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...
Maybe she's trying to have it both ways - which (as you observed) is not possible. Either a person's a person no matter how small, or "poof!" the tissue magically becomes a person at [pick one: birth, second trimester, heart beating, brain activity, or any other gradual, scalar criteria].
Go to RenewAmerica.us and do a search. You'll find everything you need to know about what he was doing and saying at that time.
I for one know, and think he did exactly the right thing for the country.
Taking on an incumbent President of your own party during wartime would be the height of stupidity.
The enemy was John Kerry and the Democrats. Thank God we all stuck together to defeat them.
Apart from Democrats for Life, can you think of any significant pro-life groups or individuals gaining visibility in their party? Roemer was rejected as chair for his views.
I've done no such thing. I've simply fought against those who want to make our pro-life party into another pro-death RAT party.
No thanks. The republic can't survive that.
Everyone is welcome on the bus, but the pro-life majority drives...
I didn't say there was no truth behind the platitude. I'm just telling you that it is not a sufficient pragmatic answer to a real-world problem.
I understand you "don't feel overly bound by 'reality'." But I think it is critical. See my above posts for why, no need to go in circles.
Anyway, I'm glad there are people like you among us, and I respect your faith. I also love the Irish and, especially, roses. ; )
Oh, I'll pray, whether I vote will be a different thing.
Let's show her some 4-D ultrasounds and see what her choice will be.
To tell you the truth, I'm getting tired of voting for the "lesser" of two evils, the bottom line is that evil is evil, the greater of or the lesser of, it's still evil which results in the killing God's children and killing the living without guaranteeing their constitutional rights to life.
Only for the mildly pregnant.
Because of her other strengths, I'd love to send her off to a retreat with our most presuasive pro-life advocates...and Norma McCorvey...and let them get her up to speed on the issue.
If she can't be presuaded of the urgency of the issue (and I'm thinking here of the concept that it IS a matter of enough consiquence for government "meddling") - especially as it relates to judicial appointments - then I'd have to pass on her.
but if she comes out of such a meeting with her eyes opened, I'd trust here to be speaking honestly on it and not just be exibiting a politically motivated shift.
I actually believe she doesn't really have that ambition that some have which let's them shift about searching for the most opertune position on an issue.
Thing is - I don't have a clear favorite for '8 right now - I just know who i DON'T want (I'm looking at you Rudy, John, Chuck, and Mit).
I agree. This Condi "cunundrum" will be worked out in the Republican Primaries. The abortion issue will be dealt with through appointment of judges. I don't think Washington politicians have the brass to address it head on. It would be as bloody as this thread has been. If we follow the constitution, and not the world view of a few supreme court justices, this issue will be returned to the states where it belongs. Then the Red/Blue state will declare their will. It is a long and rocky road we travel.
So...I'm wondering what is up?
>>>
Me too, maybe the insiders are grooming both sides now so they win no matter who is elected.
____________________________________________
One would hope that anybody engaging in any discussion of the world in 2005 would not have to ask "What are the basics of the neocon philosophy?" And, yes there are tons of "seminal documents" that spell it all out. With all your study of the subject how did you miss them?
Nice try in your attempt to imply that anyone who is informed about the foreign policy that is reshaping the globe must be a conspiracy nut. Perhaps you need to return to the mid east for a while.
Wow! Well seven is my lucky number, so perfect!! Great news for your granddaughter, I'll say a prayer for her and her soon-to-be son/daughter....and you!! :0
Enjoy the rest of the weekend!!
Dear Trinity_Tx,
"If pro-lifers worked to elect politicians who respected the constitution, rather than blowing them off because they didn't toe the whole moment of conception, no compromise line, that wouldn't be a problem."
What are you talking about?
No politician who respects the Constitution goes unsupported by the pro-life movement. Any politician who respects the Constitution is for overturning Roe v. Wade. Any Republican in favor of overturning Roe running against any Democrat always gets the support of the pro-life movement.
Pro-lifers have supported George W. Bush, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan. These are the folks who nominate Supreme Court Justices.
Pro-lifers have supported conservative Republicans for House and Senate. Sen. Santorum wouldn't have won twice in Pennsylvania without pro-lifers, many who are Democrats who crossed party lines to support a pro-life Republican.
These allegedly conservative politicians who allegedly respect the Constitution have nonetheless given us Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Anthony Kennedy.
Whether the blame resides with the presidents and Senators and Representatives that pro-lifers have helped elect, or elsewhere, these folks have only found their way to office in part because of the support of pro-lifers.
In fact, if pro-abortion "conservatives" had stuck with GHW Bush in 1992 or Bob Dole in 1996 as much as pro-lifers, Bill Clinton would have never been elected. Remember, 57% of Americans votes AGAINST Bill Clinton in 1992. But unfortunately, 19% of those folks voted for PRO-ABORTION Ross Perot. I assure you, we hard-core "uncompromising" pro-lifers were not voting for Ross or Bill. But other parts of the conservative coalition walked away from President GHW Bush in 1992, not pro-lifers.
So, the blood shed by Mr. Clinton's appointment of two maggots to the Supreme Court is on the hands of pro-abortion "conservatives" who abandoned President GHW Bush.
In the case of Condi Rice, if she cannot figure out that Roe must go, then she really doesn't respect the Constitution. And if she doesn't respect the Constitution, then she can't have our votes.
What has stopped the pro-life movement is not our inability to achieve compromise, or our inability to win political victories. We've won those time and again. We've worked with folks who weren't in favor of our entire agenda. When we work for laws like partial birth abortion bans, or parental notification laws, or informed consent laws - laws that we've worked hard on as a movement, we are engaging in political compromise. ALL OF THESE LIMITATIONS HAVE BEEN PASSED SOMEWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES. As a result of COMPROMISE engaged in by pro-lifers.
But these are all at the fringe. We can't win the big one - legislation at the federal or state level that really restricts the abortion license - until Roe goes.
That failure hasn't been because we won't compromise. That failure is because a majority of individuals who have sat on the Supreme Court at anyone time are bloodthirsty ba$tards who have thwarted the will of the American people time and time again on the question of abortion.
Go look at the polls! We pro-lifers have won, and continue to win the moral argument, the battle for the minds and hearts of regular, ordinary Americans.
Super large majorities support a ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification, informed consent, and waiting-period laws. Large majorities support all but eliminating third trimester abortions, majorities support tight restrictions on second trimester abortions, and majorities believe that even first trimester abortion should be limited to the difficult circumstances of rape, incest, life of the mother, and severe deformity of the unborn child.
It isn't pro-lifers' unwillingness to compromise that prevents all of these compromises in law from becoming law. It's the unwillingness of a majority of the Supreme Court Justices to permit the will of the people to be expressed through legislation.
Get with the '80s. We pro-lifers have shown our flexibility, our willingness to compromise, our political savvy time and time again. But we are thwarted by a court that has appointed itself god of America. Not by any supposed unwillingness to compromise.
sitetest
It probably would have been political suicide. However taking on Obama was political suicide.
That being said, let's do some what if. Keyes did take Bush on in the primaries and through some strange quick managed to win the nomination. And let's say that luck was even with him further and he won the general election. (Let's not call it luck, but rather intervention whick is within the realm of possibility). What would stop him as President from issuing an executive order stopping abortion? Can executive orders be overturned by anyone except another presideint? Instead of waiting on appointing judges, as this President appears willing to do, judges that can change stripes once on a court that answers to no one, he could end the murder of the innocent with the stroke of his pen. No congressional action, no waiting on a favorable court if one ever comes along. A simple EO.
That's why I find fault with him sitting out the primary. While his chance of winning would have been slim, it could have happened. The enemy was John Kerry and the Democrats. Thank God we all stuck together to defeat them.
Read the posts in this thread that I referred to. Read the ones on the other threads. To pretend they don't exist makes your telling me to "get with the 80's" a bit hard to swallow.
You're truly brilliant.
Thank you for posting such a cogent summation of the truth.
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.