Over at the Washington Post, Jonathan Weisman muddies Barack Obama and John McCain's positions on abortion, pointing out that while both candidates have extensive pro or anti-choice records, if you look at the kind of meaningless things politicians say in order to endear themselves to the middle, you kinda might not maybe not be so sure about their positions on the subject:
But McCain has repeatedly been at odds with the National Right to Life Committee and other antiabortion groups over his efforts to limit their ability to run pointed "issue advocacy" advertisements in the closing weeks of campaigns. Although his voting record is strictly antiabortion, he has never made religiosity or social issues centerpieces of his political persona. And his 2000 labeling of evangelists Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance" deepened evangelical suspicions.
Forget Shawn Johnson -- these are some impressive media gymnastics: managing to insert one of the media's favorite scrapbook memories of McCain, his 2000 criticism of Falwell and Robertson, to suggest McCain might not be anti-choice, while at the same time avoiding the fact that McCain has since recanted the statement. McCain's old comments might or might not hurt him among evangelicals, but they have absolutely nothing to do with whether he would govern as an anti-choicer. As a legislator, he already has. The article then notes that McCain might pick a pro-choice running mate, but that is total speculation. The only way that McCain doesn't look like a completely anti-choice candidate is if you cross your eyes and then bang your head against a wall until you're unconscious. But as the article notes at the bottom, the issue of abortion is less decisive for Democrats than it is for Republicans, so it is to McCain's advantage that the media continue to portray him as a moderate on the issue.
-- A. Serwer
