John McCain and the Abortion-Litmus Test?
By Elizabeth Shipp, political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America.
As the Politico's Jonathan Martin notes, during last night's Hardball with Chris Matthews, McCain said "it would be difficult" to have a pro-choice running mate. In Pennsylvania, Matthews pushed him on why Tom Ridge wouldn't be an acceptable candidate. Watch it here (segment begins at 1:27 minutes in):
Let me reiterate: McCain said, "I don't know if it would stop him, but it would be difficult."
Uh, ok. But wait, it gets worse. When Matthews asked him, "Why that one issue? Why is it that one litmus test issue?" McCain replied:
I'm not saying that would be necessarily, but I am saying it's basically the respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn is one of the fundamental principles of my party. And it's a--and it's a deeply held belief of mine... And I want to say that the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values...
Since when is a man who has conservative credentials to spare (former governor of Pennsylvania, former congressman, Vietnam veteran, former secretary of the department of Homeland Security, and the list goes on) a "difficult" running-mate choice simply because of a presumed pro-choice position? (Oh, and just for the record: I worked against Tom Ridge in the 1994 race for governor. And, I worked for a real pro-choice candidate, Mark Singel. So, I know a little bit about Tom Ridge and whether or not he's really pro-choice. Let's just say that occasionally voting pro-choice didn't give Ridge any "street cred" on our issue. I don't expect to see him at a march or waving a pro-choice banner any day soon. Just like Condi Rice, he's "mildly" pro-choice at best.)
This all reminds me an article I read in the January 21, 2008 edition of The Weekly Standard. (I always feel like I have to know what the opposition is saying, which is the only reason I'd ever pick up a rag like The Standard!) Author Stephen F. Hayes wrote about traveling with McCain after his win in the New Hampshire primary, and described the following exchange:
...He was asked about the possibility of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg entering the race as an independent, and McCain had nice words to say about his potential rival. Someone asked if Bloomberg would make a good vice president, and McCain thought aloud about the potential positives and negatives of such an arrangement. "I don't know how you could nominate a pro-choice VP without a real backlash from the party," he said, specifically raising concerns that a pro-choice vice presidential nominee would run counter to a "fundamental" principle of the Republican party.
Clearly, John McCain is uncomfortable with the notion of a pro-choice Republican as a running mate. No matter the other redeeming qualities a potential running mate would have - if you're a pro-choice Republican, don't bother applying. What really made me do the cartoon double take during Hardball was McCain trying, once again, to have it both ways:
The only thing I can say is that in America we can disagree sometimes on specific issues even if they're of the most important issues. And I want to say that the rights of the unborn is one of my most important values, but we can have disagreement. There is room for debate in our nation and our party. We should have a healthy and respectful discussion and debate on these issues.
Gee, thanks so much John McCain. We can have a debate within the Republican party. We can have a national debate. But if elected president, you won't have a vice president who will debate or disagree with you? You only want an inner circle of advisors who think, act, talk and walk just like you, no matter what the majority of Americans think? Wow, that sounds familiar - where have I heard that one before? Oh, yeah... George W. Bush. How's that been working out for the country?
Here's a free bit of advice for McCain that I hope he'll accept in the civil and respectful manner I'm giving it: Perhaps Dick Cheney can be your wingman, Senator McCain. Now, don't dismiss it right away; hear me out. Cheney could be the "Goose" to your "Maverick" a la Top Gun. Why, you might ask? Because just as Top Gun is a work of fiction, so is your claim to be a "moderate maverick." I hate to break it to you Senator, but you are NOT a maverick, you're certainly not a moderate, and you're becoming more like Bush every day in every way.
As McCain continues to travel the country, it becomes even more important that we continue to challenge the media - blogs and traditional outlets alike - to investigate and expose McCain's real beliefs on choice-related issues. We cannot, and will not, let stand the misperception that anti-choice presidential candidate Sen. John McCain represents the moderate wing of his party. Share this blogpost with friends and family today, so they can Meet The Real McCain.

Sen. McCain is upholding his party's platform, which is firmly pro life and regards abortion as the social evil that it is. It is entirely proper, if not mandatory, that he choose people who share that view to be his running mate and fill important positions in his cabinet. His most ardent supporters, who worked to elect him have a right to expect he will represent them and promote their values, and let the electorate decide their worth in the general election.
I don't imagine Clinton's or Obama's followers would smile approvingly if either chose a pro-lifer as their running mate. So please stop the hand-wringing and the pretense of some vague unfairness on McCain's part.
I for one am not surprised to hear that McCane is anti choice, after all, he is a Republican and that party has been anti choice for as long as I can remember. However, what I am very surprised, and confused, about is what I read about Senator Obama on the front page of the Washington Post on April 14h. The headline was:
"For Obama, Unexpected Support, Antiabortion Lawmakers' Backing May Help in Pa., Ind." by Shailagh Murray
The article explains that Obama was endorsed by two (sounds like the only two) anti choice lawmakers in the Democratic party, Sen.Casey (Pa) and a former congressman Roemer (Ind.). The article says that:
Casey and Roemer have chosen to ignore Obama's legislative record, and are promoting the Democratic presidential candidate to their antiabortion allies as someone who could achieve a new consensus on the issue. "He has the unique skills to try to lower the temperature and foster a sense of common ground, and try to figure out ways that people can agree"
They quoted Obama as saying," The mistake pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization... has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved," he said. "And so the debate got so polarized that both sides tended to exaggerate the other side's positions. Most Americans, I think recognize that what we want to do is avoid, or help people avoid, making this difficult choice. That nobody is pro abortion - abortions are never a good thing."
Now here is the excerpt from the article that really bothered me. It said:
"During a town hall meeting in Lafayette, Ind., on Thursday, Obama was asked what type of Supreme Court justice he would appoint. His lengthy answer made no mention of Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion."
As a pro choice woman I simply disagree with many of the things he is quoted as saying. I do not think that the pro choice side has" ignored the moral issues involved". This statement sounds to me like he is saying that anyone who is pro choice is immoral (which is what the anti choice people say). I also do not agree that "abortions are never a good thing" Abortions are obviously the best thing for some women when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. If they were "never a good thing", no one would be having them and there wouldn't be a pro choice movement in the first place. I do not get what they mean when they say they want to "achieve a new consensus on the issue". Consensus means agreement. Does this mean that he plans to sit down with pro choice and anti choice activists and draw up some kind of a treaty? This does not sound "prochoice" to me. I am really confused. I am also annoyed to hear that he did not open his mouth about Roe v Wade in the town hall meeting in Ind. when asked about the Supreme Court.
I realize that Obama's voting record shows that he is strictly pro choice but after reading this article I really don't trust him anymore. It sounds like he is cozying up to the anti choice side in order to get more votes in Pa and Ind. I really resent him playing politics with the abortion issue.
I have been wondering if anyone else read this article and had a similar or different reaction.