TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
28.08.2008
Choices

Thanks to the current Lieberman-for-veep boomlet (and the very interesting news that Karl Rove has been trying to smother it in its crib), there's been a fair amount of discussion about exactly how much John McCain would hurt his standing among pro-lifers if he picked a pro-choice running mate such as Lieberman or Tom Ridge. The more interesting question to me, though, is whether such a pick might actually hurt McCain among pro-choicers as well.

For the moment, McCain has to some degree the best of both worlds: a strong pro-life record to peddle to conservatives, and the widespread sense among liberals and moderates--vividly demonstrated by clueless Clintonite-turned- McCainiac Debra Bartoshevich--that he's kinda sorta pro-choice, or at least ambivalent on the subject. (George W. Bush rode a similar strategy of courting conservatives through targeted appeals and surrogates, while maintaining a broader image of moderation, straight to the White House in 2000). What McCain presumably wants, then, is for the subject of abortion to come up as little as possible: The more he's forced to talk about it, the more he'll inevitably upset this delicate balance.

If he picks a pro-choice running mate, however, he'll have to talk about abortion a lot. There will be protests by pro-lifers and demands that he declare, loudly and repeatedly, his commitment to the pro-life cause in general and to placing anti-Roe justices on the Supreme Court in particular. He will have to make abundantly, emphatically clear that he, and not his pro-choice veep, will be making any and all executive decisions regarding abortion. He will be forced, in short, to dynamite  his calculated ambivalence. We won't know how this might play out unless and until McCain actually picks a pro-choicer-- and the smart money still says he won't--but my guess is that it could cost him at both ends of the spectrum.

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:49 AM with 10 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

ratnerstar said:

Definitely risky.

But I don't think John McCain's target audience is people who are extremely concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade.  He wants to reach out to centrists and independents who think (wrongly, but whatever) that Obama is too inexperienced/slick/liberal/black/etc. to run the country.  Lieberman reinforces that message; I'm John McCain, I'm clear-eyed and not ideological, I take the best ideas from any party, I work with Democrats, I'm experienced.  Those guys probably support abortion rights (in limited circumstances), but they don't give it top priority.

McCain can't win with just hard core Republicans, because there aren't enough of them and they aren't all that enthusiastic anyway.  The real anti-abortion zealots know that the Vice President and even McCain's personal feelings are irrelevant; what matter is who is appointed to the Supreme Court.  They can taste victory and they'll be damned if an Obama appointee gets in the way.  Maybe a few of them will defect to Bob Barr, but the vast majority will hold their noses and pull the level for McCain.

The pro-choice zealots know this too, but they were never under any illusion that McCain would do them good.

Lieberman is risky, but McCain NEEDS to take risks.  Everyone keeps talking about Obama's underperformance, but he's still favored to win.  

August 28, 2008 11:46 AM

mpatrickhendri said:

Take Lieberman and it's over. You think the evangelical crowd was ambivalent about McCain, just wait to see what picking a pro-choice, yankee that goes to Temple does for the base.

August 28, 2008 12:01 PM

ndmackenzie said:

McCain picking Lieberman would simplify the task of painting McCain as four more years of foreign policy misadventurism. They have nothing in common politically other than their utterly failed judgment in any and all matters relating to foreign policy.

August 28, 2008 12:23 PM

The Ignorant Populist said:

There's no way in hell that Lieberman gets the nod. Sec of Def maybe, but McCain's base would disintegrate overnight if Joe got it. This is a smoke screen.

Please god let it be the Mormon.

August 28, 2008 12:47 PM

ndmackenzie said:

Ross Douthat, of The Atlantic, picks over his picks and unenthusiastially brings up Meg Whitman as a dark horse candidate. Picking her would be one way to make the McCain's look poor.

rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/.../my_pick_for_veep.php

August 28, 2008 12:58 PM

ratnerstar said:

I'll be extremely surprised if McCain is dumb enough to pick Romney.  What would he bring to the campaign?  A pretty face, marginal competence, and a 4-inch-thick layer of greasy insincerity.

August 28, 2008 1:09 PM

ndmackenzie said:

ratnerstar writes that Romney brings "marginal competence." I was under the impression that people were actually pretty impressed with Romney's performance as Governor of Massachusetts. It is one of the tragedies of the American electoral process that it is impossible to run as a non-ideological technocrat.

August 28, 2008 1:16 PM

ratnerstar said:

Yeah, maybe I was a little harsh, nd.  I haven't looked into the matter extensively, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that Romney is actually a great manager (tho' I'm not sure what he would be managing as VP).   Still, whether because of the American electoral system or Romney's own inauthenticity, he would still be a weight around McCain's neck.

August 28, 2008 1:45 PM

Barnacle said:

Mitt was so popular as governor he decided not to run for reelection. He knew he wouldn't be able to be reelected by running as a moderate without sinking his chances at running as a fanatical right wing conservative in the 2008 primaries.

His approval rating in Mass. was alright until he decided to go around the country bashing Massachusetts from 2005 to 2007 in the run-up to his seeking the presidency. Then it dropped precipitously, to the point where he couldn't have won reelection. The signature accomplishment of his term: Statewide guaranteed health care, he took credit for in 2006, distanced himself from it 2007 (when it appeared it would cost more and might not work), and took credit again in 2008 when it was shown to have been a success. Nothing like playing to type for the guy who has claimed to have been to the left, right and far right of Ted Kennedy on gay rights.

One of the tragedies of American politics is people like Mitt Romney who had no interest in governing Mass. and only an interest in using the state as both a springboard and a punching bag.

August 28, 2008 2:19 PM

ironyroad said:

Exactly -- one of the fun parts of a VP debate between Romney and Biden would be Biden trying to corner Romney and get him to admit that he has in fact been governor of Mass.

August 28, 2008 6:35 PM