Posted on 03/11/2005 8:35:05 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
She has qualities no other R nominee will or even can have, obviously
Great comment. I agree. I could not support Condi for President. Her view of abortion is not pro-life.
The government forces its views on abortion every single day. Over 1 million babies a year could testify to that, were they alive to do so.
If that is her position, she has done a very poor job of explaining it thus far. No one considers the above position "mildly pro-choice." Certainly not the pro-choice movement, which rejects such arguments out of hand. Such a position is pro-life with a few exceptions.
I realize that Secretary Rice has never run for office and thus can't be expected to know all the right words, but unless she is willing to rule out unconditionally any run for the Presidency, she will have to more fully explain her position.
Well said. I think you make great points. Pro-life Catholics and evangelical Christians vote when they believe the person shares their values. If not, they don't. They are not like the Democrat base, which seems motivated by rage against Republicans.
I essentially agree with her position on abortion.
I vehemently oppose abortion, but it should not be a federal issue.
Roe v Wade should be overturned and the issue should be returned to the states respectively.
Well, it is, whether you like it or not...and in fact always has been.
Read the Fifth Amendment and get back to me...
I can't believe the Republican Heads would give the Dems the 2008 election by having a Repub. pro-choice nominee.
Go ahead, alienate millions of the pro-life voters (who will never vote for a pro-choice candidate, regardless of how "mild")----and lose the White House in 2008.
Just how stupid can those Heads be?
I admire Condi on every other point. But unless she has a change of heart concerning abortions, I would never vote for her.
And there are lots of other people out here who feel the same way.
Those Heads better stick to a winning plan for '08.
It all depends on what that conscience dictates. Teddy Kennedy acts according to his conscience.
We sit here and talk about this possible matchup...but we need to keep an eye on the backdoor. This matchup may not happen - neither of the individuals we speak of could end up being the respective nominees.
and the last pro-choice candidate (mildly or otherwise) to win the republican nomination was.....?
What does that have to do with anything I said? (Or were you just asking it as a question for the whole thread and replied to me because I was the last comment?)
100% dead-on.
I just don't read it the same way. It seems to me that every thing she said is code for 'I do not want Roe overturned.'
Unfortunately, the left's pt of view carries the day in terms of rhetoric about the govt's role in abortion. In the mainstream press, generally speaking, talk of 'not wanting the govt to force its views, or 'favor one side or the other' means that one opposes legislative bans on abortion. Unfortunately, Roe is considered to be the defacto, natural state of things. Why else do you think that polls show Americans in strong support of restrictions on abortion, especialy outside of rape, incest, threat-to-the-mother, and first trimester, yet at the same time oppose overturning Roe -- which makes all of those popular restrictions almost impossible? People hold inherently contradictory positions on this issue.
Now she does explicity say that she supports parental notification, and bans on late-term abortions, but again, all of this is meaningless unless she would be willing to appoint conservative judges. And while you can find judges with pretty much every conceivable mix of views, its also true that most have a pretty consistent approach. Therefore, a judge who supports Roe, will also likely look unfavorably towards parental notification laws and laws against late-term abortions, while an anti-Roe judge would likely have an opposite view.
But I guess it doesn't matter, as Rice has subsequently said that she is not running.
But anyway, I don't dislike Rice, but I have reservations about her stance on social and cultural issues. If she could have a genuine conversion to social conservatism then I think she might make an excellent VP pick; otherwise I'd like to see her get elected to something before promotion to the top of the ticket.
Nice post. I can certainly see it from your point of view as well.
That's the nice thing about being a Republican we can disagree without hurling fecal matter at one another.
My money would be on Condi supporting conservative justices that would read the constitution before making Supreme Court rulings, but I can understand your concerns as well.
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.