Posted on 03/12/2005 4:43:56 PM PST by MadIvan
shrillary won't be around, politically, in '08 ... somewhere along the line the blog-o-sphere will bring her down
Absolutely, put Condi on the ticket! (After reading all the jabs at her on two other threads, I think I've suddenly found the sane Freepers!)
That's fine for after the primary. Before the primary it's time do decide who's driving the bus. I'd have no real problem with Condi as the driver. Although I think she needs some experience first, maybe as assistant driver (VP).
Hmm! Who should we vote for? Smart, accomplished Condi chick, or phony, lying, pretending screaming white trash? Hitlery fooled Newyorkers, she won't fool rest of America. Run b1tch!!
My question is whether she views the constitution as a "living document" and whether she sees abortion as belonging to the states.
Roe V. Wade federalized the abortion issue and imposed one standard on all of the states.
We need more Clarence Thomases and fewer David Souters. She does lack political experience.....Maybe that is a positive.
Have you seen all the Condi bashing going on on some other threads? The conservative "purist" death wish strikes again!
Not a bad idea as long as McCain and Rudy are nowhere near the ticket.
I have an alergy to McCain that almost rivals the one I have for Jimmy Carter.
Yeah, you're going to make a lot of headway calling the overwhelming majority of the Republican party extremists.
Fact is, if Condi's the nominee, we lose. Pro abort Republicans cannot win national elections. Evangelicals will stay home in droves. You can talk about the politcs of it all until you're blue in the face.... they're still going to stay home.
Nominating Condi is suicide, IMO.
I am pro-life. I'd be extremely relunctant to vote for a pro-Choice candidate, but I probably would if national security trumped everything here at home.
I'd like to ask a question of the pro-life contingent that considers the personal views of a candidate on abortion to be a deal breaker.
First, I realize the end goal is to cease abortion. Short of that I realize a reversal of R v. W is the current goal. Currently the Republican Party has two main coalitions that may not necessarily be on the same page socially, but have a common interest in ending the activism of the Judiciary.
Both sides are passionate about the violations of the constitution occuring to enforce the court's private opinions on citizens. One because they have a deep regard for the law that laid the foundation for our republic. Another because the Court is infringing on the right of the American people to determine the viability of abortion and homosexual marriage, to name two issues, that are in direct opposition to the personal beliefs of many. One doesn't have to be a conservative socially to be in support of ending the current overreaching of the court.
Condi has stated she is
-against partial birth abortion
-for parental notification
-doesn't believe abortion should be promoted as a preferred alternative
-doesn't believe government should be in the business of funding it
-and, from recent comments, may be in favor of the issue being returned to the states to decide.
Now, I ask, how is this position at odds with pro-lifers other than personally, she might be accepting of abortion early in the pregnancy?
A constitutionalist in support of giving the issue back to the people to decide in their own states, a reversal of R v W in effect, IS what I thought pro-Lifers were aiming towards in the short term.
I've been giving this some thought, and would consider whatever the differences personally, publically her positions advance pro-lifer's goals. In this we would appear to be on the same side. Just as constitutionalists in the grassroots are on the same side as pro-lifers in that the end goal would produce the same result, one that we'd all be able to live with.
The question then becomes, IS Condi in favor of returning the issue to the states? And, could we take her at her word on this.
Yeah, right. Larry Sabato also said, in the weeks before Election Day, that he didn't think that President would be re-elected. Woe to anyone who thinks anything to do with Condi is cotton-candy fluff.
I take that back, I hope they DO think of her that way, the same way they mis-underestimated George W. Bush., and with the same outcome!
Condoleezza Rice is the only possible nominee that Hillary can beat. That's why the media is pushing this idea. The GOP will lose huge parts of its base in '08 if it nominates Condoleezza Rice. A vote for Rice in the GOP primaries is a vote for Hillary in the general election.
I disagree with you, WPTG, that Condi's posistion on abortion as stated so far is at odds with pro-Lifers.
IF she is a strong state's rights proponent (would seem so but further clarification needed), against partial birth, for parental notification, against government funding of abortions, believes abortion shouldn't be encouraged...well, it's certainly an issue worth debate. In essence we'd be on the same side, if not necessarily entirely same personal view.
"She was pressed on whether she was prepared to repeat the famous denial of General William T Sherman, who said in 1884: “If nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.” "
Of course Hillary would never be asked such a question.
I sure hope Pataki wins reelection since if Hillary wants to quit her Senate seat (if she gets reelected) then Pataki would assign a GOP replacement.
1) Without the pro-lifers, the GOP will NOT BE the majority party.
2) Talk to us about getting on the bus when we know who's driving. It ain't Condi yet.
And the fact that she's "mildly pro-choice" pretty much means she shouldn't just expect us to hand her the keys to the bus.
The "purist" can stuff it -- their brand of conservatism is annoying! The my way or no way is a little hard to take most of the time!
We just ousted the "purist" from leadership of our County Party because they were taking it down, down, down. Now another Conservative and I are Chair/Vice Chair and reaching out to other Conservative Republicans that were run off by the "purist."
What concerns me about her as a candidate is that she has never held any elected office at any level of government. Very few presidents started in politics at the presidential level. From what I can remember all of them were generals.
My question is whether she views the constitution as a "living document" and whether she sees abortion as belonging to the states.
That is the key question, imo, and what people should focus on. Her personal feelings about abortion are nothing but a smokescreen for the heart of the issue. If she views the constitution as a "living document", she's out of the running. If she is a constitutionalist she'd favor state rights and the reversal of R v W on that basis alone. If so, people are having hysterics over nothing. She'd essentially be on our side. BTW, I still haven't fallen victim to the thought 1) Hill is the nominee 2) Condi is the only one that can beat her. I tend to reject the conventional wisdom of the day.
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.