Condi "Mildly Pro-Choice"

http://www.drudgereport.com ^ | 3-11-2005 | Matt Drudge

[sitetest]

Sorry for the double post.

[editor-surveyor]

"this site is still further right than most of the US and damned adament about it......"

And that's a good thing; you can't lead the pack from the middle! :o)

[sitetest]

Dear Trinity_Tx,

"It's no use. He can't see the problem or the consequences, because in his reality, this sort of offensive behavior is just fine."

LOL.

Now who is misrepresenting whom?

* chuckle *


sitetest

[editor-surveyor]

"FGS. A woman who thinks exceptions should be made if the mother's life is at stake is NOT a pro abort the way she's being portrayed here."

I agree with the first part of that statement, although even before Roe, women were never denied the option of abortion if the surgery board of the hospital deemed it justified. -
As to "the way she is being portrayed here," we don't even know if that is her issue or not, but very likely not. Most of those who use the term 'pro choice' are not for choice at all unless the 'choice' is death.

[kabar]

Two questions.....Do you get dizzy with all the spinning?<

Answer: It's not spinning if you give the facts. The USG does not consider Saudi Arabia to be a state sponsor of terrorism. Annually, the State Department publishes Patterns of Global Terrorism . The latest one does not list Saudi Arabia, just Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. You may consider Saudi Arabia to be a state sponsor, the USG does not.

And, what about the 28 pages concerning Saudi Arabian complicity that were redacted from the congressional study?

I answered that in my previous reply. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is complex. More than likely, there were items in those 28 pages, which could cause problems for the Saudis and/or us. What the Saudis say publicly (often for domestic and regional consumption) is not what they are saying and doing in private. Redacting this information was done for a good reason. As much as Washington leaks, we would have seen that information by now if it were really just some sort of cover-up.

[MHGinTN]

RU486 is not 'the morning after pill. If you intend to mix it up on these threads, at least get your facts straight.

[Trinity_Tx]

You quibble:
"At least in your previous quote, one could interpret the "you" of the sentence as referring only to your correspondent, and not the entire movement.

With this quote, there doesn't appear to be any qualifiers. You state, "If pro-lifers" without qualification. That's a pretty general insult."

My entire post was:

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.

We have seen many posters here say that Hillary would be no better than Condi, and they'll stay home, because "you are either pro-life or pro-death".

Their narrowly focused "strategy" only gets us more Black-robed maggots.


You again neglected to include the second two paragraphs, which showed to whom I was referring.

And if that weren't clear enough, you still refuse to acknowledge that just 4 posts prior, before you even came on thread, I had written:

I'm not going after pro-lifers. I am pro-life.

I'm going after those among us who are holding back progress in this fight by their absolutist, thus losing, strategies.


Again, those words are no different than those I hear often from my friends who are activists in the movement.


I'm sorry I didn't say "not the entire pro-life movement", or whatever else you want to cavil about, in every post. I didn't think anyone would come along looking for ways to make me an enemy of people I keep telling you I respect.

That you continue to do so just proves my point. But, I think it's way past time for you to back off.

[Sir_Ed]

I would never vote for Rudi for Pres.

He's anti-gun, pro-homosexual and he's not Pro-life.

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

"With moderate Dems looking for a new home, I wonder if we would better off sitting them in the back rows?"

You guys should leave the GOP and form a new party with the moderate Democrats, pro-abortionists and gun-grabbers.

It might just work, if you can tone down the anti-American and homosexual elements, but I'd never vote for any of ya'.

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

I would gladly vote for a conservative woman for President, or a black person for President. Race and sex don't matter to me, but Christian morality does.

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

Excellent post, I completely agree!

Ed

[Sir_Ed]

"one issue voters put THEIR issue above the good of the country."

Nonsense.

There are plenty of single-issue deal-killers for you in candidates, I'm sure.

If a GOP candidate wanted to outlaw hunting, you'd probably object. If a GOP candidate wanted to socialize medicine, you'd object...if a GOP candidate wanted to put all American troops under the UN, you'd object.

So then point isn't that ALL single-issue voters are bad, as you're saying, but simply that you don't find OUR single-issue to be legitimately a deal-killer.

We do. We find abortion to be so reprehensible, to be nothing less than simple infanticide, that to countenance a President who BELIEVES in that infanticide coming to power through OUR OWN VOTE would be unthinkable, undoable, no matter what the consequences.

There are certain things one must do no matter what the consequences, because one's conscience demands it. Like a man who jumps into a river to save someone, even though he knows he could die. Like Rick Rescorla going back into the Twin Towers to search for people left behind, there are things we simply MUST do, even though the end seemingly is worse than had we done nothing.

And refusing to vote in a pro-death candidate is one of them. Yes, even if it does give us Hitlery.

Ed

[cvq3842]

Understood. I do agree that many of the Republicans being talked about - Rudy, Pataki, etc. - cannot win the Republican nomination because they are very socially liberal. I still think it's a bit early for 2008 (!) and I think much of the "support" which shows up in polls is little more than name recognition. Time will tell.

Thanks for the message. :)

[Poohbah]

It's reprehensible that you and many others here are backing a pro-choice candidate and risking the Oval Office being lost to the Democrats, quite possibly even Hillary Clinton.

I'm not backing her. But if she does wind up being the nominee, I will vote for her instead of throwing a temper tantrum. Folks like you who demand either perfection or nothing are the ones threatening to give us President Hillary Clinton.

[Poohbah]

For instance, would you vote for a man who held your positions on domestic issues, but was very soft on the war on terror?

If the alternative was someone even softer on the war on terror, and who opposed my domestic agenda, yeah. It's called "half a loaf."

I did the stupid-a$$ protest vote thing in 1992. Yeah, I helped elect Bill Clinton by not voting for George H.W. Bush. We all know how well that worked.

[Aquinasfan]

She explained that she is libertarian on the issue, adding: 'I have been concerned about a government role'... >>>

So is Colon Powell, that's why I would never vote for the pro-abortion republicans, I don't care who they are. Powell and Rice are social liberals...I like the way ms. rice uses the lame excuse that she's libertarian...Seems abortion is the only subject about which she is libertarian,,,my how convenient and full of it...

She should go back to playing the piano and teaching in a nice liberal college.

"I'm libertarian regarding murder." Barf.

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

[Golden Eagle]

And that would result in Democrats getting elected, which in turn would result in abortion policies far worse than Condi Rice's being put in place. Brilliant strategy.

Thanks for breaking it down completely, you're real good at that. I think the other train of thought, at least mine when first confronted with it, is that some would rather let that happen, so the Democrats bear "the sin" of it. Also, the desired side effect would be for the Republicans to learn "don't ever try that with us again."

Do you lose at least one term at the helm? Yes. But at least you don't possibly lose the position of your party being strongly "pro life", forever.

My recommendation is, if the Republican party wants to run a woman for president, find a pro lifer to do it. Yes, they are hard to find it seems, but they would be the best possible messenger for carrying the pro life torch. In fact I would say all things considered, that would be the primary reason for selecting a woman to lead the Republican ticket.

[Poohbah]

Do you lose at least one term at the helm? Yes. But at least you don't possibly lose the position of your party being strongly "pro life", forever.

Prior to 9/11/01, it was merely an academic question.

Now, it has grave consequences.

Yeah, I helped elect Bill Clinton with a "protest vote" in 1992. America paid the price for putting a feckless draft-dodging coward who refused to take national security seriously. 3,000 dead citizens is way too f***ing high a price.

[Golden Eagle]

Prior to 9/11/01, it was merely an academic question. Now, it has grave consequences. Yeah, I helped elect Bill Clinton with a "protest vote" in 1992. America paid the price for putting a feckless draft-dodging coward who refused to take national security seriously. 3,000 dead citizens is way too f***ing high a price.

Very succinct. Thanks. I guess it comes down to how strongly one might feel that aborted babies are actually lives being murdered. If one actually feels that way, then 3,000 dead might be a drop in the bucket?

When it gets down to it, I've never voted outside the GOP, and I'm not sure I would, under any circumstance. But let's be real, the chances of Condi Rice earning the Republican nomination in the first place, are pretty darn slim. Especially if she's "_____ pro-choice".