Posted on 03/13/2005 12:11:42 PM PST by tcg
" ... However, I know that if the Republicans go the way of Guliani, and other "pro-choice" folks, it will lose many of us ... "
Time will tell. I don't see that happening. (eternal optimist mode)
Should it occur, it will be the first time I will be happy I am and "elder" statesman, because it won't be only the fact that ... "it will lose many of us".
The country will become part and parcel of Europa. ;)
Parle vous Francais?
Mothers were not sent to jail before Roe v. Wade erupted like a bomb. Abortion doctors were occasionally sent to jail or lost their licenses to practice medicine.
There were relatively few abortions, and few abortion related deaths, contrary to the propaganda. Women were more careful not to get pregnant unless they were in a position to have the child. There were far fewer illegitimate births than there are now, even with abortion.
What you didn't have back then was unlimited unprotected sex.
Condi has the stuff all right.
> I voted for Goldwater in 1963. ;)
My parents voted for him in 1964...
Really? There are people here who would rather have Clinton as President instead of Rice if those were the choices? Who are they?
Have you ever read an obituary for an aborted child?
Death comes to those who live.
Abortion denies life, a fact that can not be denied.
Allen / Bush III in '08
gpapa
I remember reading a long time back that she believed abortion was not murder, but felt roe vs wade should be overturned so states could decide if they wanted it or not, kind of like the reverse Cuomo view.
If you wanted proof that Rudy was thinking of running for prez, see what his new views are on gays and guns.
He now claims he's for civil unions but against gay marriage, and regarding guns, he likens them to cars, with a get a "get a licience and you can get a gun" kind of view, he's backtracking so fast, its almost bizare.
Just curious though--if the social conservatives voted for Bush because of this one issue, where has it gotten them? Abortion is as legal today as it was six years ago.
There was more abortions in the 2000-2004 period, then the 1996-2000 period. I guess its the thought that counts.
I'm assuming your referring to Jeb Bush, however, I doubt that he would like to be referred to as 3.
Since George W. Bush is his brother, he would (funny as it may sound) also qualify as number 2 from his father.
---"Just curious though--if the social conservatives voted for Bush because of this one issue, where has it gotten them? Abortion is as legal today as it was six years ago."---
Nothing, not even slight limitations on abortion, can or will hold up until there is an overturning of Roe vs. Wade by the Supreme Court. Those of us who do require a candidate to be pro-life know this. This is also why the Democrats are willing to lose seats, credibility, trash Senate tradition, and use any means necessary to prevent Bush from making judicial appointments.
What we've gotten from it is a candidate who will nominate pro-life judges. What is making things difficult is that there have been no Supreme Court openings yet for Bush to make a nomination, and it'll be a cold day in hell before a pro-choice justice steps down while a Republican is President.
Now it's up to the Senate to do their job.
With all respect, you act as though this is a foregone conclusion. Of course it is not. I am making a choice now to support a different candidate. I have suggested Senator Santorum. He would be a great choice. The Codi v Hilary discussion is only the first trial balloon in a race that is years off.
No one deserves to be born into that life.
I only meant it metaphorically of course.
Allen / Jeb or Jeb / Allen in '08 , take your pick
gpapa
Probably the same election I voted for him, November 22, 1963.
Besides, children should be seen and not herded! ;)
You are right about Condi being right, stuff and all!
Sorry you missed my point.
I did not miss your's.
I concede your point. I just prefer someone other than Condi Rice.
gpapa
the Presidency is not an entry-level elective position.
. . . and neither is it an old war horse's position - I believe I read that nobody has been elected president who did not first attain at least the vice presidency within 14 years of first election to statewide office as senator (or, almost always, governor).We don't elect presidents because of who their daddy was or is - otherwise R. Prescott Reagan would be a serious contender if not a shoo-in for the Republican nomination. In fact we seldom - only twice out of the 43 men elected so far - elect the son of a president. But we should not decline to consider a well-qualified person because of who his daddy is, either. Or his brother, for that matter. And if you look at it that way, and ask who is
you find yourself questioning exactly who would be a better choice for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination than Jeb Bush.
- a popular two-term Republican governor
- a fresh face on the political scene, unlike Senators Dole or Kerry
- a person who (unlike Condi, as the article notes) you would be comfortable seeing on the Supreme Court
- a person with name recognition
- from a major swing state which has never before been the home of a president,
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.