CONDI COUNTERS HILL'S OSAMA JAB

The media wouldnt have any problem with this at all . They would go to Julian Bond or some other racist POS and have her called an Aunt Thomasina and that would be open season on her.

Let's assume W gets one more SCOTUS pick. Game, set, match. Abortion is off the table. I think it is anyway as SECURITY is the one and ONLY issue.

The conservative "base" is fractured already. You want to fracture it further? Throw Condi Rice into the race and label her "pro-abortion". That'll get us all together, won't it?

We really must do something about your refusal to read threads. As I said before, I will vote for Condi if she is nominated, and I don'think she will do a bad job. As I also said before, the liberal media will make sure everyone is a aware of the fact that Dr. Rice is pro abortion specifically because they also know that this will fracture the Republican base. That's why it is important for people to know this now, before they get too hot & bothered about nominating her.

What I would like to see is a Jeb Bush/Condi Rice ticket, endorsed by George Bush and bankrolled by Walmart.

She's "reluctantly pro-choice," favors parental notification and a ban on late-term abortions. Which makes her better than any Democrat on the horizon.

I hate it when people do this without doing research.

Condi's position on abortion has been stated time and time again. She's opposed to a federal role in the whole business. Her beliefs on abortion are as follows:

1. "I believe the President has been in exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the culture of life."
2. Ban late-term abortions. (This would include the horrendous, murderous practice of partial-birth abortions.)
3. Ban federal funding of abortions.
4. Parental notification for minors seeking abortions.

She's basically where the President is on the issue. Bush has always described himself as "pro-life" but has never called for an outright ban on abortions. Rice has called herself "reluctantly pro-choice" or "moderately pro-choice" which was a dumb thing to do within the Republican Party. Remember though, that she was doing this back in the late nineties at Stanford. However, her positions aren't exactly those of Rudy Giuliani or Hillary now, are they? From these statements, I suspect that Rice rejects the existing architecture of Roe v. Wade and would like to see the issue returned to the States.

One more SCOTUS justice for Bush and this issue is off the table, anyway.

Try to do some research, people. "Pro-choice" as in NARAL pro-choice she ain't.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

She's basically where the President is on the issue. Bush has always described himself as "pro-life" but has never called for an outright ban on abortions. Rice has called herself "reluctantly pro-choice" or "moderately pro-choice" which was a dumb thing to do within the Republican Party. Remember though, that she was doing this back in the late nineties at Stanford. However, her positions aren't exactly those of Rudy Giuliani or Hillary now, are they?

Chris, I love ya, but you are simply wrong about this. Rice is not "basically on the same page as Bush." She is firmly on the same page as Clinton, and she is just as wrong. She is in the "safe, legal and rare" camp: While she is claims to be morally opposed to abortion, the quote you provided out of context could easily BE Hillary Clinton speaking. Here's the rest of it:

With little prompting Rice continued, “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.”

BTW, this interview was from the week of March 14, 2005, not when she was an indoctrinated Stamford undergrad.

She goes on:

"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.”

In other words, she assumes that we will all forget the the current Federal ruling is illegal, as long as it's not coming out of our pockets. Do you honestly think that this is Bush's view, and if so, why did he appoint Alito? Keep in mind that no president can deal with the political flack that would accompany a call for an outright ban. The rest of his presidency would become about this issue. And the issue will NEVER be off the table. And Machiavellian Democrat is smart enough to understand that you make sure Republicans argue about upcoming SCOTUS nominations when they are running a pro-choice candidate. If the shoe were on the other foot, I sure would.

But let's go back to that 2005 interview:

When told of the belief that in order to be elected a Republican president, a contender must be firmly pro-life, Rice responded, “I'm not trying to be elected.”

Sorry. No sale.

You simply ignore what she said in plain view. She is for restrictions on abortion rights, which is against what the NARAL/ Hillary crowd is for right now. Saying that she is a pro-abort is wrong and no amount of peddling that fiction will alter what Rice put in print in her own words. An individual that wants to ban partial birth, is for parental notification, and is in favor of the freaking Hyde Amendment, for God's sake, is someone that Republicans can support. That is NOT someone who is a huge R v. Wade supporter, imho. Saying that she is on the same page as Clinton is simply your panicky attempt to paint Condi Rice as a baby killer with fire tongs. I've seen this before. As I said before-no sale.

You'd do better by not ignoring the facts that you so conveniently cut and pasted for me. BTW, Condi was never an undergrad at Stanford.

What you aren't willing to admit is that there are too many NARAL-type women within the Republican Party. I know. I've seen them. They voted for Clinton in two elections. Democrats are counting on them to abandon us so Hillary can make the Supreme Court appointments. As it stands, this issue won't be resolved until the issue is returned to the state legislatures for disposition.

Republicans are very close to moving this issue to the States, where it should be. One more SCOTUS appointment and the issue becomes somewhat moot. However, I say again, saying that Rice's position is the same as a NAG's like Hillary's is cheap, and is beneath you. I expected better from you, and have seen better from you in the past.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Chris, you're obviously in the Rice camp, so I'm not trying to "sell" you on anything. I used to be there along with you. But then the facts spoke for themselves. I still think she'd make a pretty good president. My point is that she can't win. She admitted as much herself in the quote I provided for you.

And comparing her to NARL is like saying someone isn't liberal because they don't always agree with communists. NARL is an extremist group that wants to destimafy abortions and make them more common. Like Rice, Hillary is on record as saying "Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion." What's the big difference in their views? That Rice supported a ban on partial birth abortions? Big deal. The whole thing was a throw-away for undecided voters. We aren't talking about that group here. Their position on abortion obviously would obviously be irrelevant in a contest between two pro-choice candidates.

Abortion IS already legal. Being pro-life doesn't mean "hey, life is good. I like life. Abortions are bad." Being pro life, means "the current situation is intolerable. The law must be changed." This is not what Condi Rice believes, and you know it. And the voters who care about abortion will know it too.

Personally, I don't think President Dr. Condoleezza Rice would have the slightest real effect on the legal status of abortion in this country. My point is that she is a pro-choice political candidate. As much as you wish this weren't the case, you can't change that.

FINALLY they are beginning to fire back...about effin time.