Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review May 17, 2000 /12 Iyar, 5760

David Limbaugh

David Limbaugh
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Arianna Huffington
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Debbie Schlussel
Sam Schulman
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


Can Bush risk pro-choice running mate? -- IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE, George W. Bush will select his running mate. Should he even consider picking someone who is pro-choice? I believe not. Will it matter? I believe so, greatly.

Apparently, even among pro-life conservative Republicans there is no unanimity of opinion on this question. A few days ago, I was talking with a group of ardently pro-life friends who thought Bush should select the candidate who would add the most to the ticket, even if he were pro-choice. They didn't seem to think the vice presidential candidate's views on abortion were prohibitively important.

Their reasons and my responses:

Even a pro-life president can appoint liberal judges, such as David Souter. Well, I cannot deny that a conservative president can err by unintentionally appointing liberal, activist judges. My hope, though, is that Governor Bush has learned from the mistakes of his predecessors and will do a better job of vetting his appointees.

Bush will have a better chance of attracting moderates if he chooses a pro-choicer. I reject the idea that Republicans build their big tent by compromising on profound moral issues. They do so on the solid foundation of a committed conservative base who believe enough in their candidate to enthusiastically support him.

A pro-choice running mate who is otherwise a strong candidate will not drive off pro-life conservatives, because they have nowhere else to go. For example, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, despite not being pro-life, could help deliver his state's vitally important electoral votes. The fallacy with this argument is that they do have somewhere else to go. They can stay home, and some will. Beyond that, I don't think this is purely a numbers game. Many grass-roots voters are not merely one-dimensional. They do more than vote. They get out and work in the trenches for candidates they truly believe in. While many of them may still go to the polls and vote for Bush, they will do it devoid of enthusiasm and intensity.

In addition, I belong to the camp who believes that, generally speaking, a vice-presidential candidate can only hurt a ticket, not help it, even if he or she is a popular governor from a populous swing state. Maybe some undecided voters will be swayed by the running mate, but for the most part, they are going to base their decision on the presidential candidate alone, unless his running mate is affirmatively offensive. And to many pro-life voters, a pro-choice running mate will be abundantly offensive.

This will be a particular problem for Governor Bush. He won over the base with his unapologetically conservative approach in fending off the McCain challenge. Though his grass-roots support is solid, it is residually skeptical. I'm afraid his selection of a pro-choice running mate would cause that skepticism to ripen into disillusionment. Some might even conclude that he is not firmly pro-life himself, which would be devastating to his campaign.

Most pro-choice candidates will be troublesome to the base for another reason. Most of them are not strict constructionists of the Constitution. And few things are more objectionable to conservatives today than this nation's departure from its constitutional roots. While it is theoretically possible for a pro-choice person to be a strict constructionist, it is not likely. Most pro-choicers support Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that grafted into the Constitution the mother's right to privacy -- which severely restricts the power of states to regulate abortion.

Finally, a few words about the pro-life purists. They believe that abortion is fundamentally a moral issue -- one involving life and death, literally. It is not an issue about which they feel morally empowered to compromise. Extremism in defense of life is no vice.

On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for others to believe that such purists may ultimately set back their own cause by aiding and abetting Al Gore's quest for the White House. But the point of this column is not to address whether the purists would be justified in abandoning Bush or refusing to work for him if he selects a pro-choice running mate -- just whether they would and if it would make a difference. They would, and it would.

JWR contributor David Limbaugh is an attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and a political analyst and commentator. Send your comments to him by clicking here.



05/15/00: Right to privacy, Clinton-style
05/10/00: Patrick Kennedy and his suit-happy fiddlers
05/08/00: Don't shoot Eddie Eagle
05/03/00: Congress caves to Clinton, again?
05/01/00: The resurrection of outrage
04/28/00: A picture of Bill Clinton's America
04/19/00: President Clinton: Teaching children responsibility
04/17/00: Elian, Marx and parental rights
04/12/00: Elian, freedom deserve a hearing
04/10/00:The fraying of America
04/05/00: Noonan: End Clintonism now
04/03/00: Bush: On going for the gold
03/29/00: Phantasma-Gore-ia
03/27/00: Treaties, triggers, tobacco and tyrants
03/22/00: Media to Bush: Go left, young man
03/20/00: Stop the insanity
03/15/00: OK Al Gore: Let's go negative
03/13/00: Deifying of the center
03/08/00: The media, the establishment and the people
03/01/00: McCain's coalition-busting daggers in GOP's heart
02/28/00: Bush's silver lining in McMichigan
02/24/00: A conservative firewall, after all
02/22/00: Bush or four more of Clinton-Gore?
02/16/00: Substance trumps process
02/14/00: The campaign finance reform mirage
02/09/00: President McCain: End of the GOP as we know it?
02/07/00: From New Hampshire to South Carolina
02/02/00: SDI must fly
01/31/00: Veep gores Bradley
01/26/00: The issues gap
01/24/00: GOP: Exit, stage left
01/20/00: Nationalizing congressional elections
01/18/00: Do voters really prefer straight talk?
01/12/00: Media's McCain efforts may backfire
01/10/00: Conservative racism myth
01/05/00: Just one more year of Clintonian politics
01/03/00: McMedia?
12/27/99: Al Gore: Bullish on government
12/22/99: Bradley's full-court press
12/20/99: Bush: Rendering unto Caesar
12/15/99: Beltway media bias
12/13/99: White House ambulance chasing
12/08/99: Clinton's labor pains
12/06/99:The lust for power
12/01/99: In defense of liberty
11/29/99: Are Republicans obsolete?
11/24/99: Say you're sorry, Mr. President
11/22/99: Architects of victory
11/17/99: Trump's tax on freedom
11/15/99: GOP caves again
11/10/99: Triangulation and 'The Third Way'
11/08/99: Sticks and stones
11/03/99: Keyes vs. media lapdogs
11/01/99: Signs of the times
10/27/99: The false charge of isolationism
10/25/99: A matter of freedom
10/20/99: Clinton's mini-meltdown
10/18/99: Senate GOP shows statesmanship
10/13/99: Senate must reject nuclear treaty
10/11/99: Bush bites feeding hand
10/06/99: Jesse accidentally opens door for Pat
10/04/99: Clinton and his media enablers
09/29/99: Reagan: Big-tent conservatism
09/27/99: The Clinton/Gore taint?
09/22/99: Have gun (tragedy), will travel
09/20/99: Hillary's blunders and bloopers
09/15/99: GOP must remain conservative
09/13/99:Time for Bush to take charge, please
09/10/99: Bush's education plan: Dubya confounds again
09/07/99: Pat, savior or spoiler?
09/02/99: Character doesn't matter?
08/30/99: Should we judge?
08/25/99: Dubyah's drug question: Not a hill to die on
08/23/99: Should Dubyah start buying soap ... for all that mud?
08/16/99: 'W' stands for 'winner'
08/11/99: The truth about tax cuts
08/09/99: Hillary: Threading the needle
08/04/99: What would you do?
08/02/99: No appeasement for China
07/30/99: Hate Crimes Bill: Cynical Symbolism
07/26/99: Itís the 'moderates', stupid
07/21/99: JFK Jr. and Diana: the pain of privilege
07/19/99: Smith, Bush and the GOP
07/14/99: GOP must be a party of ideas
07/12/99: Gore's gender gap
07/08/99: Clintonís faustian bargain: our justice
07/06/99: The key to Bush's $36 million
06/30/99: Gore: a soda in every fountain
06/28/99: 'Sacred wall' or religious barrier?
06/23/99: GOP must lead in foreign policy
06/21/99: Crumbs of compassion
06/16/99: Compassionate conservatism: face-lift or body transplant?
06/10/99: Victory in Kosovo? Now What?