August 14, 2008

Why Tom Ridge shouldn't be vice president

I was busy playing with my He-man figures and watching "ThunderCats" in the 1980s, so you'll forgive me for not following Tom Ridge's Congressional career too closely.  But this shows that, even without considering abortion, Tom Ridge should have no place on any GOP vice presidential ticket (emphasis mine):

Just as most Pennsylvania Democrats are more conservative than the national party, Pennsylvania Republicans are typically more liberal. Ridge fits the mold. Between 1984 and 1988, for example, he was more likely to oppose President Reagan's position on a given issue than he was to support it, according to a Congressional Quarterly analysis. In 1987 and '88, he aligned himself with the Reagan White House only 40 percent of the time. He supported President Bush somewhat more often, but he still lagged far behind the typical House Republican. Following a minimum-wage vote on which Ridge was one of only 19 Republicans to favor a hike, a reporter asked Pennsylvania congressman Bill Goodling whether Ridge had any friends left in Congress. "On our side of the aisle, he would have none," replied Goodling.

But, again, it was a tough district. If a Republican must cast union- friendly votes to hold the seat, Republicans argued, then so be it. Better that than a Democrat who won't stand with the GOP on anything.

Except that Ridge held a number of positions that can't be explained by devotion to his blue-collar constituents. At a time when Reagan was peeling off Democrats on Cold War issues, Ridge consistently played the dove. He voted to support the nuclear freeze, abolish the MX missile, deny funding to the Nicaraguan contra rebels, and adopt Pat Schroeder's plan to bar nuclear tests above one kiloton.

Weren't we just hammering the Democrats' presidential nominee in 2004 for supporting this very same legislation as it appeared in the U.S. Senate?  Do we not remember Zell Miller's speech at the 2004 RNC Convention?  This is a joke.  In light of this, I think Tom Ridge would actually be worse than Sen. Joe Lieberman.  At least he doesn't have the stain of that ridiculous color-coded terror alert or the Bush Administration ties on his record. 

Oh, by the way, this article was written in summer 2000 urging Gov. George W. Bush of Texas not to choose Tom Ridge.  It's as true in 2008 as it was then.  Make sure to read the whole thing.

(h/t)

Posted by: It's Vintage, Duh at 07:53 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
14kb generated in CPU 0.01, elapsed 0.0131 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.0078 seconds, 133 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.