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 Rice does somehow manage to win the GOP primary....her Pro-Abortion and other liberal views will put the Constitution Party on the map (and put Hillary in the Whitehouse).
Please translate what in the law means. Roe V Wade is the law of the land. Who's dissembling?
"her Pro-Abortion views"
She's not Pro-Abortion [unless you are a fanatic]
Not true Mike. Clinton funded PP overseas meaning my tax money was paying to kill unborn babies. That is anti constitutional. President Bush put an end to it as did President Reagan and President Bush 41. Presidents make a huge difference in the direction the country takes on an issue like abortion.
They can't dictate but the move opinion. W has moved opinion. More states are challenging the ridiculous notion of abortion without consent for underage girls more are challenging the notion that killing viable babies is a womans inherent right. When a President makes something a priority and he has what it takes he moves opinion.
You are. I don't have to state anything. His meaning is clear. Protection in law would necessarily mean ROe must go. It is a constitutional joke. And I might add, so is your statement that W and Condi have the same views on abortion.
True. However, you really think that a President Rice will do that, especially considering if she does get elected, what she will have said and done the previous year to get there?
That won't happen. If you thought Billy Bob Clinton was bad, wait until Hitlery gets elected.
A "Fanatic"? I thought you Pro-Abortion advocates called us Conservatives "extremists"?
I wouldn't call myself a single issue voter, but I will never knowingly vote for someone, or a party, that promotes, encourages, or even accepts the killing of babies.
Indeed. Lose our sovereignty to the UN, and we will never have a say on abortion or anything else.
Mike, I don't stay up at night worrying about Hillary. You got to take another tact.
But will you knowingly allow others to elect someone who supports partial birth abortion?
There you go.
Then you are terribly misguided my friend.
Look at what she is doing. If there are any doubts she is running, you gotta be looking the other way on purpose.
And yet ROE is still here, despite whatever promises you heard. Perhaps he was being Clintonian.
It is a constitutional joke. And I might add, so is your statement that W and Condi have the same views on abortion.
If that were so, you would easily dismember my argument with facts, instead of ad hominem.
Once more, to any and all - please show me where Bush and Rice agree/disagree on abortion.
crickets chirping....
I would support Rice because she is a black woman Republican. Period! I am sick of Republicans being called "racist" by the left and this would go a long way towards ending that. The problem I see is that the black voters who are most likely to vote Republican if they get past the "racist" label are pretty much all social conservatives. So that's a big problem. I'll have to think on it a little longer, but my first thought is I would vote for her because she is black and Republican. Right or wrong.
Absolutely true, John. Good point that many folks miss.
The President's "influence" is seen via a like-minded "trickle down" affect; The Congress, Senate and Courts, AND public opinion.
Huh? I'm Pro-Life. The slogan Pro-Choice: Will Kill for Sex is my creation. Perhaps you should get back to arguing the facts...
“I’ve set the goal that every child born and unborn ought to be protected" - Los Angeles Times Jun 5, 2000
"I believe that life is valuable, even when it is unwanted, even when it is physically imperfect. I believe our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the weak. And I believe our nation should set a goal: that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law. This is the ideal: a generous society that values every life. I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy is ruled by consensus, not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded." - www.georgewbush.com, “Parental Notification Law” Jun 7, 1999
"Roe vs. Wade was a reach, overstepped the constitutional bounds as far as I'm concerned. I would remind you I'm not a lawyer." - January 21, 2000, CBS News.
There are many, many more.
But neither one of you can prove that Rice will do that. In fact, considering who she will need to garner support FROM, it's is nearly impossible she will move towards anything resembling Hillary's stances (pre-election positioning that is) on this issue.
Go ahead and do as you wish. We WILL end up with worse if you do however.
I'm terribly misguided because I don't tremble in fear at the mention of the name Hillary Clinton? Come on Mike, I'm a grandpa, I've peeked over the edge at the grim reaper. Hillary doesn't have what it takes. She's unlikeable.
Look at what she is doing. If there are any doubts she is running, you gotta be looking the other way on purpose.
Who cares if she's running? I don't. I rmemeber the evening of the last election when it was CLEAR that Kerry was trouncing Bush. I knew it was BS. Kerry could not win and Hillary can't either. If you think Kerry's book was bad wait until you see Hillary's thesis from her Marxist days.
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.