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 ...
mildly pro choice sounds like little bit pregnant.
It's like slavery in the 1850s. Those who considered it morally wrong would not be placated with half measures (how can one be "half-free" -- part of the country allow slavery). I am Southern, but from my modern perspective and Amercian Christian belief (Freedom is God's will to every man--We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.) I would have to agree that slavery was immoral. I feel this way about abortion. It's just wrong to kill a baby.
This always has been the sticking point ... as if the woman -- hopped up on hormones and under the extreme duress of an unexpected pregnancy -- were somehow barred from the defenses of genuine mental turmoil. You punish the abortionists, Callahan. They are the murderers-for-hire whose shills actually seek out and counsel women to pay for the murder services they offer. A few of the more deformed consciences aside, most women suffer -- both physiologically and especially psychologically -- from abortion. I think any court of law ought to be able to make the call based on the circumstances of the woman's apparent premeditation or conviction where the abortion was concerned. For example, a mentally-deficient woman or a minor hustled off to the abortionist by a guardian or parent has no choice in the matter and is entirely free from culpability. A woman clearly distressed by the one-time experience of abortion likely would be best served by a probationary placement of some sort in a home for unwed mothers or adoption agency. But a woman who has three or four "birth control" abortions under her belt already and who secures the services of a trusted abortionists for some extravagant sum probably should share to a far greater extent the punishment meted out to her longtime partner in crime. Does that sound rational?
I am disturbed by this but I have come to the realization that conservatives will have to compromise their beliefs once again in 2008.There are no conservative alternatives.
Mike Pence,Mike Steele,and Ken Blackwell are not ready or nationally known.We will have to compromise in 2008.Pence will hold the line on spending in the house,then we will have Pence,a true conservative,as our President in 2016.
Definitely, Section8...by the way, animation is NOT reality, just in case you were not aware...
She is also a black unmarried female...no kids, no fiance... a dedicated professional no doubt about it...
But presidential?...a war chief?....electable?
This ain't England...
The presidency of the USA is a man's job...
end of story..
imo
Whatever that means...
Sorry, I forgot you couldn't read.
You're simply telling me I'm wrong and then restating my position. Sitting on one's hands because those candidates didn't share their position is precisely what I was saying; I never claimed it was some Machiavellian "positioning" or message-sending--I simply stated that 41 and 43 both suffered the wrath of voters who didn't share their beliefs. You can't get much more basic than that.
That's some intelligent level of debate you got going on there. "You can't read!" Wow. You sure won that debate on the facts.
But others -- pro-life Republicans -- will do even better. No pro-abortionist as the nominee.
I could care less if she is pro-life or pro-choice. What is her position on Roe v Wade? That is the real question. BTW, we still don't know where Bush stands on Roe v Wade.
In key states that once were Democratic but have moved Republican, abortion is a top issue why. The South used to be Democratic. A big reason it's now Republican is because Reagan embraced social conservatism - including pro-life. If the GOP now abandons Reagan's pro-life position, it can look at going back to the minority status it had before Reagan, because it will lose a key voter element of its majority standing.
Anybody but HITLERY!
You're right!
Condi's statement indicates that she is
Opposed to Roe v. Wade
Against federal funding
Against Partial Birth
In Favor of Parental Notification
and
Very clear that abortion is not something you want your daughter or friend to go through.
She is clearly in favor of states rights in the matter and giving consideration to women that are victims of rape and incest. Her judges would overturn Roe v. Wade.
Don't get caught up in the battle of a constitutional amendment, that will never pass, and lose the war. An abortion on demand candidate is not the answer your looking for.
Nope you are still missing the point. They aren't sitting on their hands. They aren't invoking any wrath. They are just going about their lives as they always do. Elections simply aren't part of their lives. The only reason they make an exception to get up and vote is when they hear about someone who thinks just as they do. It is a subtle but important distinction.
It is the reason a whole bunch of new primary voters seemed to come from nowhere when Pat Robertson ran in 1988. It is the reason the marriage initiative on the California ballot in 2000 won by 62% (in California!). It is the reason why conservatives swept the California primaries that year winning under-funded longshot races up and down the state despite an open primary.
It's not about voters who occasionally remove themselves from the voting process, it is about unlikely voters who occasionally INCLUDE themselves in the voting process. If you don't get it at this point, you never will.
No, dude--yet again, you're talking apples and I'm talking oragnes. Maybe if you lost the attitude I'd try to show you where you completely miss my initial point, but you're so missing it that it's not worth my time. Later.
I never said or implied otherwise. I said that their choices have consequences. I never claimed they weren't allowed to make those choices, ever.
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.