McCain playing the political game over abortion

Abortion is a pawn in everyone's political chess game. All the candidates know that, regardless of their personal feelings, there is very little or nothing they can do to change the situation. The Supreme Court will not overturn Roe v Wade unless a majority of the sitting judges were lieing in their hearings with the Senate. All those that Bush appointed and were seated said, under oath, that precedent is of upmost importance in decision making and like it or hate it, and I do not like it, but Roe v Wade has more precedent on its side than any decision in US history.

More attention needs to be paid to topics that a president can do something about, i.e. the economy, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, energy, our deteriorating infrastructure to name just a few.

 

I read some speculation today that Senator McCain emphasized his pro-life position last Saturday night to placate the social conservatives in case he decides to pick Lieberman or Ridge to be his running mate.

It is my opinion that if Senator McCain could pick whomever he wanted without being concerned about how social conservatives would react that he would pick Senator Lieberman.

 

By the way, I think that Senator McCain will ultimately go with a safe pick that won't upset the social conservatives - Governor Pawlenty.

 

I don't know to trust him on the abortion issue. The fact that he would even consider a pro-choice VP speaks volumes.

I know not to trust him on immigraton.

I know not to trust him on spending.

I expect him to win.

 

How about Senator McCain picking Tom Ridge and Senator Obama picking Sam Nunn?

Now that would make for a very interesting two weeks - and a whole lot of upset social conservative Republicans and a whole lot of upset social liberal Democrats.

 

What's the alternative?

 

Social conservatives and economic conservatives won't win in this presidential election - either Senator Obama or Senator McCain will be the next president.

 

That's my point. You have to vote the "lesser of two evils", or by default you are allowing someone else to use your vote for the greater of the "two evils".

 

I understand your point, webdog. Still, it's an awful way for a conservative to live his/her political life - deciding how much he/she plans to lose by.

Kinda like losing a football game 45-0 and trying to console oneself by saying, "Well, at least it wasn't 52-0."

 

Which is why I'm voting third party--probably either Baldwin or Barr (though I wish Ron Paul was running as an independent). At least Ill be voting for one who shares my views rather than wasting it on one of the Republicrats--neither of whom I can trust.