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?
That's not a strategically effective position. Think about the harm pro-life Reagan has done by nominating Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Given the choice between a Clinton who would nominate judicial activists, and a liberal Republican who understands the original intent of the Founding Fathers and nominates Constitutional constructionists, I'll go with the latter.
LOL
saying Hillary can't win is pure arrogant BS. If we think she can't win, then we are not helping ourselves. Overconfidence is a horrible thing in politics.
Look at Kerry. He thought he was winning. He believed the hype. Hillary won't. She's too smart for that.
I don't tremble in fear of anything. But I don't casually disregard someone who has had her communist eyes set on the White House since JFK and will stop at nothing to get there, especially since she is now in position to be in direct competition for the position and the other side (meaning us) is looking for a cleanup hitter.
No, we can't "prove" anything until Rice is asked to give her definitive position on abortion.
I know ONE thing -- she'll need to be clear about where she stands. Any ambivalence will be construed as "pro-choice."
I totally agree with that last statement. And I think that Rice is smart enough to know that too. I mean for the DUmmie lurkers here that would be part of the PERFECT ROVIAN STORM wouldnt it? :)
"ROE" wasn't built in a day, it will take some time to dissemble that disgraceful holding and Doe v Bolton along with it. I understand that and don't hold it against Bush.
If that were so, you would easily dismember my argument with facts, instead of ad hominem.
I have dismembered it, you are simple not astute enough to know it. Condi selfs identifies as "moderately pro choice", Bush self identifies as "pro life". That you don't understand that there is a difference in those two opinion is not my fault. Public education rearing its ugly head perhaps?
And there is nothing Ad Hominem about calling a lie a lie. Truth is an absolute defense.
Once more, to any and all - please show me where Bush and Rice agree/disagree on abortion.
You've just been shown in their own words in two different posts. Cognitive disssonance appears to be a problem with you, no?
crickets chirping....
Aha, and now it becomes clear, the crickets have taken up residence where your cerebrum once occupied space.
Lol, "ROVIAN" it would be...
After her remarks in yesterdays papers, which were too coy by half and not very smooth at all, I don't think she's ready for primetime.
hehe...
in seriousness though, if the fight comes down to Status Quo with Rice vs. whatever we would get with Hitlery, I would take Rice in a heartbeat, for more than just this one reason, but for a multitude of them.
I agree with you. The government works on many issues; to single out abortion is silly. The cause is important, but we have to understand that we're turning a battleship.
You and I won't forget, but by '07, (if she runs), she'll re-cant the old, and re-cast her "new opinion" on abortion.
Whether the rest of the pro-life voters buy Rice's presumptive revision is another thing.
Now you're lacing your personal attacks with bold lies. Condi is not moderately pro-choice. Did you even read her position on this? Can you not comprehend it?
Both Bush and Condi are for parental notification and against partial birth abortions. Both are for exemptions in the case of Rape, Incest, or danger to the life of the mother. How are they different?
So far, the only "proof" I've seen offered is campaign rhetoric.
Me either, and especially not at some woman of average intelligence who attended college at Wellesley, has the personality of a viper and was an avowed member of the Jane Fonda/Tom Hayden school of patriotism.
My point here is simple, you can invoke her name like a Preacher invokes Satan but it doesn't affect my decisions a whit. If you think that's arrogant so be it, I see it as confidence in my position that America will not elect her.
And I'd be happy to argue why if you'd like.
So how do you square his following statement with that?
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.
No doubt Rice is the better choice as Prez, but 'pro-life' is so important an issue for many conservatives, that they will just sit home and NOT vote. Yes, despite Hitlery.
maybe maybe not.
I just hope that it never comes to that. I would agreew with jwalsh that Rice isnt quite ready for the big time yet, but she does bring a LOT to the table and that cannot be ignored.
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.
Agreed. By their own standards, Bush is not Pro-Life. Yet they voted for him.
if Bush isnt Pro-Life, I dont know who is....
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.