Posted on 03/11/2005 8:35:05 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday pointedly declined to rule out running for president in 2008, and gave her most detailed explanation of a "mildly pro-choice" stance on abortion.
In an interview with editors and reporters in the office of the editor in chief at The Washington Times, she said she would not want the government "forcing its views" on abortion.
She seemed bemused by speculation that a Rice candidacy could set up an unprecedented all-woman matchup with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, who is widely expected to seek the presidency.
"I never wanted to run for anything — I don't think I even ran for class anything when I was in school," she said. "I'm going to try to be a really good secretary of state; I'm going to work really hard at it.
"I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It's really hard for me to imagine myself in that role."
She was then pressed on whether she would rule out a White House bid by reprising Gen. William T. Sherman's 1884 declaration: "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."
"Well, that's not fair," she protested with a chuckle. "The last thing I can — I really can't imagine it."
Several Republicans have floated the idea of a Rice candidacy to counter Mrs. Clinton's prospects, especially since several Republican officials with national prominence, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, have ruled out pursuing the party's 2008 nomination.
Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani are often mentioned as prospective candidates ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I'm seeing an interesting, and I think mistaken, assumption in this entire thread. The people who are posting here tonight seem to think that abortion is the number one motivator of votes. Well, let me tell you, I called over 100 people in several sections of the country in the two days before the election, reminding the party faithful to get out and vote. And it was interesting what they told *me* -- they were interested in defense, defense, defense, and terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. A few of them also mentioned the Swifties and Kerry's lack of integrity.
But ... Not one person said one word about abortion to me. Granted, I didn't bring it up either, but the lack of hearing about it with all the people I talked to does indicate to me that abortion was NOT their number one topic. And it might not be in the next election, either.
"The GOP had better come up with a viable candidate by 2008, or I'm outta here."
I'm with you.
Until today I was really excited about Condi.
There is nothing "mild" about being pro-life.
Republican better figure this out before they screw it up.
That she opposes late-term abortion and supports parental notification is good, but such talk is really meaningless unless she would be willing to back it up by nominating conservative judges.
Its sad to see her parrot leftwing rhetoric like, "she said she would not want the government "forcing its views" on abortion."
That is exactly what the Sup Court did with Roe. Before that it was decided at the state level, and thus had a good chance of reflecting the dominant values of the people of each state, but with Roe, the views of a very elite section of the government was forced on the entire nation.
I think all of the GOP cheerleading for Rice may come back to bit them in the ass. By propping her up now, it will give the media and Dems ammo by which to attack the GOP when the base realizes that she is (most likely) out of touch with them on social and cultural issues. Then the common refrain will be that when it comes down to it, the evil GOP just can't bring itself to nominate a black candidate, especially a black woman! That such would be the case because of the same liberal social views which make a white guy like Giuliani unattractive also, (and which makes moderate Democrats unacceptable to their base) would not be pointed out.
Fine. I'm not going to dispute you. I don't speak for all Americans or, indeed as you have suggested, any Americans. Of course defense and terrorism are extremely important. But do you think they will be quite so pressing in 2008 as last year? And I would never expect abortion as a number one issue on a ticket. I understand that it won't ever be a number one issue. But I see abortion as an issue of moral values and I do believe that values are never far from the top of a [winning] ticket.
=== "I am a strong proponent of parental notification.
There is no such thing.
If she's opposed to the government's "forcing its views" on the populace where abortion is concerned, she should be at least "mildly" pro-life instead.
This "mildly" pro-abort stance she holds has irked me since her debut in the the 2000 campaign. Not only is it the same "mildly" deathist stance all Republican first wives evidently must have, the fact it's countenanced at all -- particularly in such not-so-mildly Orwellian terms -- is a real testament to the smooth brains of the mildly "Stoopid Party."
Abortion most certainly is not the most important issue. But why should the GOP accept a candidate who is left of the base on this issue when they could get a candidate who shares Rice's strengths on defense issues but who is also pro-life? The Dems certainly arent' going to accept anything less than a hard-line pro-choicer.
Now, if a Rice or Giuliani could convince the base that they would at a minimum not use the office of President to advance the pro-choice cause, and that they would nominate conservative judges, then their candidacy would be more attractive. But really, if a Reagan and Bush wind up picking just two reliably good Sup Court justices between them, then what chance is there that a Rice or Giuliani could be counted on?
Hi. You have me intrigued. What do you mean when you say all Republican first wives must have a mildly deathist stance?
I don't get it. You just read what she said, but didn't understand it. Implicit in what she said is a rejection of Roe. Roe was interference in the rights of the states. She appears to reject that. That's not leftwing rhetoric, at all. Roe did what she disapproves of!
Whatsa problem?
Be Seeing You,
Chris
"Why ever would God see a person acting according to his or her conscience as acting stupidly?"
Perhaps because God expects us to act according to HIS rules.
It's really up to the senate on who gets on the supreme court. Jesus himself could be president and he would meet a democrat filibuster. Frist is afraid of the "nuclear option".
The key to the Abortion debate is the Supreme Rulers. Without commenting on their fiat, Condi leaves the status quo immutable. That's not a good sign.
I am glad to hear her agreeing to the common majoritarian view on abortion restrictions. A President who pushed those positions and succeeded would be a hero(ine).
(WCC: Thanks for posting the relevant bits....)
PAT NIXON (whose husband effected NSSM-200):
"I know a lot, but you have to keep it to yourself when you're in this position." As First Lady, Thelma "Pat" Ryan Nixon generally kept both her opinions and her activities to herself, especially where the press was concerned. That silence led many to refer to her as "Plastic Pat," a woman whose smile seemed forever fixed on a face that rarely expressed ideas or emotions.But such a nickname overlooks the strong political opinions Pat Nixon expressed on particular issues. She responded to questions about the Vietnam War without evasion, publicly supported the Equal Rights Amendment and the appointment of women to Supreme Court vacancies, believed that abortion was a "private decision,"
BETTY FORD (whose husband continued NSSM-200 as NSDM-314):
She wore a mood ring and pantsuits. She liked disco and danced the hustle. She was pro-choice, pro-ERA, and pro-women in general. She had been divorced, seen a psychiatrist, and been diagnosed with breast cancer. In many ways, Elizabeth "Betty" Bloomer Ford was like a lot of other American women.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Laura Bush, the wife of President-elect George W. Bush, said Friday she believes the country could do more to minimize the number of abortions, but also indicated she doesn't believe the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortions should be overturned.
"No, I don't think it should be overturned," Mrs. Bush told NBC's "Today Show" when asked about the high court's decision, Roe vs. Wade.
Nancy Reagan comes closest, of course. In fact, Reagan did attribute his turnabout on the subject to her influence. (He was the only GOP President I know of who could actually articulate a sound and compelling pro-life argument.)
Sadly, Mrs. Reagan is now so firmly entrenched in the legitimatizing of the Human Farming and harvesting of fetuses made possible only by a right to "choose" that her perhaps once pro-life views are certainly mitigated, if not completely obviated in the process.
I think that -- though her husband made a career out of losing Presidential elections -- Elizabeth Dole's stand deserves a special mention:
Finally, that same year, the wrestling was over, and she was ready to go public with her abortion views. She told Newsday in 1990 that, like then-President George Bush, "I'm pro-life," but asserted that, as labor secretary, "It wasn't an issue." Abortion didn't come up again until Dole joined her husband on the '96 campaign trail. That year, she gave a New York Post reporter her most candid remarks yet. Asked whether she supported a constitutional ban on abortion, she replied: "Yes, uh-huh. There are three exceptions [that we support]: life of the mother, rape and incest. I have been pro-life.
I think what many GOP fail to realize (beside the FACT that abortion is and always has been a GOP policy), is that this "rape/incest" provision is the linchpin keeping abortion legal.
Unless they prove themselves to be the most clever Bait 'n Switch artists politics has ever known, the FACT of the matter is that the allegedly "mildly pro-life" Republican stance which insists on certain exceptions to the sanctity of life is the bedrock of the right to choose which lives may or may not be protected under the law.
As left/liberal activists in Democrat states beg for Hillary to be our President by presenting candidates who will draw a large Republican no-vote,...
The answer is "no."
I truly believe this document (as well as NSSM-200) should be required reading for all who think it was the "left" who formulated this nation's disastrous population and environmental policies.
That's because Democrats are not the party whose mantra is: "I'm personally opposed, but ..."
It's only the Republicans who feel the need to compromise the objective truths they allegedly hold dear.
This post is disgusting, and despite what you said, it is slander against Miss Rice. It's quite interesting that you just happened to sign up for Free Republic today...
All this time I thought she was a Christian. Was I misinformed?
Condi no!
Death only comes to those who live.
Bush III in '08
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.