Update and Correction: A reader notes that Sununu is pro-life (see here), making Newsweek’s report nonsensical. While I stand by my broader point about abortion, Palin and the GOP, the business about her shunning Sununu makes no sense, and that calls into question the additional statement about Bradely and drilling, so I have struck that paragraph from the post. Bradely’s record likewise indicates a pro-life position.
I do think that at the end of the day, Palin’s main appeal is abortion, and that that will not be enough for her to lead the GOP out of the wilderness.
Via Newsweek comes yet another odd tale from the campaign trail in re: Governor Palin (The Final Days):
The day of the third debate, Palin refused to go onstage with New Hampshire GOP Sen. John Sununu and Jeb Bradley, a New Hampshire congressman running for the Senate, because they were pro-choice and because Bradley opposed drilling in Alaska. The McCain campaign ordered her onstage at the next campaign stop, but she refused to acknowledge the two Republican candidates standing behind her.
One of the things (perhaps the main thing) that excites the GOP base (specifically the Evangelical core of that base) about Palin is her position on abortion. She is a true believer in the same way that most staunch social conservatives are, and in ways that most mainline GOP politicians are not, despite what they say on the stump. For example, does anyone think that McCain is as pro-life as Palin? Indeed, I don’t think any of the Republican Presidents (or presidential nominees) in the post-Roe era were as pro-life as Palin. Certainly a majority of voters are not as pro-life as Palin. And by “as pro-life as Palin” I mean the strictest version of the position, which includes the position that life being at conception and that therefore all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest, are murder and therefore should be illegal. As important as this issue is to segments of the GOP, this is not a place by which the party can build a return to majority status.
At a minimum, when one is faced with the possibility of a filibuster-proof Senate, a pro-life Republican has to be smart enough as a candidate to know that it is in that candidate’s policy advantage to support pro-choice Republicans, even if there is deep disagree on the abortion question. (see above)
Beyond that, drilling in Alaska hardly strikes me as the kind of issue that co-partisans should allow themselves to be divided over. (see above)
h/t on the Newsweek piece: Balloon Juice.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Perhaps you should be blogging about why Newsweek does such sloppy reporting:
1. Sununu is about as pro-life as you can get. He has a 100% rating for the National Right to Life Council and a 0% rating from the pro-choice group NARAL.
2. She refuses to share the stage with Bradley because he opposes drilling in ANWR yet she’ll run with and share the stage with McCain, who has the same position as Bradley on ANWR?
3. Bradley was not running for the Senate, he was running for the House. It would have been pretty hard from him to run for Senate considering Sununu was already the incumbent Republican nominee for that seat.
Also, according to this article she didn’t know Africa was a continent and that Canada was part of NAFTA but she knew the voting records of both these men.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
You are correct on Sununu, as I just checked here and the record indicates otherwise. My mistake and I will have to fix the post.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Thank you for correcting the record on this. Unfortunetly, I doubt that Newsweek or any of the other media outlets that are reporting this will do likewise. I think it speaks volumes that a major national publication would print allegations(from anonymous sources)that are demonstrably false and that other media would reprint and cite these allegation in their reporting without doing a basic fact check on them.
That being said, I agree with your broader opinion about the GOP and abortion. Their unwillingness that nominate pro-choice candidates for high-level offices will continue to cause them election woes.
November 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Anthony,
Thanks for pointing out the error. I simply misremembered Sununu’s abortion position, and therefore found the story more credible than I otherwise should have.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
The Newsweek article is an example of the sloppy journalism that has become so rampant in this country.
November 9th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
[...] Excerpt from: Palin, Abortion and the Future of the GOP [...]
November 10th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Palin’s main appeal comes from (1) she’s “fresh” (not Elizabeth Dole, not Newt Gingrich, not any number of other regulars), (2) she has strong energy credentials in the sense that most people believe she knows what she’s talking about when it comes to energy, and (3) yes, she’s pro-life, which apparently has become a little harder ti find in recent years (Giuliani being the classic example).
November 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Sorry about the length - you pushed a huge button.
Looking to the bigger picture I’m extremely concerned about an unexpected event horizon looming in our futures: Abortion being pushed to the #1 slot in future ballots, backed by the GOP and a huge new coalition of Catholics drawn out of the Latino community primarily, along with all of the evangelicals, some blacks and minorities included.
To explain what lies ahead, I note first how badly Gays lost in this election: gay marriage was banned in Arizona, Florida and probably California, and gays were denied the right to adopt children in Arkansas.
In 2006, here in the red state of Arizona, the same attempts to ban marriage failed. It passed this time by over 12 points. The red state of Florida passed it by over 25 points. And California, for God sakes??
After Obama’s victory, a Latina leader promptly hit ever news outlet proclaiming that Latino community alone was responsible for his win, and effectively warning us all that we should begin kow-towing to their power. She now demands of the Obama Administration a quid pro quo.
No one dared ask her if she would also take credit for taking away the rights of Gay citizens in 4 states.
Because her community did just that. Here in Arizona we have few evangelicals, blacks or other minorities. But we do have a whole lotta Latino Catholics. But those Catholics, her community, ignored and said F**K You to the huge population of Gays we also have.
Her male counterpart ‘in the community’ a few years back chastised American women for their low birthrates and small families - promising his community is there to fill that void. I thought wow , well fu** me then because I ignorantly chose to have a small family in order to save our planet and it’s resources..
What’s next with them? Roe v. Wade? Planned Parenthood? ANWR and Yellowstone and Malibu Beach? Drill Baby Drill, because of a United States population explosion??
Can’t you just see Sarah Palin - in all her glory -at the helm of such an army?? Holy !@##*! (no pun intended)
Not on my watch. We need to nip this in the bud -NOW.
Because I say to this Latina ‘leader’, “Lady, we need to have a loong and serious talk! Now!”
(Oh and about that ‘federalism’ thing?? In each of the states mentioned above, it was out of state PAC’s that pushed the issue.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Max,
“Fresh” isn’t enough. I concur that the GOP needs some “fresh” but its needs fresh with substance,
In regards to energy credentials–I have to confess that I find that a bit problematic (to be polite)–just being from an energy state does not mean that one has energy credentials of the type that the country needs to fix its energy situation. “Drill, baby, drill” (a position I am actually sympathetic to, btw) is hardly earth-shattering policy innovation. Beyond that, being the head of an oil state that can distribute money for free is hardly being in a realisitc position energy-wise. I suppose I could take the assertion more seriously if she had actually said something noteworthy on the subject. And no, negotiating a gas pipeline deal doesn’t cut it.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Here we go: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWViMjhiZjI4ODlkZjg0NDg5MTJmNmIwYmFiNDRmNWU=
Named source (Biegun, who I believe green-lighted the prank call when the campaign was scheduling it with “Sarkozy’s office”):
November 10th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Credentials, in politics at least, usually have more to do with perception than anything else. Mitt Romney has strong economic credentials because he was a successful businessman, not because anybody can point to any particular economic policy he backs. Obama won the election partly because the economy boomed during Clinton’s term — even though people can’t point to any of Clinton’s policies that helped the economy boom and people can’t point to any of Obama’s policies that mirror Clinton’s.
Palin comes from Alaska, and that is enough for a lot of voters to count as “energy credentials.” Especially when she has actually done a few things officially (re-worked the state “extraction tax” structure, started a new oil pipeline project, worked on the state Ethics Board that oversaw energy companies). Whether those beliefs are well-founded is another matter.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Granted, if we are just talking perception, fine.
I, however, am talking about actual, real expertise.