Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
Rice pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008 on Friday during an hour-long interview with reporters at WASHINGTON TIMES, top sources tell DRUDGE. Rice gave her most detailed explanation of a 'mildly pro-choice' stance on abortion, she would not want the government 'forcing its views' on abortion... She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... Developing late Friday for Saturday cycles... MORE...
No, but I wouldn't vote for someone who's good on all other issues - but is pro-abortion. Just like I wouldn't vote for someone who's good on a range of issues, but happens to be a racist, and favors segregation. Or somebody who's good on military, patriotism, = but happens to be an antisemite. I expect you wouldn't either. For me, being pro-abortion is the same kind of deal-killer
Thanks
With Rice, it also depends on the other issues since I don't vote blindly.
However, she can't expect to win if she underperforms 10% in base counties. Can a democrat win Michigan with 59% in Wayne County? Can a Republican win Ohio with losing Hamilton County or getting 56% in Butler County? Win Florida by going even up in Duval County?
That's what I see by a pro-choicer. I know way too many republicans who say "Candidate A is pro-choice? We have nothing to discuss".
McCain is a peacock. He loooooooooooooooves that TV camera.
See, you are falling into that trap again. If that is all the definition means, then Michael Moore is correct when he labels the killing of innocent Iraqis as "murder" because he sees it as unjustifiable as well. But he's not correct and people who apply the label "murder" to abortion are not correct either. Here's the American Heritage definition: "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Notice the "unlawful" bit. What law does an abortion break? And yes, it is a legal construct. If you call someone a murderer and they have not been convicted of such or you do not use the "alleged" caveat, then you can be sued for libel or slander, whichever is appropriate. It is a specific legal term.
Use it if you want though, but don't base your argument on it. You can't say "abortion is murder therefore it is evil." A better path would be to explain why it is evil since it is unfortunately very much legal in this country -- something both Bush and Rice would like to see changed.
She's fine as sec of state, but if she's pro-abortion, you're right, she's not my cup of tea for president - the person who appoints the judges and sets policy on social issues. Not my cup of tea at all (and a sure loser in a general election - - - the social conservatives, a necessary element for a GOP victory, would sit out)
It is a relative thing. And what is lost one place, can be made up other places. Think of Guiliani, and if he ran, and got the nomination, how different the precinct map would be from Bush's. It is a debit and credit exercise, and just because the precincts in the Bush runs have been so frozen, is really not much of a predictor.
I think there is a significant difference between the two.
It would be only even close if they turned the gun on themselves or stood without budging in a burning building to stop an early-term miscarriage.
I nominate this as the most overwrought post on Free Republic this year so far. Excepting those who support the three exceptions, no one has advocated FOR abortion here. No one. Not. a. one. Everybody here is opposed to it in one degree or another.
The trick is to get nominated Pubbies that cause both you and me to not sit out. That is where political skill comes in. Well maybe not you, since you are a Dove. That part of the GOP base is miniscule.
I cannot for a moment understand this fawning over her.....not for a moment.
Some people think we need a woman running in order to have a chance against the 'unbeatable Hillary'. I think that's a pile of horse manure myself, but that's how some think.
I think Condi Rice is a very good diplomat. That said the life issue is one that is very key with my vote.
There was a poll today that both McCain and Rudy would beat her.
5% difference with Jews....hardly the big swing folks were expecting ....and all this with Jew hating/anti-Crusader Muslims breathing down our joint necks. Some thought it was going to be Reagan part deux.
Hispanics...that vaunted 44% (as opposed to 35% in 00)poll from NEP has been rather discredited by Michelle Malkin (can I still say her name here?) and many others.
Sorry, I'm not buying Torie. Hispanics may have been up 3 points according to some because of huge Cuban get out the vote efforts.....not la Migra conciliation which is what Rove woulda loved.
Whites were up about 4%.....I think my homestates white vote was 87%...lol....that about says it all.
What cohort are you referencing?
I think it's sad W hasn't gotten the dividends he should have amongst Mexicans in particular. Maybe they ought to look at that again. Think I should call?
Regards
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constituiton.
We have a lawless judiciary, and a successive string of Executives without the courage to challenge the myth of judicial supremacy, and thousands of successive legislators who are spineless.
Is President Bush "willing to let people kill unborn babies" in his support of the three exceptions?
Anybody on this thread that sacrificed their views on illegal immigration for the GOP can surely overlook abortion too.
God's Law.
"Thou shall not commit murder."
I wouldn't give you the time of day.
Rudy wants partial birth abortion to be legal. I'd like to see his FR thread.
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.