For our full analysis of Tom Ridge's chances, click here. 

Who knew it would be so easy.

When Republican presidential nominee John McCain mentioned last week that he would consider choosing a pro-choice pol like Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman as his running mate, the right side of the political spectrum went wild. "For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCain's pick as a signal of his ideological intentions," wrote the Politico's Jonathan Martin, "there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized." Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values, said "that choice will end his bid for the presidency and spell defeat for other Republican candidates," while Burress's counterpart in Michigan, James Muffett called it "the kiss of death." The general consensus among the chatterati was that social conservatives are too suspicious of McCain's pro-life bona fides--after all, he did support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research--to accept anything less than a pro-life veep.

But two developments over the weekend--when read in the proper historical context--suggest that McCain's path to a pro-choice partner may not be as perilous as the pundits (or evangelical activists) predict.

The first came Saturday night during Rick Warren's forum on faith and compassion at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. When pastor Rick, author of the multimillion-selling "Purpose-Driven Life" book series, asked McCain to pinpoint when "a baby is entitled to human rights," the Republican presidential nominee shot him a steely look and muttered five magic words with all the grim moral gravity of Clint Eastwood in full "Hang 'Em High" mode: "at the moment of conception." With that, the heavens apparently parted and shafts of light shone down on each and every evangelical in the audience, as McCain's answer, according to on-scene reporters like Byron York of the National Review, instantaneously "settle[d] the concerns of social conservatives who have been rattled by reports that he might be considering a pro-choice running mate."

You'd think from the rapturous response that McCain had made news. But no. Fact is, McCain always gives the "moment of conception" answer, and always goes on to mention his "25-year pro-life record in the Congress" while promising to be "a pro-life president," as he did Saturday night. Until now, however, most voters haven't been paying much attention. In July, for example, a Pew poll showed that 56 percent of the electorate didn't know where McCain stood on abortion. When Pew asked the pro-lifers in that subgroup to choose between Barack Obama and McCain, they chose the former, 43 to 42 percent. But when that same slice of the populace was informed that Obama was pro-choice and McCain pro-life, they sided with the Republican 70 to 24 percent. Which suggests that, on the ground, conservative skepticism about McCain--known to most voters as a "maverick" and little else--is relatively soft. While vocal evangelical activists may remain suspicious of McCain no matter what, rank-and-file believers--like the thousands at Saddleback Saturday--may only need to hear the candidate say that he believes the same things they do before deciding that he's got their votes. "After Saturday night, even Republicans most skeptical of McCain must conclude: 'Perhaps we aren't doomed after all,'" wrote former George W. Bush speechwriter (and prominent evangelical) Michael Gerson. A few more emphatic pro-life statements at high-profile public events could go a long way.

The second development came on FOX News Sunday, where the pro-choice Ridge played a little preemptive defense. Asked by host Chris Wallace whether "the Republican Party would accept a pro-choice running mate," the former Pennsylvania governor took pains to emphasize his prospective boss's pro-life credentials--and emphasize how little influence a pro-choice veep (whomever that could be) would have on the McCain White House. "My friend of 25 years is passionately pro-life," Ridge said. "He is also passionately a believer that the Republican Party must have a big tent... [But ] he would have a strong pro-life administration. The vice president is not an independent voice. He echoes the position of the president of the United States…I think that's the responsibility of the vice president. If you're unwilling or unable to do that, then I think you should defer to someone else." As I wrote last week, "McCain's veep [would have] absolutely no bearing on abortion laws whatsoever," and "by staying home" because of him, "social conservatives would be sacrificing the opportunity to elect a fully pro-life president (i.e., McCain) who has pledged to appoint 'strict constructionists' the two Supreme Court seats likely to open up over the next eight years in favor of a Democrat (Obama) who boasts a 100 percent NARAL rating and has essentially pledged to do the opposite." The fact that Team McCain is now using its top pro-choice veep contender to make the exact same argument suggests that they may be more willing to take the plunge than the naysayers have anticipated.

*And, in fact, there's emerging evidence that Crystal City is laying the groundwork for just such a pick. As Rich Lowry of the National Review reports, "the McCain campaign has been calling key state GOP officials around the country the last couple of days and sounding them out about the consequences of a pro-choice VP pick. The campaign is asking about the reaction of conservative grass-roots activists to such a pick and whether a pro-choicer can be sold to them." Lowry adds, correctly, that "this is an indication that the McCain campaign is serious about the possibility of a pro-choice VP nominee and that McCain leaving the door open to Tom Ridge last week may not have been merely a friendly nod to a longtime supporter."*

The reasons why are clear. If McCain can assuage evangelical doubts by reaffirming his long-held pro-life views (as he did at Saddleback) while simultaneously convincing conservatives that Ridge would have no effect on the administration's abortion policy (as Ridge himself began to do on FOX News Sunday), then the Arizona senator could be in very good shape come November. By selecting Ridge as his running mate, McCain would a) appeal to moderate swing voters, b) extend an olive branch to pro-choice former Clintonistas dissatisfied with Obama, c) reinforce his perceived edge over the Democratic nominee in the experience and foreign-policy departments and d) have a shot at competing in Pennsylvania--all without compromising his conservative ideology. After all, Ridge's pro-choice position is about as restrictive as they come.

There's even an historical precedent for such a pick. When Ronald Reagan chose George H.W. Bush as his running mate in 1980, the pro-life community flipped. In the past, Bush had supported abortion rights and opposed a constitutional amendment against abortion. But Bush Sr. immediately reassured evangelicals, saying he "whole-heartedly" embraced the 1980 Republican party platform, which was unequivocally anti-abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

The pro-life Reagan went on to win the election--with an unprecedented two-thirds of the white evangelical vote. 

*Added Aug. 19, 9:00 a.m.* 

UPDATE, 5:03 p.m.: The smart counterargument, courtesy of reader not.Brit:

There's something very different about the Reagan/Bush election and the McCain/Anybody election: Reagan was the root of the party's enthusiasm, McCain is the comfortable bet. In 1980, Ronald Reagan could have picked a can of soup as his running mate and it wouldn't have effected the election, people were voting for Reagan. 2008 is wildly different, and McCain's own campaigning shows it. Since McCain doesn't inspire enthusiasm with the base (just do a quick search for McCain on FreeRepublic and you'll get a sense of it), so instead, he's counting on the base to vote AGAINST Obama. More to the point, the base is either going to vote AGAINST Obama or they simply aren't going to vote.