forgesos vin.
Cjis vevido. Via humpasa amiko.
Gabor Vigh
MY BEST GUESS TRANSLATION (???)
Dear Jo,
I write letter to you in Esperanto.
I hope you understand. If you study
Esperanto diligently, you can write
a letter to me in Hungary.
Thank you for taking me to Los Angeles
and to Santa Barbara. I will never
forget you.
To life. Your humble friend, Gabor Vigh
You are emphasizing the oft-neglected bottom-up front of the culture wars, while many focus on the top-down. All too often we are quick to slough off our morality as mere external positions that don't have as profound an effect on our personal lives as they might. Thus, it is easy merely to label ourselves "pro-life" and work for top-down legislation, while neglecting the other front.
I would contend that both are needed, and the the relationship between the quality of its leaders and the mores embraced by a society at large is a symbiotic one: we get the leaders we deserve. We all know that President Clinton's despicable actions in the Oval Office gained wider acceptability amongst our youth, who look to the actions of the leaders we elect as a weather vane of acceptability. Likewise, the character flaws - namely, minimizing or trivializing the value of human life as worthy of protection under the law - inherent in one who takes a pro-choice-on-abortion position disqualify him from office for the same reasons as one who is pro-choice-on-slavery.
Thoughts?
*but why is that so?
I have no quarrel with your reasoning. And I accept
your extension of my premises regarding the influence
political leaders and star power personalities have
on our young.
Those who choose to follow, say, Brittany Spears could
be considered willful. But those who need a moral
baseline and choose a role model such as Bill Clinton
could be considered naive. In my opinion.
Your thoughtful comments are profoundly appreciated.
I’ve floated this balloon a few times, and this is the
first time I’ve received intelligent analytical feedback.
You are correct. If we are to shift this culture back
to it’s moral foundations, it must come from both the
family and from our leaders. However... never forget
the power of God. I’m praying for a revival in our
land. Are you?
[... The outcome is ultimately in the hands of the
Lord himself. We cannot create Heaven on Earth, but,
as you stated earlier, we can strengthen our bonds
and influence where it really counts. A nation that,
according to many polls, is 75% to 85% “Christian,”
- which allows all of this - has either been duped
by pollsters or duped by persistent, progressive
secularism. My money’s with the latter...]
Just thought this should be isolated and repeated.
You know Jo, I was thinking soaking in the tub last nite that indeed our collapsed sense of deceny and morality is a big problem but....
I fear our collective national stupidity and ignorance of issues and facts may be a larger culprit.
Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?
I had not heard of the movie “Idiocracy”.
But now that I’ve researched its premise,
I think I’d like to see it.
Rush Limbaugh says that ignorance is our
worst enemy. I agree.
We can change this if we start at home.
Government doesn’t want us thinking for
ourselves. That would not be good for
their big plans to control us.
Thanks for the tip. I’ll look for the
movie.
...Jo
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.