The most pro-life "pro-choice" politician ever?

There's lots of buzz among the elite of late regarding Tom Ridge and how his "pro-choice" stand could be a disaster with the Republican base if he is chosen as VP.  But how "bad" would Ridge really be?

Now, I'm not going to get into whether or not abortion is murder or women have a right to choose.  You all already have your opinions, and mine are irrelevant.  But I will get into where Ridge really stands, so that you can see how he fits in relative to your own position.

Ridge says he is pro-choice.  That's true.  But, he also says he favors a lot of regulation on abortions.  If Tom Ridge had his way:

Abortion would only be legal during the first trimester.

Abortion would only be legal in cases of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the mother.

All late-term or "partial birth" abortion would be illegal.

All abortions would come only after a waiting period and, when appropriate, parental notification.

That's a pretty substantial pro-life platform - more pro-life than is currently possible under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

If Tom Ridge had his way, the pro-life movement would see the change as an overall victory compared to the present national law.  Of course, it is all pretty moot, because a VP can do practically nothing to change the law of abortion.  Only a Supreme Court decision can do that.  A President can influence the issue by appointing new justices to the Supreme Court when openings occur - but even that is risky.  I mean, George H. W. Bush thought he was appointing a conservative when he tapped David Souter.  But no matter how you look at it, the Vice President has next to no role other than giving some advice to the President and maybe lending some support to a Senate confirmation hearing.

Speaking of Presidents... where would Barack Obama land on the abortion issue?  Well, he DID vote against a bill in the Illinois Senate that would have treated any child born alive during an abortion attempt as a living human.  So... in Obama's world, if you are nine months pregnant and go into labor while you are at the abortion clinic, and the child comes out alive and healthy, you should still be able to go ahead and kill it.  That's about as anti-life as you can get.  Obama:

Supports Roe v. Wade.

Supports late-term and "partial-birth" abortion.

Opposes parental consent.

Opposes restrictions on minors going out of state for abortions.

Supports tax-payer dollars for abortion.

Believes Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a good model for future Supreme Court vacancies.

Basically, Obama - who as a potential President would have the power to appoint justices with his outlook on the issue - not only supports every pro-choice law on the books, but would strip away virtually every currently legal restriction on abortion.

Now, again, this post is not meant to persuade you one way or the other on the issue.  You have already made up your mind.  But if your mind is set on believing that all abortion is wrong, you should be a lot more supportive of Tom Ridge than Barack Obama.  And considering Ridge would be part of a McCain/Ridge ticket, where McCain on top is already on the record as being pro-life, that goes doubly so.

By the way, what sort of Vice President do you think Obama would choose?  One who is pro-life?  Or one who caters to radical feminism and the pro-abortion cult?  Obama has a problem solidifying support with many Hillary Clinton backers.  That means he needs to either put Hillary Clinton on his ticket, or at least choose a running mate calculated to appease Hillary's radical feminist base.  That pretty much rules out any democrat willing to support common-sense restrictions on abortion, such as parental notifications or late-term bans.

So, if McCain chooses Tom Ridge as his running mate, your options would be:

McCain/Ridge: one solidly pro-life, and one as pro-life as you can get while still believing in abortion in very narrowly defined situations, or,

Obama/Clinton (or a suitable replacement): two extremely pro-abortion candidates who would be the most radically anti-life leaders the nation has ever seen.

Now, I'm not telling you which way you should choose here - but if you are adamant in your belief that all human life is sacred, that we must protect the innocent unborn, that abortion is murder, then you really shouldn't have any problem seeing that a hypothetical McCain/Ridge ticket is vastly superior to anything the democrats put forth this year.  Failing to support McCain on a "principled" pro-life stand over a VP choice like Tom Ridge is tantamount to electing Obama/Clinton and signing the death warrants for an entire generation of the unborn,

That's all I have to say about that.

Comments

[Reaganite - Glenn D'Abreo]

As a conservative I am well aware of the fact that the VEEP has no effect on the law. But I need to know that I am voting for a man who, with his running mate, has the same opinion on the sanctity of life as I do. To me abortion is not appropriate for any reason. I even have difficulty with abortions to save the life of a mother. I might have to reserve judgment depending on the case.
Further more, why doesn't the progressive left admit to everyone that pro-choice and federally funded abortions are a form of genocide. The largest number of abortions are performed on black women. So when you talk of a generation of unborn, we are talking of a generation wherein the majority are black.
We cannot, and I will not vote for a VEEP who is pro-choice. That includes Tom Ridge, as good as he might be for the ticket, otherwise.

Reaganite - Glenn D'Abreo
www.hangright.org

[Coyote]

Ridge would be a royal bummer of a veep pick.

I don't care so much about HIS position on abortion but about how he would chose judges.

Because we would have to assume that he would be the presumptive nominee after McCain is done.

McCain is on a roll right now while taking solid and reasonable conservative positions. Picking a lightning-rod like Ridge would be like hitting a speed bump at 40mph.

Might not stop you but it has the possibility of breaking something underneath that will not allow you to finish your trip.

Just pick someone that is solid and that the pro-life community won't make a stink over.

Keep the mo going.

yip yip

[Sakaki]

For me, it's a matter that I really don't like the way Tom Ridge looks. He looks like a thug. He did NOTHING as Homeland Security Director, and he was a failure as Governor of Pennsylvania.

He's not going to excite the conservative base, he's not going to look good at all.

And if McCain puts him forth as a nominee, I will not vote for him.

I am getting tired of people like Ridge getting the nod over better candidates like Pawlenty. Why? Because it is those type of people, the Ridges and the Romneys of the world, that will end up killing our country.

I will wait for Labor Day. Once that news comes forth, and we find out who the VP is...I will have my decision made.

[eliana]

Further infuriating the already-seething Republican right-wing base, John McCain is has been dropping the name of Tom Ridge as his vice presidential running mate. Tom Ridge? The abortion-rights supporting former ex-governor of reliably Democratic and blue collar Pennsylvania?
Let's get a rundown on the guy who might inadvertently tip the scales for Barack Obama: http://www.236.com/news/2008/08/14/i_want_to_be_number_two_tom_ri_8288.php

[Gullyborg]

Coyote, I don't think Ridge would be a presumptive nominee after McCain. I think he would be too old 8 years from now. Of course, people said that about McCain... but I seriously do believe Ridge (or Fred Thompson, or Colin Powell, or...) wouldn't be the nominee down the road if VP today. That would be too many old people in a row, and (not to sound Obamish, but...) folks would be ready for change.

As for the rest of y'all, it really irks me to hear that you would be so ready to help elect Obama/Clinton just to make a point over a VP like Ridge. Are you really conservative Republicans? Because conservative Republicans should be moving Heaven and Earth and crawling across broken glass to stop Obama.

You single-issue abortion voters: did you even pay attention to Ridge's real stand on abortion? His beliefs, if made the law of the land, would drastically limit what is currently legal. That would be an IMPROVEMENT.

But you 100% perfect all-or-nothing people are so short sighted you would happily stand back and do NOTHING to stop Obama/Clinton from making abortions more accessible and on taxpayer dollars. You would do NOTHING to stop a Supreme Court of 5 Ginsburgs that would write yet more abortion "rights" into our "living" Constitution.

That's the problem with perfection: it keeps getting in the way of reality. You know, we only had ONE perfect person in history, and we nailed Him to a cross for it.

Tom Ridge is not perfect. No politician is. And waiting for a "perfect" politician is a useless and futile gesture.

If, and I repeat it is a big IF at this point, Tom Ridge is the GOP VP choice, you can damn well bet that *I* will be supporting him, because we have too much at stake to gamble on a better candidate down the road. Abortion is only one issue. We also have to think about national security, foreign policy, taxation, energy, spending... these are all critical issues and Obama is DEAD WRONG on all of them.

Can we afford 8 years of Obama? And even if we could find a "perfect" candidate in 2016, would we be better off just waiting for him to magically appear while Obama shreds our Constitution, taxes us out of prosperity, and hands our military over to the UN?

Wouldn't it make more sense to at least stop the hemorrhaging NOW, keep our nation afloat with McCain, and THEN hand the reins over to our "perfect" candidate down the road?

But you damn narrow minded pursuit-of-perfection idiots are perfectly content to let Obama run us down the path of ruin today, on the mere GAMBLE, and yes it would be a GAMBLE, that someone better MIGHT come along.

What if you don' GET a better candidate later on? What if - and this is purely hypothetical - our next nominee after President Obama is Gordon Smith? Arlen Specter? Chuck Hagel?

Do you still stand back waiting for perfection when the democrats offer us up another Obama? Will 2024 be your magic year then?

You have exactly TWO choices for President this year. One of them is Obama, the most liberal candidate we have EVER had. The other is a decent, albeit imperfect choice... but until He is Risen once again, EVERYONE will be imperfect.

So get your head out of your ass and support the candidate who WON'T cause more abortions, who WON'T sell us out to Europe, who WON'T buckle under the threat of terror, who WON'T raise our taxes, and who WON'T spend our future.

Support McCain!

[Sakaki]

I hope you read my screed about why I will not vote for Ridge, because it's not a single issue issue for me. Ridge is a failure, and if it were up to me, I'd go up to him and beat the living tar out of him.

I'm not looking for perfection, I'm just looking for someone to respect the base. And McCain, with his talk about Ridge, is not repecting the base.

I'm reserving my judgment for when the nomination comes about. Once the nod is made, my decision will be made.

[Gullyborg]

I am not sure what the "failures" are you are bringing up. Homeland Security? Did I miss another al-Qaeda attack under Ridge that somehow shows his failure? Here, I thought we were supposed to be bragging about how, if you had asked us 7 years ago if by 2008 we would have had no more attacks... well, you get the idea. Running Pennsylvania? Wasn't he elected, and re-elected, in a blue state? Seems to me he is pretty popular there and would carry the state for the GOP.

I think you are letting the Cherrills of the world get into your brain...

[Independent Thinker]

I have very strong personal feelings about abortion and am very pro-life. But that would not stop me for one moment pulling the lever for a McCain/Ridge ticket. What is my alternative? Obama/Clinton? How is that "better" at saving the unborn?

And as strong as my feelings on abortion are, I would still vote for McCain/Anybody over Obama/Anybody, even if McCain's anybody was ETREMELY pro-choice and Obama's anybody was EXTREMELY pro-life.

First of all, you are correct in stating that PRESIDENTS pick SCOTUS justices, not vice presidents.

Second of all, abortion really won't be much of an issue should America be destroyed in a nuclear war with Russia or China, or should America be wiped out by a bioligical attack by terrorists, or should America lose so much of her national sovereignty that we all get called to 5 daily prayers at the local mosque.

Abortion may be a big deal, but this is a world of MANY big deals, and Obama is on the wrong side of ALL of them.

So color me one extremely pro-life voter for McCain, and that will hold true no matter who the veeps are.

[Andy the Redneck]

Gully, I might be a weird sort. I am Libertarian, and against abortion in ALL cases.

Of course, it is because of my conviction that no one has the right to take another life...you know the drill.

But I'd pull the lever for McCain if he had Hillary at the bottom of the ticket. These people that would be so offended at a Ridge VP nomination might want to look back at President Reagan, and his VP nominee.

Of course, McCain is no Reagan, but the stakes are just as high. It's a real "head-scratcher" to me that people who claim to love the US, to be conservatives, etc....would dare turn our nation over to Obama and a Democrat congress...a real "head-scratcher" for sure.

[Hillary's friend]

Hello Oregon,

I am NOT a Republican. I am NOT a conservative. And I am NOT planning on voting for McCain.

However...

I am also NOT happy with Barry Obama and am NOT drinking his Kool-Aid like many other "loyal" Democratic Party members.

As you can guess from my screen name, I supported Hillary Clinton in our primary. I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose and I won't vote for any religious-right candidate who would interfere with that right.

But I am very worried about Obama. He doesn't have the experience we need, especially when Russia is on the news rattling sabers. When Hillary made her "3 AM" commercial, that proved Obama isn't ready to lead.

I am also very worried about how negative the Obama campaign went to beat Hillary Clinton in the primary. As a woman, I am deeply bothered by what I perceive as a downright intolerance for my gender by Obama.

So let's just say this - I am willing to consider alternatives I would not have previously considered this November.

Although I am a Democrat, I actually do have some respect for John McCain. He is a war hero. He speaks his mind. He is willing to do what it takes to get results, even if that means reaching out to people he is "supposed" to view as political enemies.

But, despite my concerns over Obama, I still can't see myself voting for McCain - if, that is, he bows to Republican pressures and chooses a more conservative running mate with the "right" anti-choice credentials.

However, if he gave me a sign of good faith by choosing Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman for a running mate, that would signal to me that McCain's priorities will be where they should be: defending America instead of invading my uterus.

I hope McCain does see the light and choose Ridge (or better yet, Lieberman). He will earn my vote, and we can all sleep soundly knowing that when the call comes at 3 AM, someone ready to respond will answer it.

But if McCain chooses some right-wing nutjob who cares more about what goes on in my womb than what goes on in Afghanistan, then I guess I really have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Barry.

I know I am far from alone in this way of thinking. There were something like 17 MILLION people who voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary. I believe that was more people than voted total for all of you Republicans. We are a real force, and we can hand this election to either candidate.

I would wager a pretty penny that McCain is well aware of this, and could afford to lose the 4 million evangelicals who came out of the woodwork to vote for Dubya in exchange for 10 million women who would love to finally see the abortion issue removed from political discourse.

[Independent Thinker]

Andy,

We should look back at ALL the elections. When the GOP runs as conservatives across the board, we win. When we rely on family values, and put abortion ahead of defense, the economy, etc., we lose.

Back in 1996, we were energized. We had just taken Congress for the first time in ages. We had a sleazy President who couldn't pull over 48%. And what did we do? We ran Dole/Kemp, two guys who properly toed the line on abortion, gays, school prayer, etc., but did nothing to inspire us regarding a strong defense or a vibrant economy. And they couldn't even beat Bill Clinton.

So much for the vaunted power of the pro-life voting bloc.

Where were all the pro-choice Republicans in 2006? I didn't see many. But I did see us, nonetheless, get a shellacking. Why? Because too many Republicans FAILED to lead on issues like spending and taxation. Because GWB had FAILED to lead in his management of the war. Because too many Republicans in Congress thought they got a free pass just because they said the right things about abortion and gay marriage - and they got their asses kicked.

So when I see the "outrage" when McCain floats a name like Ridge coming from all these single-issue abortion voters, I cringe.

Did they do anything for us when they had a chance before?

Not really.

The time has come to kiss off the religious right. I am not kidding around. I am sick of you people. You would gladly turn out for an idiot like Mike Huckabee, who would never get elected in the general. Then you slam the door on McCain, a patriotic bona-fide war hero with the guts to cut spending, because he MIGHT choose an equally patriotic Tom Ridge.

Screw you people. I'd rather win without your support. I'd rather go for the middle ground, siphon off support from democrats, and win independents over to conservative thinking, than throw all that away for religious purity.

And I belive abortion is wrong and life begins at conception. And I believe in God.

But that is ONE issue out of many, and besides I don't think for a moment that I will save the lives of any unborn babies by helping Obama win. But I really DO think that if we can bring some pro-choice moderates "into the tent" of the Republican Party, we can win elections, shift the nation a little bit more to the right, win over hearts and minds, and maybe, just maybe, over time, get some of those pro-choice people to change their minds.

Letting them win with Obama does none of that. Instead, it reinforces their belief that all abortions are ok and all conservative beliefs are flawed.

Seriously, we are better off without you if all you are going to do is try to spoil things in your reckless pursuit of religious evangelical perfection on abortion.

I believe Hillary girl is correct - for every one of you right-wing abortion zealots that McCain pisses off, he can draw in two or more moderates at the same time. We will win with or without you. I'd rather win with you, but I am prepared to win without you.

If you vote with us, we can win in a landslide. A conservative majority can take back the US House of Representatives, and a Republican majority (with a few liberals in it) can at least take back nominal control of the Senate. We can win in state elections. And if you are willing to work WITH us instead of against us, there can be a place for you at the table when we shape policy.

But if you sit this one out over McCain, he might still win the White House, but we lose any chance of taking back Congress or winning back state governments. And when McCain is making policy decisions, do think he will give a crap about the religious right or the far right, when they did nothing to help him when he needed it?

Yeah, the hell with you people. In the end, you will get the government you deserve.

[Gullyborg]

IT, I am almost right there with you. I see the religious right this year threatening sort of a converse-inverse of what Dave Frohnmayer did with them when he ran for governor.

For you non-Oregonians, here is the lesson:

Back then, Frohnmayer was a very popular moderate. He could have easily won, if only he had done ANYTHING at all to keep the religious right on his side. All he had to do, in all seriousness, was come out and say "while we have different opinions on these issues, I respect and value the opinions of religious voters and will do my best to be a governor for ALL Oregonians, not just some."

Sure, it would have been lip service. But it would have been enough for the religious right to play along.

Instead, Frohnmayer went OUT OF HIS WAY to insult the religious right. He called them intolerant bigots and basically told them to screw off.

All the religious right wanted was a little inclusion. They would have been happy with a "big tent" party that gave them welcome. Instead, they found the party doors slammed in their faces.

So the religious right ran a third party candidate, who got 13% of the vote, and Oregon elected Barbara Roberts.

Compare that to what is happening now. This time, it isn't McCain who is the one hurling the insults. McCain actually IS doing his best to create a broad coalition that includes both moderates and the far right. He may not be doing a very good job at it, but at least you can say he is trying. McCain himself is pro-life, and has been willing to show how he has "evolved" by meeting with evangelical leaders. At the same time, he is floating names like Ridge and Liberman. This isn't calculated to piss off the right. It is calculated to draw from the left.

Meanwhile, the abortion litmus test crowd is out there thumbing their noses at McCain, threatening to bail, saying they don't care if Obama is elected. It is a bizzaro world flip of what happened with Frohnmayer in that McCain, I believe, sincerely would like a broad tent but it is the far right shutting him out.

This just makes no sense to me - just as it made no sense for Frohnmayer to reject evangelicals.

If McCain chooses Ridge or Liberman, he will be trying to make our Party larger and stronger - but the evangelicals are threatening to destroy it. That can only mean more power to the enemy. It is so counterproductive, I can't believe I have to continue to spell this out.

But it is perfectly clear to me: the Christian right is, today, being just as stubborn and narrow minded towards McCain as Frohnmayer was to them.

[Patrick Joubert Conlon]

Ridge would not be my personal favorite but I could live with him as VP IF he strengthened the ticket not weakened it.

I was amazed at how many Southern evangelical bloggers friends picked Giuliani as their favorite. That's because he was seen as strong on terror. When I decided that Rudy would be a bad and started a dump Rudy campaign, I lost quite a few blogger friends.

Mac is only flying a trial balloon for Ridge now but, if he gets negative feedback, I hope he pops it soon.

[Sakaki]

Gully,

You kidding me? Cherrill Clifford? I've been railing against her for ages. Just because I'm against Tom Ridge you'd put me in the same category as her?

As I said before, If McCain went with someone like Pawlenty, or just about anyone except for Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge, I would vote for him. If he puts in LIEBERMAN, I will vote for McCain. Why? Because I like Lieberman. He's a good egg. He's strong on foreign policy. He's also Jewish, and will take away Jewish votes from Obama.

Tom Ridge is nothing but useless. I actually want to see us have a chance to win, not be relegated to Obama/Bayh or Obama/Biden for the next 4 years.

[Gullyborg]

Sakaki, I dropped that name just to get a rise and to make a point: if you get too emotionally wrapped up in the idea that someone like Ridge on the ticket must cause you to completely bail on the GOP and, by default, help elect Obama, then you run the risk of turning into the same time of person whose approaches you don't like.

(By the way, Cherrill, if you are reading this, you know I do still adore you even if we disagree on how to advance a few issues!)

[The Oregon Conservative]

Thanks Gully. I'd hate for you to be ashamed of me.

I began to settle for McCain when the so-called "Reverend" did his routine as I described in a recent commentary (http://www.conservativerecord.com/CliffordComment92508PalinLoweredBar.htm). Neither of the Obamas were offended. I believe they despise the Clintons more than any conservatives ever have.

Wright and the Obamas lowered the bar suddenly and drastically as to how female candidates are to be treated. If a liberal candidate would tolerate such incredible disrespect toward one of their own first ladies, one of their own presidents and towards one of their own female candidates, how much worse could they get toward a female of the opposing party?

And then McCain chose Sarah Palin. That did it. Palin 2012!!!

I still won't support Gordon Smith. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.