From the Inquirer:
Maybe former Gov. Tom Ridge was auditioning for the role of vice president after all as he campaigned earlier in the week with Republican presidential candidate John McCain in Pennsylvania.On Wednesday, McCain floated the idea of naming a running mate who supports abortion rights in an interview with the Weekly Standard. He mentioned Ridge as someone worthy of consideration.
“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain told the conservative magazine.
“And also I feel that – and I’m not trying to equivocate here – that Americans want us to work together,” he added. “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.”
Ridge was against
Ridge was against Reagan’s SDI, which was the straw that broke the camel’s back of the Soviet Union. Ridge was FOR the communists, and against the Contras, as well.
And, he’s so anti-life that his own Bishop refused to let him take Communion in his own Diocese.
This would be a good reason for those who care about life and freedom to stay home.
Four years of Obama would generate the same revulsion that got rid of Carter, and might let us get real Republicans in office.
"Real Republicans"
SDI was a joke that still doesn’t work. The abortion issue has nothing to do with the Presidency, and Ridge’s position is the correct one on that issue-he recognizes that Bishops’ roles are within the Church only. As for “Real Republicans,” the religious zealots and neocon fools who hijacked the GOP (the 7-justice majority in Roe v Wade included 6 republicans) have brought us for the past 8 years what will go down as the worst Presidency in modern history. They get us into a war, killing thousands, based on a lie, have no crime program beyond the death penalty, oppose reasonable restriction of deadly weapons and claim to be pro-life because they believe in state power to compel pregnant rape victims to give birth against their wills. I am glad that I no longer am in that party!.
We are, too. Your embrace
We are, too. Your embrace of half-truths, death, and gun control make you much more at home in a Party to whom such things are “vital”.
You equate a few thousand deaths to a million and a half babies killed by abortionists each year, so either your math or your morals is lacking.
Embrace
Do you read your own words? How are you able to determine which human lives are more important? A few thousand deaths-Are you serious? One death in a meaningless war is one too many. You so called “right to life” people amaze me. You actually believe you know when life begins,which lives should be spared, and which are dispensable. Save the fetus-kill the doctor. You are either pro-life or you are not. There is no such thing as a vegitarian that enjoys the occasional hamburger. You either is or you is not.
Four thousand killed on
Four thousand killed on 9/11.
Four thousand killed in the Iraq war.
One and a half million babies killed last year by abortionists.
Equal concern for life may prompt some to think that the willful destruction of one and a half million babies is 375 times worse than having four thousand soldiers tragically die.
Always off the mark
It’s all about freedom granted by the constitution. No one is in favor of killing babies(or soldiers for that matter). The real issue is a woman’s right to choose. That right should not be denied because others are morally opposed. If all types of abortions were made illegal tomorrow, we would still be faced with hunger, homelessness, disease, war, and millions of other national and global problems. And with all that, now you can add back alley abortions. The pro-life argument needs to be about more than morality. Your logic makes no sense either. By your reasoning, the concern can be equaled out if more people were killed on 9/11 or are killed in Iraq. I’ll say it again. The pro-life argument is weak because it is based on self-righteousness. Your republican president sent four thousand young men and women to die in Iraq, yet proclaims his pro-life stance. Does the word hypocrisy mean anything to you. Well of course it does, it’s the foundation of the Republican party.
Walking Wombs
And don’t forget that people like him just view females of child-bearing years as walking wombs. Too bad if the female’s health is adversely affected by being pregnant. Too bad if she got pregnant as a result of rape.
Also, too bad for the unwanted children who people like him want to force to be brought into this world. Is going to help feed them, educate them, and otherwise ensure that they become productive members of society? No, I didn’t think so.
Some of us believe that every child should be a wanted child. Some of us believe that the government should have not have a say in whether and when we reproduce.
It is a shame he wasn’t born in ancient Sparta. He would have fit in perfectly.
Real??
Rob Byer’s comments on the past (8) years are right on target. So how can it be that if Bush-Chaney were able to run for another term, people would still vote for them. This is the demographic I can’t figure out. What issues do these people consider to be important? Is it the pro-life stance? The anti-gay stance? The pro-gun establishment? Perhaps it’s tax breaks for the wealthy. Big money and big business do have a great deal of influence. Recent reports claim McCain picked-up $27 million in July. As for Tom Ridge, I don’t believe he would be the choice of the conservative right, but then again neither is McCain. I do however believe the conservative right will support a McCain/??? ticket over an Obama/??? ticket.
Tom Ridge reminds me of
Tom Ridge reminds me of Jesse Jackson. Just wander around with no contribution to society until the spotlight turns and then jump into the ring. Where have you been Tim? And what’s this stuff about being “one of those great leaders”. Was this is some past life ‘cause it sure wasn’t when you worked for the people of PA.
I thought Tom had to go off and make money...
...so that he could pay for his kids education? Isn’t that why he left his embarrassing position as the chief fear monger in the Bush administration? So what’s the deal? Has he made enough now by speaking and whoring that his financial future is secure?
He and McCain are so wrong for this nation that I can hardly imagine it. Both have military backgrounds, making them much more comfortable with authoritarian leadership than they are with the “messiness” of a Republic.
Pilt
Post new comment