The Ridge/Lieberman Fake-Out
Calm yourselves, mes amis! Yes, yes, I understand how exciting all this veep stuff is, and how thrilling it would be to see the religious right-wing beside itself with the selection of a pro-choice vice presidential candidate by John McCain, the Republican heir apparent. I so hate to bust up this party, but do listen up: It ain't gonna happen. No way, no how.
And you diligent righties out there, doing your oppo, reading the HuffPo: Guess what? This is not about you. Hard to believe, I know; but it's really not. It's about that handful of Hillary Clinton supporters who are having a hard time bringing themselves to vote for the black guy. Really.
It was only eight years ago that this game was tried by a guy named George W. Bush, who had vanquished, in a dirty-tricks primary, a guy named John McCain, who was said to be on Bush's short list as a possible vice presidential pick. But the name that had everybody really excited was that of Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor.
In 2000, the Republican National Convention took place at the end of July in Philadelphia, which served to amplify the speculation over Ridge, who was well-known by local media. Meanwhile, a well-heeled group of Republican pro-choice women were promising trouble, threatening a floor fight at the convention. (They came within three delegate votes of pulling it off -- a terribly under-reported story.)
Bush held his veep card close to his vest while the platform hearings took place in Philly, just ahead of the convention. Keeping Ridge's name in contention, he created a sense of hopefulness among the women of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, only to pop their balloon two days before the convention with the announcement of the Cheney pick. Consequently, he had a rather peaceful run-up to the convention. And polling showed that Bush's numbers bumped up among Pennsylvanians when Ridge's name was joined to his.
A day or so after Bush announced his selection of Dick Cheney as his running mate, Tom Ridge revealed that he had privately withdrawn his name from consideration nearly a month before, but agreed to stay quiet while Bush floated it to placate those troublesome ladies.
Here are John Dickerson and James Carney reporting in the August 1, 2000, edition of Time:
Bush was so secretive about the process that he kept even his closest aides in the dark. He would poll them at senior staff meetings--"Give me your top three picks!" he would demand--but he would never play the game. He flirted publicly with "bold" contenders like Tom Ridge, Pennsylvania's pro-choice Governor, but never let on that Ridge had quietly taken himself out of the running in early July, citing family considerations.John McCain was evidently paying attention. Ridge has shown himself to be an excellent toady to his party's big guns, and he's doubtless playing the same role for McCain that he did for Bush: selling his pro-choice principles to aid the misogynist, anti-choice cause. And the flotation of Sen. Joe Lieberman's name serves much the same cause, with the addition of sending a signal to the portion of the Jewish electorate who ordinarily vote Democratic, but are reluctant to vote for Obama.
Serving a different purpose, McCain is borrowing a technique from the man he has come to hug. Unlike Bush in 2000, McCain's aim is not to appease a segment of his own party, but rather to lure in independents and those Democrats who are having a hard time coming to terms with their prejudices. By floating the names of Ridge and Lieberman as potential running-mates, McCain signals to them, "See, I'm really not so bad. I understand you. I even like people who talk like you, who look like you."
With Lieberman and Ridge appearing to be in the mix, McCain baits the right to respond with its typical mix of threats and victim-consciousness, which will allow him to say in the end, "I'm so sorry, my friends, my base wouldn't let me run with your guy; but you know I'll do you right once I'm elected."
So, let's everybody relax a bit. And will somebody ask Tom Ridge if he's taken his name out of the running yet?
Follow Adele Stan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary has a racist following, which shows something about her character. The real question is: Why does Hillary attract these kind of people?
So does O, what is your point?
I never heard anybody say they wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's white. But I heard PLENTY of people say they'd never vote for Obama because he's Black. There is the point!
My money's on Schwartznegger, the other celebrity.
Yes, please! It would disqualify the entire ticket. Darn that pesky little Constitution.
No it wouldn't. In fact when the Constitution was first written the election the one with the most votes became President and the one with the next most became Vice President. The two party system has changed that. So while the DNC rules may forbid it, the Constitution doesn't. http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/charter.pdf I couldn't find any specifics in the charter regarding qualifications for Pres/VP candidates.
Schwartznegger is out, he isn't qualified to be President as he is a naturalized citizen not a natural born one.
These pro-life people give me a pain in the butt. Yes, they're all about saving the unborn. Well, generally speaking that's probably an OK idea. At the same time they will rally around anyone who starts rattling sabres. The people who love life also seem to love death. How can that be?
No one loves death. That is a starbucks latte line applied to those that think differently.
I am one of those Hillary Clinton supporters who has a hard time to decide whether I can vote for Obama. BUT not because he is black as the writer of this story insinuates. It is because he is not qualified and because of the arrogance of his clique and supporters. I resent the writer's assumption that everyone who has a problem with Obama is a racist. As long as the Obama camp keep up this attitude they will have a hard time to win us over. Maybe they do not care, and willing to lose the election rather than give us the respect that we deserve. I can not imagine myself voting for McCain, but unless there is a huge change in attitude in the Obama campaign I will stay home, and I will certainly not donate a penny to his campaign.
You must be seeing H*illary as a neocon goper, as I do, because no true D*emocrat could not go to the polls and vote for the party, considering the peril this nation is in at this point in time and the threat that another 4 years of neocon G*W*B* would contain. I don't mean to be offensive, but it's not possible to respect people who wish this nation harm. Try to understand that it's about far more than you.
Right, it is about electing the best candidate regardless of party.
I agree with you, that supporting Hillary does not equal racism. I am tired of the antiHillary bullies. They hate Hillary, and just like Bush before them, try to make the context match their opinions. They hate Hillary for reasons that won't fly. So they annex some egregious reason, such as racism, that they think they can sell by sheer repetition.
HIllary is not racist, and her supporters are not racist. This small faction of Hillary bullies keep repeating the same old narrative, as if Rove did the writing. It is really bad for the party.
That aside, I am voting for Obama because my party has selected him. I am a Democrat, and that is what it means. Voting for a candidate isn't about hating and it isn't about being in love. Choosing a president is about what is best for the country. Everybody better grow up.
That some Democrats divolve into these counterproductive projections, is dismaying and stupid, and will cost us in the end.
At the first of the year these posts were alive for HRC. She could do no wrong. Now look. The ultimate in insults are reserved for her and her supporters.
I have two words for all you "undecided" Hillary supporters...Supreme Court. Your support for your party isn't a gift to the people who have already decided to vote for Obama...it's a gift to your Grandchildren.
I wouldn't worry too much about Obama's so-called "lack of experience."
The history of the republic is sufficiently long to observe that "experience" and presidency outcomes are not necessarily related. If anything, the opposite could be posited: The smarter and more experienced of our presidents have done the most damage to the nation.
Anyway, the most experienced of politicians (incl. Hillary Clinton) put their finger-to-the-wind when it came to voting to give the warmonger-in-Chief the green light to get revenge for his daddy and profits for his oil buddies. Not very wise for an experienced person.
And Hillary kept right on twisting in the wind with her asinine McCain-Clinton gas tax holiday voodoo. Obama - the inexperienced - was the only one principled enough to treat us like adults - to call it what it was: a vote-snagging, do-nothing gimmick.
So, please. Spare the "experience argument."
For all the pro-choice women who decide to stay home or vote McCain out of whatever disgust they may have (real or imagined), prepare to explain to your daughters how you helped to make it possible for the Supreme Court to strike down Roe v. Wade.
Good point Explain how reproductive rights means you also have a choice not to get pregnant.
If I was a McCainite I would want to see my candidate choose a veep who was pro-choice or at least a neutral on the issue.
Why? Who are the pro-lifers going to vote for? Obama? No. They'll still vote for McCain plus McCain get many fence-sitters.
Yes, but how many of those pro-lifers won't vote for anybody (or even Barr) if McCain picks a pro-choice VP. A whole bunch, so there goes half of McCain's voters. Ms. Stan is correct, Ridge and Lieberman are just distractions.
It's kinda like the Superbowl,,,,,,,,,,,,,, if your team isn't in it you support the guy that you hate the least.
( in honesty, how many figure it was JUST a way to get MEDIA attention as McC is "desparate" to garner the CIC title..he would NOT likely toss it away by selecting Ridge or especially Lieberman as his running mate/VP..Just FREE PUBLICITY --lol, makes those public funds stretch further , needs every dime to attempt to compete in ALL 50 states as O plans to do !!! Besides, for Joe or TOme, there would be CABINET positions they could be appointed to to keep them close and advising...Joe especially is needed to whisper corrections in his ear !!!
Serious DOUBT that McC seriously so considering the two, he has spent his interim time since 2000 , assessing first just WHAT it would take and then doing the suck up to Bush and the righties , not likely he is going to blow that investment efforting and do damage with a pro lifer as VP which is sure vote killer in the base GOP ranks !! (like eek, just review his Forum script of last weekend which was well scripted pandering to that evangelica audience there at the Forum and in the broadcast audience rea;lms. He got points for his surface/superficial scriptings...sound bytes meant to sell himself/his candidacy to that important base audience !!!)
Please oh please pick: RICK SANTORUM !!!
I am as pro-choice as the next person but, having had several pro-life presidents over the last 28 years it is obvious that no harm has come of it.
The law is the law and it has been decided that abortion is legal and that's it. There's nothing the president can do about it. Even the appointment of supreme court justices cannot overturn well settled law.
And even if the law could be changed on the national level, which is doubtful, the states will be able to legislate this issue as they please. The likely result would be that abortion would be legal in most states and illegal in others.
When you vote you cannot be a one-issue voter even if that one issue is abortion. There's more to a presidency than the abortion (non-)issue.
Mike, sweetie, it's obvious from your first statement that haven't had to deal with this issue directly. Many states, emboldened by the ever right-shifting Supreme Court, have anti-choice legislative measures. There have been repeated attempts to erode women's right to choose within the Supreme Court. Each little erosion moves the country towards actually overturning that law. There have been statements by recent appointees to the Supreme Court and by right-wing Congressmen and Senators that they would like to overturn Roe v.Wade.
Many laws and "Administrative rules" are making it harder for organizations to receive public funding for birth control, AIDS prevention, etc, if they even MENTION the word abortion. Bush's first act as President was to eliminate funding for international AIDS groups if they did not "gag" themselves on abortion as one possible way to prevent women from destroying their health through having too many babies. Planned Parenthood, which provides free and low cost pregnancy PREVENTION services (not abortions) to teens and others who would not be otherwise able to access women's healthcare, is struggling mightily.
It's not a single-issue election, by any means, but there are plenty of women out here for whom this is ONE of the very important ones. Try to keep providing food, shelter, healthcare, education, water, etc, in an over populated world, and you will see how this ONE issue begins to interact with all the others.
Why not let the women decide, then, what is important?
Fiora, you are right. I just can't get too worked up over this issue. Perhaps because I'm not a woman.
Or prhaps because I put this in perspective and, in the overall scheme of things, there are more important issues and I am confident that there is not likely to be any change.
Plus, I am not a 1-issue type of guy.
Keep in mind that a president's power to influence this issue is severely limited. When a president puts forth a Supreme Court nominee that nominee must be approved by 2/3 of the Senate. A nominee who has very very radical views is not likely to get approved. i.e. Robert Bork, Clement Haynsworth, G. Harrold Carswell.
I am not worried that any potential president can do anything to change the law. That would take an act of Congress. And even if Congress did act, given the legal precedent inherent in Roe v. Wade, any such act of Congress would likely be struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
Like I said, I'm not worried.
You DID hear McCain rattle off the justices that actually support Roe v. Wade as those he would not want on the bench, right? Those justices are the reason we still have a woman's right to choose. Give McCain the chance to appoint one or two more and women will be forced by law to carry pregnancies to term. I really think McCain...or maybe his wife....ought to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Maybe that would put him a little "more in touch".
I know many anti-abortion women on the religous/political right & am stunned by their extemist demands-When McCain answered Pastor Warren's question about when a baby's rights should begin, he said "At the MOMENT of conception" & the audience cheered-This means when sperm meets egg-It takes 3 days for it to attach to the uterine wall-An iud or birth control pill works by preventing it from attaching, thus preventing a pregnancy-Therefore, these folks consider the major forms of birth control to be abortions, what they keep calling abortifacients & insist they too are "baby killing" & must be banned-McCain has recently stated that he no longer believes any exception should be made for rape victims & they should not be allowed to take a "morning after pill", nor should any exception be permitted for kids who are victims of incest-Tony Perkins says abortion shouldn't even be allowed to save the life of the mother-We have a Supreme Court justice who is 88, one who is 75, 2 who are 70, etc.-We are going to have some replacements soon & yes, these guys can indeed find that one is entitled to life from the very moment of conception-
You are correct about not being a 1-issue voter, but unfortunately there have been negative effects of having a pro-life president, namely that abortions tend to increase under them. Abortions decreased year after year when Clinton was president because he used common-sense methods to increase access to birth control and contraceptives and educated young people on their safe use.
Abortions have increased year after year under the Bush regime, however, because of his "abstinence-only" approach, which is against providing sex education to young people and against providing access to birth control and contraceptives. Young people are going to have sex, no matter what their parents, teachers or pastors tell them, which is why "abstinence-only" will never work. A rational approach would be to at least try to lessen the number of unwanted pregnancies, but pro-lifers are not known for their rational thought.
Slavery was legal for 200 years in this country, but we eventually did away with that, thank God. To say that laws never change and the supreme court has no affect on the law of the land is astoundingly naive. Conservative groups already have cases in place to challenge Roe v. Wade, and if McCain gets elected, chances are very good that the Supreme Court will only get more conservative, and since McCain has already stated that his litmus test for judges is Roe v. Wade, chances are it will be overturned.
Yes, but over the last 28 years, the SC was composed of a majority of those neutral or in agreement with Roe v. Wade. If McCain is able to tip the scales during his term, that 28 years will have become history. With a new SC majority for years to come, one can only imagine the so-called "legislation from the bench" the right will try to undo, including Roe v. Wade.
As far as state's deciding on the issue. There's no reason to think the slick "reasonable restrictions" campaign won't be used -- with similar success -- at the state level.
There's just too much riding on this to take a chance. It would be one thing if the ramifications of McCain were 4-10 years. But, we're talking at least one generation if not two. Find another way to voice your disgust over perceived "wrongs" done to Ms. Clinton.
Roe is a wedge issue for self interest groups. It is far from the pressing issue you deem it to be.
This is indeed a wedge issue. The only thing that will happen if Roe vs Wade is EVER overturned is this: rich girls will get the safe abortion and poor girls will have to go undeground. It is a choice not eaisly made by one woman...let alone men in stuffy shirts. And then the Repubs alwyas invoke GOD into the mix! I agree on that...let God deal with it and let us mortals stick to what we do best.: allowing the power hungry rule over the working man.
We will know soon enough
but I agree it's a head fake
Ridge might give you Pennsylvania but what else does he give you
the prolife part of the party will go ape-sh_t and will act completely childish
does this do anything for Pro-choice Republicans, independents, and Hillary Democrats
only if they are looking for a lame excuse not to vote for Obama
but what does he give you
the judges will be pro-life and the administration is going to have pro-life policies
and there won't be real sex education in the schools
this to me is a smoke screen for the whiny Hillary supporters who would see real health care reform
go down the tubes then see Obama as president
and that would be like saying ya were thinking about you.
No matter..if McCain gets in we will hav or create a war somewhere at all times during him in office. I thought Bush stole the election, I really did'nt think any person below the top 10% of the country voted for hm. Yet, everyday I meet someone who had voted for him but regreted it.
Obama is falling like a rock, McCain will get in easily. Woe is America. Once again I see Americans falling for Bush tricks again.
Oh, ye of little faith! One thing Obama is not: a poor campaigner.
Romney is my guess - ugh. The Old Man and the Stuffed Shirt. But, Romney helps him in the Rocky Mountain west and I'm betting Romney knows how many houses he owns, too.
Remember Romney has $20 million invested in this campaign and I don't see anyone holding funedraisers for him to get his money back. When he gets the VP nod, he will be postioned for the next presidential run. It's an investment in his future. Never mind that McCain and Romney don't like each other.
I'd bet that McCain's VP choice will be from a normally Democratic-leaning group - black, female, or Jewish or some combination thereof. Whoopi Goldberg would be a triple score. The strategy in that is obvious. Either that, or he will choose Pawlenty and get a former Catholic, now protestant evangelical who talks a good moderate game while protecting the sweet deal that rich folks have worked out with Bush.
Hard to tell the future,but I think well have a republican in the white house and a majority of Demos in both Houses.so grid lock=disaster =crumbling of the Empire=hard times for all.50% of the electorate voted for the most stupid and greatest liar President of all times.course there is always the imponderables but I'm not holding my breath.
mccain,
please pick lieberman
I wonder if both the Rock and Mac are thinking seriously about picking women for Veep.
It is an idea whose time has come.
A Republican woman VP? heavens forbides and if it is one let be Condi who has more skeletons literally and figuratively all over the world.
well judging from his answer when he emerged from his unenforced cone of silence at Warren's church, and happened to have the names of a general, an African American, and a woman handy when asked for 3 people he would seek out for advice, his #1 choice would be Meg Whitman.
Absolutely no one agrees with me, but I truly believe that McCain will pick someone (could be that Hughes woman) who will leave the office of Vice President for health or family reasons. When he/she is gone, then McCain willselect Jeb Bush to fill the vacancy in the office of Vice President. Jeb Bush was supposed to be the Bush son who became president. He can't run for office because of his name, but he can be chosen. We will have another Bush as President for 8 years. He will be comfortable being a unitary President, so there will be no necessity for revoking all of executive orders GWB put in place. The Democratic House and Senate will huff and puff, but in the end they will approve the selection of Jeb Bush. It's just about my worst nightmare, but I believe it's going to happen. McCain is just there to hold the place open for Jeb. I will never forgive Obama for abandoning his liberal base.
They will chose Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick can give an ear full of the kind of Governor Mitt Romney was in our state ,how he quit office to run for President when he had plenty of time to fullfill his Governorship and still run ,how he cut all the small cities school funds and funds for running the cities .Oh and most important was the Big Dig costing the tax payers millions after Romney gave the bid to a corrupt company who over charged the state and performed shoddy work which lead to the tunnels leaking and debree falling on vehicles, which led to law suits and it all had to be repaired again with the tax payers money. That is the lovely Mitt Romney and how he governs a state .I don't think anyone would want to see him as VP to anyone.I think however that is who McCain will chose for the party !
Lieberman would be a terrible choice since that would leave his Senate Seat up for Lamont to grab.
That Senate seat is good and gone already. The people of Connecticut feel betrayed and will send Lieberman packing. Why do you think he is kissing up to McCain so much? It's to get another cushy goverment job becsause he knows he is done in Connecticut. He'd better hope McCain wins, because the Dems already have plans to boot him so far out of his committee chair they'll be a permanent footprint on his butt.
I remember election 2000 vividly. I do recall the Ridge issue and I also recall the Dem choice for Vice President. His name was Joe Lieberman who now supports McCain. I remember when Joe was considered a liberal. Now old Joe almost looks conservative. Joe hasn't changed , his party has..
First of all, Joe was NEVER considered a liberal. Secondly, and most importantly, his position on the war was inconsistent with not only the Dem party but also 70% of the American people.
He's shifted dramatically to the right over the last eight years.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
