As A Non-Right To Lifer On McCain's Veep Pick

Via Michelle and elsewhere:

NR has learned that the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country the last couple of days and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick. The campaign is asking about the reaction of conservative grass-roots activists to such a pick and whether a pro-choicer can be sold to them. This is an indication that the McCain campaign is serious about the possibility of a pro-choice VP nominee and that McCain leaving the door open to Tom Ridge last week may not have been merely a friendly nod to a longtime supporter.

I don't consider myself Pro-Choice or Pro-Life in the contexts they generally seem to be defined. The abortion issue has simply never been a primary driver in my political views. Unfortunately, what we're hearing from McCain as per above would likely make it extremely difficult to actively support him in the Fall.

This trial balloon, and I hope that's all it is, suggests McCain is determined to always do things his way, do only that which he wants to do to such an extent as to call his judgment as a political leader into question.

Besides that, at 71, he would be setting up, at best, a middling Republican like Ridge to take his place in 4 or even 8 years. And Lieberman, though I respect him, is out of the question for me, too. He's far too Liberal beyond his national defense views.

If that's McCain's wish, it's his campaign. Frankly, what he should do is select a qualified genuinely conservative woman. I suspect that combination couldn't be beaten in the Fall.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, if it's always going to be "John's way," he can go it alone. He simply wouldn't be the man to unite, let alone lead the Republican Party.

I'd rather ignore politics for a spell as I did during the early Clinton years and find something else to occupy my time. Let the Dems have it and muck it up. We'll just have to gamble on coming back in 4 years - hopefully with better leadership.

Comments

[befair]

Ole Chipmunk Cheeks will really deep-six himself & other republicans with him with his anti-abortion stance. Obama is correct in that we as a nation need to examine ways to reduce this choice - and some use it as birth control which I personally find abhorrent. The more I see and hear of McCain, the more I find him to be irritating and extremely conceited. He is really too old (and I am getting there myself) and out of it. Do we really need another doll-like figure all made up and dressed up and coached through news conferences and brought out for show? Sorry, but he just is not an appealing person as was Reagan.

[Cory]

Right now I'm planning on voting for McCain, but should he pick a pro-infanticide VP I will not be voting for him.

[Spartan112]

"Besides that, at 71, he would be setting up, at best, a middling Republican like Ridge to take his place in 4 or even 8 years."

So is it true that Big John is only thinking about one term?

[befair]

There should not be a complete abolition of abortion, but there should be a lot of restrictions. Late term no unless it is the mother's life at stake, and other reasons determined by a woman and her doctor. Nobody can win who is completely opposed to abortion under any circumstances IMO. Back to the back street, kitchen table scenario?

I wonder how Cindy felt when her husband said that his greatest moral failure was his first marriage - and it collapsed with her in the middle. Did he not apply for a marriage license just before the divorce decree was issued? Oh that, ooppss. Mr. Holier than Thou

[Lamontyoubigdummy]

"Do we really need another doll-like figure all made up and dressed up and coached through news conferences and brought out for show?'

In a blind taste test (with just that sentence), 60% of voting America would have assumed you were talking about Obama. Had you mentioned the word's 'teleprompter' and 'Saddleback?' 85%

They would have also preferred Pepsi.

Is still think McCain's talking about Guliani.

He better be.

Maverick.

Do. Not. Leave. Your. Wingman.

[Lamontyoubigdummy]

"I wonder how Cindy felt when her husband said that his greatest moral failure was his first marriage"...

[raises hand]

Was it anything like Elizabeth Edwards feels?

"Mr. Holier than Thou"

Let me know when McCain's campaign changes its slogan to "John McCain for President (New & Improved! Now with Cancer Stricken Wife!)"

Ok, you do another silly Republican one now, and we can do this all da....zzzzzzzzzz. [shit, I fell asleep]

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Looks like McCain figures that if he can capture the mushy middle, i.e. "low information voters" who believe what the corporatist media tells them, the lunatic fringe on the right becomes a bit expendable. He knows that the lunatic fringe will come around for him. What are they gonna do? There's not a chance in the world that the right is gonna let the black guy who wants to make them pay for the wars over which they have a perpetual hardon, be president, if they can help it.

[Spartan112]

"Is still think McCain's talking about Guliani.

He better be."

Oh please god, let it be true.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

McCain / Giuliani* - two serial adulterers on the same ticket!? Remember, kids. The GOP is the party of values!** The only person LESS qualified to be president, and LESS informed as to matters of foreign affairs than St. McSame, is Rudy the Cross-dresser. Jesus Christ, imagine the field day Joe Biden would have with those clowns.

*Only if completely one ignores the disconnect between every thing they say and everything they do!

[dm60462]

"select a qualified genuinely conservative woman" Nice idea, Riehl World! Thatcher redux? I can live with that. As for a it's-ok-to-murder-your-own-offspring (er, pro-"choice") VP, that one's a non-starter. He'll lose the election.

[Lamontyoubigdummy]

"Oh please god, let it be true."

Good Lord. I didn't say it would be a good ticket.

But compared to Ridge or Leiberman?

Still. Conservatives deserve the snark today. McCain's 'trial ballon VP picks' are leaving us in the precarious position of having to try and pick up a turd by the clean end.

But I wouldn't start dancing yet. Biden?

Here's McCain's first campaign ad: "John Biden said, 'The Whitehouse is no place to learn on the job.'

[SacTownMan]

No baby killers allowed!

Oh sorry, it's not murder it's "a woman's choice"!

[Lamontyoubigdummy]

Actually that should read "Joe Biden said"...

I dunno a "John Biden".

Maybe he's Joe's brother.

Whoever he is, I bet he's said stuff that makes Obama look laughably weak too.

[seekeronos]

"--- Looks like McCain figures that if he can capture the mushy middle, i.e. "low information voters" who believe what the corporatist media tells them, the lunatic fringe on the right becomes a bit expendable ---"

Spot on. Although I'd swap out "lunatic fringe" for "informed conservative Christian voters".

I honestly wonder if God has turned His back on this nation for its love of infanticide (baby killing) and sodomy.

A real, Robert Taft-like, Calvin Coolidge-like Republican: small government, low-spending, non-intervening in everyone's business, non-interventionist warring moral, God-fearing conservative is running this year, and his name is Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

http://www.baldwin08.com

In a less perverse, stronger generation that didn't plug itself into the MSM for its nightly propaganda session might have had a chance.

As for Johnny Mac, he is betting the farm on the "low information voters" that his "maverickey middle ground hunting" will save the day in the face of the worst possible choice for President - a dedicated socialist who will be the ruination of this Republic.

[Spartan112]

"A real, Robert Taft-like, Calvin Coolidge-like Republican: small government, low-spending, non-intervening in everyone's business, non-interventionist warring moral, God-fearing conservative is running this year, and his name is Dr. Chuck Baldwin.

http://www.baldwin08.com"

Seek I hope you live in a swing state and manage to get both of your friends to vote for him too.

[Spartan112]

Check this typo from the AP:

"His top contenders are said to include Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Less traditional choices mentioned include former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, an abortion-rights supporter, and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice presidential prick in 2000 who now is an independent."

How appropriate.

[befair]

No baby killers allowed!

Oh sorry, it's not murder it's "a woman's choice"!

Posted by: SacTownMan | Tuesday, August 19, 2008 at 02:36 PM

How many adopted children do you have - have you saved from abject poverty, serious illness both physical and mental, etc.?

[befair]

LMAO at Spartan re Lieberman.

[Gravitational Gravitas]

---How many adopted children do you have - have you saved from abject poverty, serious illness both physical and mental, etc.?---

````````

Sorry little baby, you might get sick one day or go hungry the next. Now quit squirming and let me chop your skull to pieces.

[befair]

Sorry little baby, you might get sick one day or go hungry the next. Now quit squirming and let me chop your skull to pieces.
---------
Oh my, oh my. That's like going from a-z with nothing at all in between. There are enough women in this country who remember well the days before one could get an abortion and if they had enough money they could go to another country. Geeze, I am really not pro-abortion, just feel that it is not an all or nothing position. Conservative - liberal - bah, how about compassionate? We have had a "compassionate conservative" in the WH for 8 years (and damn, I voted for him twice) - he has not even approached remedies for the wrongs that conservatives feel so passionately about. Sadly, I know so many, many people who are just so plain disgusted with the choice this time, they are not going to vote at all.

[SacTownMan]

"How many adopted children do you have - have you saved from abject poverty, serious illness both physical and mental, etc.?"

I have spent every day of my life for the past twenty years working in Radiation Oncology helping cure children with cancer. So I would have to put the number in the thousands. How about you?

I think the more important question is:

How many of the 40 million babies murdered in this country since Roe vs Wade have you or one of your friends killed?

[Gravitational Gravitas]

Oh yes, and in response to "nothing in between" you manage "how about compassionate"? Please tell me more about the blood in the gutters and young women lurching into emergency rooms with coat-hangers piercing their abdomens. Barbara Boxer, is that you?

How do you plan on defining compassion, with a magic wand? What if a young woman demands compassion one week before delivery? Who gets to decide when, where and how "compassion" will be instituted? Is there a legal component to compassion? Who pays for compassion?

Talk about nothing in between, you went from A to Z and back to A again.

[Befair]

Sactownman, you are indeed a hero in the care of youngsters with cancer.
Gravatational, I have never had an abortion, nor would I. I do not post from a personal standpoint. Late term abortion is horrid and should be made illegal. The women staggering into emergency rooms to which you refer lead me to think more of the pre-abortion days, illegal kitchen table stuff we used to hear about. Life is very precious to me, but I cannot say there are never any extenuating circumstances that might lead to the decision for a woman to seek an abortion. I apologize for commenting here, as it appears that there is no room for a dissenting opinion or thought. I repeat, I don't think it is an "all or nothing" scenario, but that is just my own personal opinion.

[Gravitational Gravitas]

Those extenuating circumstances have always been there, they were around long before Roe made the scene and the answer is called a C-section, which can be done at any time, including for the oft-repeated reason of "life of the mother".

While I appreciate your desire for reaching some sort of compromise, in reality there can be none because whatever the reason, it will be altered and stretched and morphed into whatever someone wants it to be. Even with the advent of Roe and abortion available everywhere, women still give birth into toilets, still discard their infants into dumpsters, still try the at-home method and all because there are other circumstances which cause them to do it. Legalizing the practice won't end it.

You want compromise, make adoption easier and make the process more accessible rather for the abortion clinics.

[Spartan112]

"Legalizing the practice won't end it."

But criminalizing it will increase it.

"You want compromise, make adoption easier and make the process more accessible rather for the abortion clinics."

What's your stance on gay adoption?

[Gravitational Gravitas]

I'll trade forty million abortion deaths for the however many who will supposedly die from not legalizing the procedure. The mothers have a choice, the babies don't. Cold calculus, I know, but the thought lends itself well to the last sentence I wrote in my earlier post.

I'm all for gay adoption, I'm for adoption by single parents, I'm for parents of any color adopting babies of any color, I'm for adoption by any person(s) who can provide a stable, loving home.

[Spartan112]

"I'm all for gay adoption, I'm for adoption by single parents, I'm for parents of any color adopting babies of any color, I'm for adoption by any person(s) who can provide a stable, loving home. "

Good for you. I disagree with you on the abortion issue though. Of course if you want fewer abortions you should vote Obama. If you look both teen pregnancy and abortion rates they dropped from the Reagan/Bush era during the Clinton years and now they have started to rise again during the Bush II years. Why? There's probably multiple answers but education has to be playing role.

[seekeronos]

"gay adoption"

This is a rough one IMHO. Although I might see a way toward it if the wealthier partner adopted the child as a single parent than as an outright "gay family". Of course, I'd rather see more "normal" families (one man as the father, one woman as the mother) choose to adopt.

The other issue with adoption is that most people want a cute little baby, and the many kids who are ageing out of the system - shifted from foster family to group home to foster family to whatever less-than-fortunate circumstance are viewed as having too many "issues"... are at a distinct disadvantage.

This is an area where both church and state can serve: by believers both praying for God to raise up families willing to meet this need, and supplying orphans with both material goods and the gospel, and the state by providing tax incentives for families that adopt: where natural born children to a family may receive a deduction of $1000 per child, adopted infants would receive $1500 through the tax year when they turn two years of age, and then the standard decduction thereafter, to offset the adoption costs.

To encourage adoption of older childrem, I'd support a tax deduction of $1750 per adopted child who is adopted over three years of age through to the tax year they turn six, and then the standard decduction thereafter, and for any adopted child adopted over six years of age, $2000 per year until the tax year when that child attains majority (age 18 in most cases, extended to age 24 in the case qualified postsecondary school attendance).

The notably increased deduction for late-age adoptions is to offset the additional costs attendant with the care and assimilation of these children into families after years of being shunted around the foster care system or other sub-optimal family life conditions where the care to correct socialize/normalize them into a loving family can have significant emotional and financial cost to the adopting family.

And for qualified families with a physically or mentally disabled child of any age, a tiered deduction of $2500 to $4000 per annum depending upon a test of the severity of the child's handicap would be reasonable, for as long as that dependent can be claimed as such. (This would be without regard to natural or adopted children, so long as the family is able to properly care for that dependent -- this would reduce the likelihood of a black market arising trafficking in handicapped children).

[Spartan112]

"by believers both praying for God to raise up families willing to meet this need"

Oh...yeah, that should do the trick.

[Fred Beloit]

"If you look both teen pregnancy and abortion rates they dropped from the Reagan/Bush era during the Clinton years and now they have started to rise again during the Bush II years."

Hahaha. Here Spart goes again. During the first Bush's presidency "the homeless" were all over the front page of the NYT. Somehow Bush Sr was implicated in this great American tragedy. Lo and behold, after Clinton took office the NYT couldn't find any more homeless. I don't see any, do you?

Say, Spart, any news on that mea culpa?

[seekeronos]

"--- Oh...yeah, that should do the trick. ---"

Funny how you stopped at "prayer", and failed to see the ideas past that about the various tax deductions favouring adoptions.

[SacTownMan]

Brother Seek,

It always amazes me that after a well thought out post it is almost always immediately followed by a quick witless one line response by a troll. It doesn't matter if it's the Sock Puppet, President Carter or this latest asshat Sparky they seldom have anything meaningful or thoughtful to add to the discussion so they simply show their stupidity with the little zinger!

Your points about adoption were spot on. These guys will defend the right to murder millions of babies but offer no realistic alternatives or options other than to mock people of faith and continue to live and defend hedonistic lifestyles

Sparky you continue to impress!

[Spartan112]

"no realistic alternatives "

The point is Dems are the only ones who HAVE realistic alternatives. The GOP for years has trumpeted abstenance only education but the results show it doesn't work. Virginity pledges...great, yet those same girls are happy to go out and perform oral sex.

With Clinton in the WH for 8 years teen pregnancy and abortion rates steadily dropped. 8 years of W and those numbers are on the rise.

Here's your realistic alternative, sex ed that works and spells it out.

[Spartan112]

Say, Spart, any news on that mea culpa?

Nope, I haven't seen anything to suggest I was wrong and I've seen one report that suggests I was right.

Oh, and he was a member of a shooting club for what that's worth (NRA sanctioned mind you)

http://www.thesuntimes.com/articles/2008/08/20/news/news07.txt

[seekeronos]

"--- Here's your realistic alternative, sex ed that works and spells it out. ---"

Now that all depends if that sex ed involves something like stressing abstinence as the best solution, followed by condom use to teens of an appropriate age. That's good, realistic sex ed that works.

But forking out condoms to first graders while extolling the joys and pleasures of male on male sodomy, or teaching first-graders how to pleasure themselves with sex toys, or showing graphic, deviant pr0n movies "in an educational setting" way is beyond the "Jocelyn Elders" (a Clinton appointee) pale.

[Spartan112]

"But forking out condoms to first graders while extolling the joys and pleasures of male on male sodomy, or teaching first-graders how to pleasure themselves with sex toys, or showing graphic, deviant pr0n movies "in an educational setting" way is beyond the "Jocelyn Elders" (a Clinton appointee) pale"

Can you show me the instance(s) where these things have actually happened or do they just exist in you world of delusion?

[seekeronos]

A somewhat dated site (ca. 2004) with links to my above mentioned points:

http://www.blessedcause.org/TOC/Sex%20Education%20Public%20School%20Porn.htm

I might have been off with the first-graders idea, but kids as young as nine (3rd/4th grade) are being taught how to masturbate in public schools:

http://www.aggressive-voice.com/zz647.html

Yup, we can thank the proggies for smutting up our schools...