Tancredo deserves it, though. He knew better than to try to throw DeLay under the bus.
Posted on 04/16/2005 7:51:04 PM PDT by jla
"We know nothing really about her, but by God, Condi is our gal!" --- Anonymous Freeper
I've repeatedly asked here at FR for anyone to tell me *CONDI'S* stand on a number of issues ranging from economics to school prayer.
I have yet to receive one reply to my queries on where Miss Rice stands on a number of issues.
So can someone please tell me, especially you, Section 9, why I should be excited about a possible Condi Rice presidency run?
FYI: Miss R. in my opinion will prove to be an excellent Sec of State. But POTUS? Sorry, unlike a lot of Freepers my vote requires more than a cute smile or even worse, a fanatical appreciation of the Condi stare.
No wonder so many here can't seem to get behind Tom DeLay.
I doubt she would use that as a litmus test.
Provide me with a link. I am not disputing you, I'd just like to read it.
I provided a link, it's your turn.
Many pro-choice Republicans believe that abortion should be left up to the states, in which case they would appoint judges that would overturn Roe versus Wade, and stop federal abortion funding. As a practical matter, they'd be no different than pro-life presidential candidates in that regard. She needs to make a strong clear statement to that effect. We shall see.
Tancredo deserves it, though. He knew better than to try to throw DeLay under the bus.
This quote seems to substantiate your views on Rice but does not negate the fact that she is pro abortion.
Miss Rice said abortion should be "as rare a circumstance as possible," although without excessive government intervention. "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm
Exclude the part about "government intervention" and it's the stock answer provided by pro aborts. To me it's like saying that a little bit of murder is ok (Let's make it rare) as long as the government is not involved one way or another The "government" via the Supreme Court, found a constitutional "right" to murder.
Mr. Sammon: That was the phrase that kept coming up.
Miss Rice: Yeah, mildly pro-choice. That's what that means. I think that there are a lot of things that we can unite around, and that's where I would tend to be. I'm very comfortable with the president's view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, "Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?" And so I believe the president has been in exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible.
Mr. Sammon: The only reason I even brought it up was because there is a school of thought that says that no conservative Republican can be elected president if they are not firmly pro-life. I know you haven't ruled anything in or out but...
Miss Rice: I'm not trying to be elected.
Mr. Sammon: But it sounds like you do not wish to change the laws that now allow ...
Miss Rice: Well, I don't spend my entire life thinking about these issues. You know, I spend my time really thinking about the foreign policy issues. But you know that I'm a deeply religious person and so, from my point of view, these extremely difficult moral issues where we have — where we're facing issues with technology and the prolongation of life and the fact that very, very young babies are able to survive now — very small babies are able to survive — these are great moral issues.
What I do think is that we should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other. So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it.
Link http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050311-102521-9024r.htm
Anybody who wants unborn babies murdered are useless as far as I am concerned.
We are of the same opinion.
I would ~ she's alive!
>>>>> Her views on abortion mirror almost exactly those of President Bush. And he certainly got elected.
Not in my opinion they don't. You can keep blowing smoke in an effort to promote her all you like, her words are there for each of us to read and interpret. I've done that, and she isn't a candidate I'll support.
patent
"From what I have been able to find out she is pro-second amendment which is good, but also "pro choice" and if true, she is out of contention IMHO. The Republicans will lose the next election if they dismiss the pro-life constituency. We will not vote for the democrat, but we will vote for a third party or not vote at all. They are in danger of losing their base if they continue to pander to minority issues".
Since you can read minds howzabout the lottery number for the next powerball? Read the post again. It's about abortion not race. If I mean race that is what I will address.
example 1: The present administration is pandering to a racial minority (hispanic) with present border policies.
example 2: President Clinton pandered to racial minorities when he pardoned Blacks, Puerto Ricans terrorists and Hassidic Jews as he left office, hoping to affect his wife's election run.
example 3: The democrats continue to pander to the basest elements within the black community for votes.
example 4: Ever hear algore speaking at a Black church? That's pandering
I guess you would have been upset if I said that she would be niggardly with the federal purse strings.
When are the republicans going to get it?
If she would be, that would be great.
Dumb ass.
Don't play stupid. You were clocked coming out the gate. I've ran across many here who have sheepishly ran the same game long, long, long before you got here.
Part of the problem is there isn't a viable candidate on the list.
I love Condi but she isn't electable.
Wow, we went from a civil discussion to name calling rather quickly. It's obvious that logic and rationality are alien concepts to you. Please feel free NOT to reply to my posts and I will reciprocate.
>>>>>But the point swheats raises is a valid one. You can disagree with her point all you want, but it remains valid.
You can disagree with my points all you want as well, but they remain valid. Electorally, its her pro-choice views that end it for her.
patent
Her being "mildly pro-choice" will sink her. You're right.
It is. Who says it isn't?
She has never said that. What she said was: "So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it."
She's not saying that she is on the other side, she's saying that of the two sides in the debate those on the pro-life side should not be forced to finance those on the abortion side.
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.