Posted on 03/12/2005 10:21:07 AM PST by donprocto
I read, with just a little more than disappointment, today's Washington Times article about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, her political ambitions, and her "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion.
In this, and numerous other interviews, she describes herself as "deeply religious". She points out that she is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister. In this interview with the Presbyterian Layman, she describes herself as an, “all-over-the-map Republican” and “almost shockingly libertarian” on other issues.
Lest the reader be misled, there is more than one Presbyterian church. The one which claims Dr. Rice as one of it's own is none other than the Presbyterian Church (USA), which makes the following statement about abortion:
In other words, they are pro-choice. They are also embroiled in a controversy over whether or not they should ordain active, practicing homosexuals to ministry. In this article, they state that the Bible has errors in it.". . . There is [both] agreement and disagreement on the basic issue of abortion. The committee [on problem pregnancies and abortion] agreed that there are no biblical texts that speak expressly to the topic of abortion, but that taken in their totality the Holy Scriptures are filled with messages that advocate respect for the woman and child before and after birth. Therefore the Presbyterian Church (USA) encourages an atmosphere of open debate and mutual respect for a variety of opinions concerning the issues related to problem pregnancies and abortion."
As to her quote about being shockingly "libertarian", here's the definition of that word, "One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. One who believes in free will."
So now we know that, upon further inspection, Dr. Rice's 'deeply religious' beliefs are grounded in one of the most liberal protestant denominations, one which doesn't even believe that it's own guidebook (the Bible) is infallible. We also know that she believes in individual rights.
Unless you're an unborn child.
Needless to say, the Republicans are afraid of Hillary Clinton, already shape shifting as she re-invents herself for her 2008 presidential campaign. This is a party which has allowed itself to be pulled over to the left, state by state, and now has little more to offer than the hope of better Supreme Court nominees.
Almost every liberal candidate has talent, personality, intellect, and energy. Until fairly recently, conservatives in this country recognized that, without a strong moral foundation, these things are not enough. Miss Rice's brand of religiosity seems to have something in common with modern day abortion clinics, "They look beautiful on the outside. But on the inside they are full of the bones of the dead."
Is this what you really want?
If my choices come down to Rice or Hillary it's going to be Rice.
If my choices come down to Rice or Hillary it's going to be Rice.
If these two are the best we can do...............
I'll vote NO!
So if it comes down to Rice or Hillary who will you vote for?
Perouted (he might break 200,000 this time!!)
Badnarik
Hillary
or
Rice?
It will be Rice for me, if it comes down to that. We have an Anti-Abortion President right now. The issue hasn't changed. It won't with a "mildly pro-abortion"(whatever the hell that means) candidate either. Status Quo is better than what Hitlery will bring to us. It is unfortunate to say that, but it's the truth.
I'm just not a single issue voter, if I were I wouldn't have voted for Bush based on immigration policies. I also refuse to be one of these people who will install Hillary by default by not voting.
there you go.
Rice will be really strong on defense and probably just as good in the economic arena. Assuming she is fiscally conservative is another point in my book too.
But for every voter there is a hot button issue or 3. It would be such a shame that people would allow Hillary (and the evil that comes with that) over an issue that a sitting President has little power to change or decide.
the Power is in the Congress and by a certain extent, the US Supreme Court. The idea is to get a Conservative into the White House for the nominees and for the GOP to keep the Senate to confirm them. Hillary is no conservative so God only knows who her nominees would be.
"Is this what you really want?"
Rice's position on abortion is no different than Bush's.
This is a disingenuous attack on her, a stalking horse, perhaps to hide the real reasons certain people oppose her.
If Rice is the nominee, she has my vote.
The only thing that matters about abortion and the government right now is the judges appointed by the President. What are her views of the judiciary?
Disingenuous? Stalking horse? I would have supported a Rice candicacy - up until last night. I think I am fairly consistent on this issue - this is my first post here, but I beat this horse incessantly on my blog. No, not disingenuous at all.
She can be groomed. And at least she will not compltely destroy healthcare as the beast plans to.
I have to disagree. Normally, given a normal opponent, I might tend to agree with you.
But not with Hillary. She is on an entirely different level than any other Presidential candidate ever. She is not the anti-Christ or anything (she would only wish), but she is most definitely the biggest threat to what we call America today.
One issue isn't enough in this case to get me to switch my vote when considering who WILL win if enough people do.
completely.
Can you imagine the damage that could be done with Hillary in the white house and Bill at the UN? The prospect of it causes me to shudder.
I say as much because her position is not much different than Bush's. If you held your nose and voted for Bush in 04, but refuse to consider Condi in 08, then you are being inconsistent.
but it leaves promise for the 2010 mid terms, assuming she allows them to occur....
I recall seeing Dick Cheney say something similar, but not President Bush.
She's not the best choice, but our bench is weak. Jeb Bush and Cheney say they will not run. Other than Condi, I don't see anyone else who can defeat Clinton.
McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother?
BUSH: Yeah, I do.
yeah....
the bench is not so much weak as young.
The talent is there, but I just feel that it hasn't quite matured yet so to speak.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.