Republicans doubting McCain because of "abortion comments"

[spunkloaf]

I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for this guy.  Although I am not voting for him, I think it's sad that his own party turns against him--and, as commented, won't even work with him--all because of a potential pro-abortion running mate.  Shows just how cannibalistic the right side is.

Then again, the dumbed-down anti-abortion Christian minds of America drive this ignorance, and representatives must do what they are paid to: represent.
I'm so glad religion is a dying hysteria.  Maybe when it is done playing its long overrun course, we'll get it right this time around.



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.
ADVERTISEMENT
 

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.”

[Peter1469]

There are a lot of people who vote purely on the abortion issue- on both sides. 

[spunkloaf]

There are a lot of people who vote purely on the abortion issue- on both sides. 

That is just wrong of people.  I still can't understand why abortion is such a big deal.  It's nobody's business but a woman's!

It's like people think women have abortions for fun!  Do people stop to think that it is a very hard choice for women/couples to make?  Or how offensive it is to tell a woman what she has to do with her own body?  What's the alternative, hold a gun to her head and force her to pop it out?

I'll bet if men had babies, it would be a completely different world.    Just a thought.  Not a pretty one, but a thought nonetheless.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

There are a lot of people who vote purely on the abortion issue- on both sides. 

That is just wrong of people.  I still can't understand why abortion is such a big deal.  It's nobody's business but a woman's!

It's like people think women have abortions for fun!  Do people stop to think that it is a very hard choice for women/couples to make?  Or how offensive it is to tell a woman what she has to do with her own body?  What's the alternative, hold a gun to her head and force her to pop it out?

I'll bet if men had babies, it would be a completely different world.    Just a thought.  Not a pretty one, but a thought nonetheless.

It is sometimes a sickeningly easy choice for a woman to make.

At any rate, if it is her choice why does it suddenly take two to tango if she decides to keep the child....er fetus. 

The state already tells you what you can and cannot do with your body. Why is abortion any different than drugs, prostitution or suicide?

[spunkloaf]

There are a lot of people who vote purely on the abortion issue- on both sides. 

That is just wrong of people.  I still can't understand why abortion is such a big deal.  It's nobody's business but a woman's!

It's like people think women have abortions for fun!  Do people stop to think that it is a very hard choice for women/couples to make?  Or how offensive it is to tell a woman what she has to do with her own body?  What's the alternative, hold a gun to her head and force her to pop it out?

I'll bet if men had babies, it would be a completely different world.    Just a thought.  Not a pretty one, but a thought nonetheless.

It is sometimes a sickeningly easy choice for a woman to make.

At any rate, if it is her choice why does it suddenly take two to tango if she decides to keep the child....er fetus. 

The state already tells you what you can and cannot do with your body. Why is abortion any different than drugs, prostitution or suicide?

1.  Yes, SOMETIMES it is a sickeningly easy choice for women to make.  Just like SOME people mooch like hell off of welfare, and how SOME people get away with insurance fraud, and SOME people have affairs outside their marriages...the world is not perfect.  But why let a few bad apples destroy everybody's rights?

2.  I am torn on this.  I think abortion should be approved by both couples IF THEY ARE MARRIED.  Some women would still have a hard time with that--but, like anything else, it should be discussed before marriage anyways so it should not be a problem for most.  I think the father should also have a choice, but ultimately, it is the woman who has to put up with it.

3. I am sick of the states telling people what they can't do with their own bodies.  This is part of where I see hints of fascism, D-wang.  We've talked about this and I know you think I'm full of shit, but when a government body has so much control over you that you can't have your way WHEN IT IS NOT INFRINGING UPON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, it is moral control and fascism.  Drugs, I can barely handle.  Abortion is the last straw.

I mean, shit.  It's illegal to kill yourself in most (if not all) states.  IT'S ILLEGAL TO KILL YOURSELF.  Does that make any sense?  I can see some sense in it, and a reason for it, but it is completely asinine.  I wonder how many people have been charged with their own murder?     Or attemptive murder, if they fail--or are intercepted.  Don't get me wrong, suicide is horrible and anybody who wants to do it is a self-loathing, selfish asshole.  But it puts so much emphasis on the idea that life is not a choice.  So does anti-abortion.  I think many more people would appreciate life if they knew life was a gift which can be accepted or rejected; rather than a prison sentence which MUST be lived out.

[Peter1469]

Spunk, think about it.  For simplicity there are two options: either a fetus is human life, or it is pre-human or even nonhuman life.  If you believe that it is human life then you ought to at least feel the need to advocate for the preservation of that life.  You cannot be surprised if people who feel this way hold an extreme view on the issue and are essentially one issue voters.

On the other hand, I agree with you when it comes to those who are “free choice.”  They do not believe that a fetus is anything but an unviable tissue mass.  Why do they become one-issue voters?

If they are right there should be no problem with abortions (of course you still have the sticky issue of when a fetus becomes human).  But why the radicalism on their part?  “I demand the right to rid my body of a non-entity?”  Whoop-di-do.  Or is it more “I demand the right to rid my body of an inconvenience to me!”  I think that it is the latter.

Let’s assume that a fetus is not human; on what basis do you demand an absolute right to terminate that fetus’s existence?  If that fetus is nothing but an undefined mass then the only moral right you can point to is the carrying woman’s wishes. 

To base rights on any individual’s wishes is a dangerous proposition.  For if we determine that the individual is always to be respected we must apologize to Jeffery Dalmer for putting him in prison and getting his head based in by an inmate who clearly was not hung up on these moral questions that vex you so. 

[spunkloaf]

Spunk, think about it.  For simplicity there are two options: either a fetus is human life, or it is pre-human or even nonhuman life.  If you believe that it is human life then you ought to at least feel the need to advocate for the preservation of that life.  You cannot be surprised if people who feel this way hold an extreme view on the issue and are essentially one issue voters.

On the other hand, I agree with you when it comes to those who are “free choice.”  They do not believe that a fetus is anything but an unviable tissue mass.  Why do they become one-issue voters?

If they are right there should be no problem with abortions (of course you still have the sticky issue of when a fetus becomes human).  But why the radicalism on their part?  “I demand the right to rid my body of a non-entity?”  Whoop-di-do.  Or is it more “I demand the right to rid my body of an inconvenience to me!”  I think that it is the latter.

Let’s assume that a fetus is not human; on what basis do you demand an absolute right to terminate that fetus’s existence?  If that fetus is nothing but an undefined mass then the only moral right you can point to is the carrying woman’s wishes. 

To base rights on any individual’s wishes is a dangerous proposition.  For if we determine that the individual is always to be respected we must apologize to Jeffery Dalmer for putting him in prison and getting his head based in by an inmate who clearly was not hung up on these moral questions that vex you so. 

It is not a moral question, it is an anti-moral question.

"Let’s assume that a fetus is not human; on what basis do you demand an absolute right to terminate that fetus’s existence?  If that fetus is nothing but an undefined mass then the only moral right you can point to is the carrying woman’s wishes.  "

You are turning tables on rights, here.  The real question is, on what basis do you demand a right to tell a woman what she can't do with her own body?  If a fetus is just a tumor, then by all means, she is in her right to deal with it how she pleases.  It really is none of your business whether she is doing it because of convenience or because of other issues.  It's HER health.  Do people complain to you how you live your life?  How you spend your money?  What positions you use during intercourse, and whether you are having sex for pleasure or to pro-create?  What kinds of food you eat?  What movies you watch, and whether they are beneficial to you as a functioning pawn in society?

NO, because you are not just a pawn, or a part of the machine.  You are a fucking human being and you do what you damn well please, within reason.


It all comes down to that pesky question you mentioned here, "Where does LIFE begin?"  It is pretty darn obvious to most that human life begins with the first breath.  The first cry; the first declaration of independence from the womb.  Before that, a fetus is a tumor.  A complex growth.  Nothing else.

If people cry for aborted fetuses, why do they not attack chronic masturbators?  Why are women not charged with murder when they miscarry, or have their period?

My mom chose to have me.  I am thankful for that, and that she was not FORCED to have me.  I love her ten times more for that.  If I had caused her problems, I hope she would have aborted me.  I would NOT have noticed, or cared.  It's that simple.  Please, don't ever show this to my mom.  It would break her heart.

[spunkloaf]

I think it's beautiful that people value life so much, enough that they want to try and protect it in such drastic ways.  And I don't want to imply that anti-abortion is WRONG--nobody can judge that, and that is the point I am trying to make.  It is a moral decision to outlaw abortion.  Moral decisions are wrong, because people are not required to hold the same values and morals.  That's what freedom is beautiful for.  I get judged for letting my emotions interfere with my ideas of politics.  Fine.  But nobody is innocent of that; it is impossible.  Anti-abortion is a great example, as it is FULL of emotional testimonies.  There are barely any facts, and most facts actually favor pro-choice.  The rest is fundamentalism.

[gorknoids]

We've always had doubts about McCain.  On the other hand, we are absolutely certain about Obama.  I wouldn't vote for Obama if McCain dangled one of Michael Jackson's kids from a balcony.

[spunkloaf]

We've always had doubts about McCain.  On the other hand, we are absolutely certain about Obama.  I wouldn't vote for Obama if McCain dangled one of Michael Jackson's kids from a balcony.

I'm not sure if this makes sense.  Of course you should not vote for one just because the other fucks up.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

this is not a women's rights issue it is a human rights issue.  a fetus is human life.  exterminating this life because it is inconvenient is wrong. 

[Gunit Hussein Sangh]

so is forcing a couple to have an unwanted child who would be abused and ignored.

McSame is not only having problems with selecting Ridge ... He's got even bigger problems if he selects the Mittster:

The GOP theocrats, let by Mike Huckabee, are putting their feet down over the possibility of Mitt as McCain's V.P. It may violate the Golden Rule, but it sounds like they hate Mitt, they really hate him:
"I think a lot of people, not just social conservatives, but a lot of the Republicans I know are not necessarily comfortable with Romney," Huckabee told CBSNews.com. "But it has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with inconsistencies in positions he's held, and that's it."

In response to buzz about the former Massachusetts governor becoming McCain's running mate, an alliance of Ohio social conservatives, many of whom are former Huckabee supporters, have formed a group called "Social Conservatives Against Romney." Romney had moderate positions on many hot-button social issues, including abortion, before his run for president.

Yeah, I'm sure his being a Mormon has nothing to do with it.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

put the child up for adoption.

[Pukka Sahib]

.  .  .

[Wowster]

I'm actually starting to feel a bit sorry for this guy.  Although I am not voting for him, I think it's sad that his own party turns against him--and, as commented, won't even work with him--all because of a potential pro-abortion running mate.  Shows just how cannibalistic the right side is.

Then again, the dumbed-down anti-abortion Christian minds of America drive this ignorance, and representatives must do what they are paid to: represent.
I'm so glad religion is a dying hysteria.  Maybe when it is done playing its long overrun course, we'll get it right this time around.



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.
ADVERTISEMENT
 

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.”

Let's see, I'm a Republican and abortion is legal. Hmmmmm
I do NOT doubt McCain.
Why would someone be telling me what I think?

I know Obama thinks his children are a punishment, to everyone's horror!