Would Republican Voters Embrace a Pro-Choice VP?

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:19:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Tom Ridge, in an interview today, was asked whether the Republican Party would accept a vice president who is pro-choice (like, for instance, Tom Ridge):

Question: Given its long pro-life history, do you really think that the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate?
RIDGE: My friend of 25 years is passionately pro-life. He is also passionately a believer that the Republican Party must have a big tent. And I think, frankly, what he was just saying to the rest of the world is that we need to accept both points of view. He's not judgmental about me or my belief. He just disagrees with me. ...
WALLACE: And to answer my question specifically, do you think the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate?

RIDGE: Well, I think that would be up to — first of all, to John to decide whether he wants a pro-choice running mate, and then we would have to see how the Republican Party would rally around it. At the end of the day, I think the Republican Party will be comfortable with whatever John makes.

Really? Is the shrinking Republican tent likely to grow if McCain selects a pro-choice running mate, or will the tent collapse altogether?

< Capitalism vs. Human Rights? It's Not That Simple | Usain Bolt And Ben Johnson >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Would Republican Voters Embrace a Pro-Choice VP? | 60 comments (60 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Yes (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by cmugirl on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST

They will hiss and boo and make some noise, but they know they are going to lose more seats in Congress and they don't want to be completely shut out. Despite all the handwringing, the conservatives are going to come home and vote for McCain, regardless of who he chooses for VP. What will make it interesting, is how many moderates and independents he can bring over with his choice.

: G. Will said they might even prefer (none / 0) (#58)
by ruffian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 04:49:54 PM EST

a Dem or pro-choice VP, because it would make it clear that the VP is not the future of the Republican party - McCainism would clearly be a short term solution buying the base time time to get their act together for 2012.
Not a bad idea.

My first instinct is to say yes because they (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST

won't vote for Obama. On second thought, I have some friends who will vote for Democrats at a state level but never for a national office if they are pro-choice.

With McCain's age and the possibility of having a pro-choice VP running in four years, I just don't know. They might sit it out but I guess they would prefer that to the alternative (from their point of view).

: Judging only from the conservative Christians (none / 0) (#30)
by stxabuela on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:03:26 PM EST

in my own family, they either skip the race or vote 3rd party. I think it would benefit Obama in an indirect way.

In my view (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Steve M on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM EST

it is equally an article of faith on BOTH sides that the other side is more intolerant of dissent.

There already exists (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST

a contingency of pro-choice Republicans.

You don't hear much about them because they aren't loud and hyperbolic. But they're there.

: And silenced! (none / 0) (#41)
by hairspray on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:38:41 PM EST

Interesting (5.00 / 5) (#20)
by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:48:17 PM EST

The Republican's are talking about a pro choice VP while the Dem's are talking about a pro life one! The world has flipped out.

I think a pro life candidate could do more harm for the Dem's than a pro choice one would for the Rep's.

I think the (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:51:23 PM EST

conservatives will come home to him. Quite frankly ALOT of them have been whining about the religious right anyway. IMO this is his signal that the religious right can grin and bear it and expect some crumbs or vote for the alternative(which is being painted as a worse alternative. Hey religious folk welcome to MY world!) A McCain presidency will be about the fiscal /spend money primarily only on defense conservative.

By the way, I was startled to read in my paper that one of the three smartest folks McCain named was a Democratic civil rights legislator. Personally, I find that more heartening than Michelle Obama being named as one of the smartest folks Obama's known.

I agree (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:04:57 PM EST

It's a pretty thing tightrope McCain's walking, but his 'known' resistance to evangelicals and the radical right Christians is a plus for him with moderate Republicans and probably a lot of Indies.

So far, McCain's problems with the evangelicals has been phrased as only a negative. It's a big potential pit of quicksand, yes, but there's also an upside.


: oops 'pretty thin' not 'pretty thing' n/t (none / 0) (#47)
by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST

Conservatives (none / 0) (#57)
by Miri on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST

They are already "home". They are supporting McCain.

If McCain picks someone like Ridge he will win over a lot of Clinton Democrats.

Ridge was a popular two term governor, moderate record, national security credentials.


Will they? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Dadler on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:58:30 PM EST

No, not a chance in hades. Too much of the party is religious voters who believe to stay out of hades they must stop abortions. It's pure selfish interest. Not about babies, but about their own "souls".

McCain/Ridge is probably too risky (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by brodie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST

for the normally risk-averse GOP. And given certain small polling trends, slight though they are, and their semi-successful silly ad campaign against O as empty celebrity, they are probably feeling more confident about Nov and thus would be even less inclined to roll the dice with the VP pick.

McC simply isn't trusted enough by the base to be able to go pro-choice, and it would cause Repubs to begin to doubt his word on other matters, like his stated preferences for Roberts-Alito type Scotus nominees.

Pawlenty is probably more likely. Younger, less dour, and with a more energetic personality than the low-wattage Ridge -- someone who could add some needed zest and vigor to a ticket that already starts out too old and dour, like Dole/Kemp 96.

Except that 40-something Pawlenty seems like a much more plausible younger guy than the Dole/Repub idea of a younger guy, the perpetual 59 y.o. Jack French Kemp ...

Do no harm. They were repeating this on (none / 0) (#37)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:12:57 PM EST

Meet the Press today. I missed the Republican VP discussion but for Obama, the consensus seemed to be it would be Biden. Poor Jeralyn.

Would Pawlenty bring Minnesota?


Pawlenty is about as likely (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by brodie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:18:51 PM EST

to bring MN as Ridge is to get PN -- that is, in this Dem cycle with an election that's Obama's to lose, it's going to be tough in both states for Repubs. But at least it would be an aggressive move for the McC campaign, trying to go after tossup states Dems have won in recent elections and will need again this yr.

Also, Pawlenty with the more upbeat personality is a lot more of a potential vote-getter outside the home state than is Ridge, imho,


: I guess I need to check him out. I have been (none / 0) (#40)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:29:56 PM EST

avoiding most TV except for the Olympics. I was looking for sports when I saw the little bit of MTP. I guess that pick would go over well at the convention considering the location.

McCain is too old (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by lilburro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:12:27 PM EST

to have Ridge a heartbeat away. I also think Ridge's homeland security work will come in for some criticism - remember color coding? As a Pennsylvania, I thought at first Tom Ridge was decent, but he became a Bush moron pretty easily.

Those quotes indicate that Ridge is serious about being pro-choice too. Doesn't sound like he would jump at the opportunity to restrict abortion, which I think Republicans are almost always looking for.

McCain has a two-fold decision to make. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST

He needs to have a VP for 2008 who can draw independents and moderates - which make a pro-choice VP an attractive idea, but...he has to face the reality that his VP could very well be running for president in 2012, and in that light, I think the VP needs to be someone whose position is acceptable to "the base" for that job, as well.

I think he needs someone more moderate now, but I don't think that works looking ahead to 2012.

But, who knows; Republicans might be willing to risk it because of the better chance of winning now, and defer the matter of 2012 after victory in 2008 is achieved.

Are there any nationally viable (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:26:47 PM EST

pro-choice Republicans under 70? Seriously, name one.

Their tent is smaller than ours.

The Republican primaries ... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by TChris on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST

might have established that Rudy G. isn't "nationally viable," but he thought he was and he's mostly pro-choice.


Did he ever bomb? For years I saw talking (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:35:42 PM EST

heads predict him to be the nominee. I enjoyed watching him flame out.

Can we count Joe Lieberman? :)


Rudy's problem (5.00 / 4) (#13)
by cmugirl on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST

Wasn't that he was pro-choice. It was that he failed to make a run prior to Florida and had no momentum, PLUS his whole sordid public marital history, PLUS his stance on gay rights, PLUS he was pro-choice.

I also think since he was a true "New Yorker" - accent and all - made him less appealing to southern and small-town midwestern conservatives.


What does it tell you (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:38:30 PM EST

that he had absolutely no traction in either New Hampshire or Iowa?


Iowa and NH (none / 0) (#14)
by cmugirl on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:40:46 PM EST

Rudy didn't really campaign there - ergo, no traction.


He did campaign in New Hampshire (none / 0) (#16)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:41:45 PM EST

Spent plenty of money too.


Early on (none / 0) (#25)
by cmugirl on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:54:08 PM EST

He advertised and spent money there in the fall (October), but sat out Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, south Carolina, and Nevada. His strategy was to come in around Super Tuesday and make up for not competing in low-delegate states.

Link 2


: Why do you think he stopped campaigning (none / 0) (#27)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:56:01 PM EST

in New Hampshire?

Rudy didn't fizzle because (none / 0) (#18)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST

he was pro choice. He fizzled because he got caught spending taxpayer money on his girlfriend.


The Wish List... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by kredwyn on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:46:15 PM EST

here's the URL:

The WISH List -- which stands for Women In the Senate and House® -- raises money to identify, train, support and elect more Republican women leaders to public office at all levels of government. WISH is America's largest fundraising network for pro-choice Republican women candidates!

And thanks to a pro-choice R friend of mine, I get emails from a Republicans for Choice organization.


: Hmmmmmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST

Now that I'm an official Indy I'll have to see about getting on that list. Thanks.

Susan Collins? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Dr Molly on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:55:47 PM EST

Yeah, well why not. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by brodie on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:06:17 PM EST

If they're going pro-choice, why not go for the two-fer and try to snag moderate women and disaffected ex-Hillary voters.

Collins or Snowe, sure.


Snowe might (none / 0) (#35)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:11:15 PM EST

pull some folks in. She's pretty popular but I doubt they'll pick someone who can only bring home a few EV's with Maine. I think they will pick someone that'll force Obama to fight in a place he thought he'd comfortably win.


Actually I think that McCain (none / 0) (#43)
by hairspray on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:50:15 PM EST

will go for a woman if Obama choses a male. It is a stroke of genius. It has nothing to do with a few EV's and everything to do with lots of moderate Republicans, who have been drifting to Obama because they are sick of the Pro-life doctrinaire folks in charge. And these are mostly woman and I know a few. But will he lose the evangelicals over this? Depends on the polling and what happens by the time the GOP have their convention. It is such and advantage for them to have the last convention.


: I thought (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:48:31 PM EST

he might choose a woman but I doubt it will be someone in the Senate especially when they will already be losing Senate seats. Someone mentioned a Sarah Palin somewhere. She'd be a blank slate that would probably attract moderates or females.
I would say Snowe or Collins would be longshots particularly when they don't bring much electorally and there'd be a good shot the GOP would lose those seats if vacant since they are in blue states.

Isn't Ridge? (none / 0) (#4)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:28:09 PM EST

He's younger than I realized (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM EST

Seen him on TV recently? He looks old.

Other than him? I can't think of any.


Being from PA, do you think he would help (none / 0) (#7)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST

McCain win there?


: No, not really (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM EST

Tom Ridge was last elected in 1998.

Christine Whitman. (none / 0) (#22)
by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:50:13 PM EST

You think she's nationally viable? (none / 0) (#24)
by andgarden on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:53:47 PM EST

heh.


: She's been mentioned as a possible (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST

VP pick. I think she's less viable because of her stint at the EPA, not because of her pro-choice views.

Ridge as VP terrifies me (none / 0) (#11)
by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST

and, the thought of him being a possible President is even more horrifying.

I heard on "This Week wi/George S" one of the panel members saying the evangelicals have shifted their focus and choice is not at the very top of their priorities right now.

The only Republicans I know are small business owners, their right leanings are because of taxes.

What makes him worse than the other (none / 0) (#17)
by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST

Republicans? I guess I don't know that much about him.


: Homeland Security/Patriot Act (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:54:15 PM EST

He did a country tour with Homeland Security and the townhall at Seattle University was televised. He looked completely dumbfounded through most of it, but particularly when he was told by one of the college students that most people in his age group believe their odds of being killed by a terrorist are one in millions, and the thing that scared them the most was the Office of Homeland Security as it wittled away our freedoms. His ability to stand intelligently with college students was almost non-existent.
I do recall being really pleased to see the college kids "today" (at least that day) were as attached (and probably willing to speak/march/fight to preserve), to the freedoms and democratic principles as they were in my day back in the late 60's/early 70's. After watching the primary, I'm not feeling quite so comfortable with that.
Where is the outrage against the DNC?

RE : (none / 0) (#21)
by az on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST

Rob Portman for vp .

You heard it here first.

: No (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST

not even close to first!

Would Democrative voters (none / 0) (#39)
by nemo52 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM EST

accept an anti-choice VP candidate? It's looking like they might have to.

No, they wouldn't (none / 0) (#44)
by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM EST

Well, not true progressives that is. If there is a pro-lifer on the ticket, O is toast imo. Now the question is, what pro-life candidate could that be. Kaine for example says he's pro-life personally, but will follow pro-choice policies. I think there are few others that are like that. And of course Obama is weak on choice based on his statements during the primary and a few present votes of course. So while I doubt there will be a true pro-life vp choice for the dems, one that is weak on choice could add to the problem that's already there.


: Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by nemo52 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:30:49 PM EST

plus Obama sends a very poor message on choice, IMO.

I wouldn't (none / 0) (#51)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:51:27 PM EST

If they choose a pro lifer I will work against the Democratic ticket. If the Democrats need to be saved from themselves so be it. After the partial birth nonsense(which the Dems aided and abetted) I'm no longer willing to negotiate.


Sure would throw a wrench in the #1 (none / 0) (#53)
by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST

pro-Obama talking point on the topic.

I haven't seen any consistency of position on anything from Obama, so I sure wouldn't be able to second guess how his supporters would word their excuse for him on this, but I am pretty sure they would try.


: You mean (none / 0) (#55)
by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:02:42 PM EST

Roe v Wade, Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS, SCOTUS. Heh. They aren't getting too far with that argument as it is. It seems voting present makes it look pretty vague on where a person REALLY stands in regards to a woman's right to choose. Go figure.

Big dilemma for repubs (none / 0) (#45)
by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 01:57:46 PM EST

is the issue of choice. Given that something like 75% of americans are for choice (at least in extreme circumstances), the pro-life only stance of the repub party is extremely limiting. There are quite a number of pro-choice republicans actually. Snowe is a good example, Ridge another. And of course most independents and moderate/conservative dems that keep putting repubs in the white house tend to be pro-choice. So I guess they would argue their pro-life stance hasn't hurt them that much.

Another interesting issue is the growing latino population, which though liberal leaning in many issues, is heavily pro-life. So I think with the population shift happening, repubs may very well be able to hang onto that issue.

: Actually, the Republicans don't (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 03:02:22 PM EST

seem to have much trouble winning these elections. I think they can hold their own this time, too.
The democrats sure need to get a grasp on something, though. I've been flustered by this party in the recent past, but I'm just downright awestruck by their behavior this time. It's like a comedy bit where the unskilled ventriloquist doesn't think the audience can see him moving his lips.

: I disagree (none / 0) (#48)
by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST

Polls on preferences regarding pro/anti-choice are problematic.
Most pro-choice voters do not make it a litmus test issue; they're fine if other policy positions align with theirs and if an anti-abortion candidate isn't psychotically so.
There's a big difference between saying 'I'm pro-choice' and saying 'I will not vote for an anti-abortion candidate under any circumstances'. Most Americans are in the big middle on this. Other issues are much higher on their list of concerns.
Republicans won't lose much if they pick an anti-choice VP as long as it's not a psycho one; whereas Dems have more to lose, esp. with weak numbers in the older women demographic already.

McCain's deal with the base (none / 0) (#59)
by ruffian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 05:44:07 PM EST

I think it goes something like this;

They don't like him he doesn't like them. He doesn't care about the party, just his own advancement. They looked at the candidates on offer this year, found them all unacceptable, and picked the only one who could win - with the bonus that at least he supports their neocon foreign policy agenda. They have given him free rein to do that, with any VP he thinks will help. They know and McCain knows that if they come up with a real base-pleasing candidate in 2012, they will challenge McCain even if he is president.

The VP choice is thus immaterial to the base - they already do not like or trust McCain, so what difference does the VP make? They will run against him in 2012 regardless.

Single issue voters (none / 0) (#60)
by Wile ECoyote on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:24:05 AM EST

do not impress this person.

Pro-choice is out or another McCain flip (none / 0) (#61)
by cyberstocker on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:09:21 PM EST

hasnt Mccain already made his stand clear about the VP and his administration.

The McCain campaign's trial balloon from earlier this week has been completely deflated judging from Sen. McCain's performance at last night's Civil Forum on the Presidency, hosted by Pastor Rick Warren. In answer to a question about abortion and abortion policy, McCain closed the door on the possibility of selecting a pro-abortion rights running mate. Earlier, McCain had floated the name of former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge as a potential vice-presidential candidate, saying that the campaign did not believe that Ridge's pro-choice views should "rule him out" of consideration for the number two slot.

"I will be a pro-life president and my administration will have pro-life policies"