Regards, Ivan
Regards, Ivan
Ping!
If she's nominated, she has my vote. But it's way too early to be talking about 2008. Bush has just started his 2nd term and there is an election next year to prepare for.
Beware the Hillary trap: Republicans nominate Condi and then the Dems nominate Evan Bayh instead of Hillary. Condi might have a tough time beating Bayh (or somebody like him).
condi's got my vote.
Put me in Condi's corner.
Please!!!!!
Way too early to tell how this will turn out. One thought, why not have her run for VP? Problem is, Hillary was elected to the Senate, so she has been through a campaign. America may be more ready to elect a woman as VP than for president. All that said, she is definitely in the top 10 of my list for who I'd want to represent us as a nation.
"Condi" good!
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!)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
All of this 2008 talk is an attempt to "lame duck" GWB ASAP.
That said, Condi is single, pro-choice, and has no experience as an executive or as a candidate for office. I like her security policies as much as the next FReeper, but what little I have seen of her speaking I am underwhelmed.
I intend to pooh-pooh all 2008 talk until December 2006, and by then I hope to see several experienced, polished, married, CONSERVATIVES vying for the nomination. Then let's have a robust, yet dignified primary concerning THE ISSUES and nominate a strong candidate who will cut taxes, defend and promote freedom (including the freedom to keep and bear arms), and will uphold the sanctity of ALL life!
Oh yeah, AND WIN, BABY!!!!!