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