Posted on 12/21/2001 6:52:48 PM PST by LSUsoph
Dick Cheney due to health reasons decides to withdrawl his name from the ticket in 2004 after a very successful term as Vice President. He figures he can still stay close to the President and advise him in any way possible, but not have to deal with the every day hustle of being the Vice-President of the country. So who would President Bush pick to be his new VP? I think Condi Rice would be a wonderful choice but I dont know if this country (especially the Republican Party) is ready for a VP who is black, a woman, and from the South (Alabama). I also love Powell but would he and Pres Bush be able to work hand in hand as P-VP? Donald Rumsfeld is a terrific Sec of Defense and I think he would make a great President one day...maybe him being VP could lead us to 8 great years of a Rumsfeld Presidency after 8 great years of Bush. Other candidates that come to mind would be Tom Ridge, Liddy Dole, Ashcroft, and dare i say it...JOHN MCCAIN ( i know, i know, but i think the Bush-MCcain ticket would be a shoe in). My pick would have to be Rice, she is worth her weight in Gold. She is a genius, works well with Bush, and would really be great for the country. And what would the naysayers say after Bush nominates a black woman to be his right hand WOMman?? I think they would just have to throw up the white flag! GO DUBYA!
This is what we folks in the statistical analysis business call 'anecdotal evidence'. It is unscientific, and proves nothing whatsoever. It barely qualifies as a data item.
You have to leave it to the dem party to get all worked up about race and not the Republican Party. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Republican Party fight for a Black man for the Supreme Court over the objections of the dems? Didn't the Republican Party fight for the first female to be on the Supreme Court?
I wondered how long it would be, before someone asked me this...
After all, whatever stand I choose makes no difference, when I decide to debate an issue based on facts and logic. Emotion does well, when trying to understand your spouse, your children, your life and where you want to be, in it. Unfortunately, emotion rarely matters, in the legal arena...
My particular feelings on whether pro-choice or pro-life, are utterly irrelevant. But, FWIW, here goes.
I cannot hold a baby in my arms, and not be amazed at the marvel of nature, that allows such a tiny thing to grow to be an adult. I think that, were abortion done on every street corner, there'd be a lot less FReepers out here, tonight. I think abortion makes sex a recreational activity- one with very little, in the way of consequences. And I believe that many abortions are performed, because having a child was an inconvenience that could easily be disposed of...
The liberals would have you believe that there is some sort of caveat, about saving the life of the mother, which transcends all other arguments from the pro-life crowd... But that's BS, and everybody knows it. It's a question of convenience, and nothing more...
This being said, I also recognize the realities of the current society: life has little meaning, the "if it feels good, do it" crowd has been at the helm for way too long, and sex is simply one more extracurricular activity to enjoy with (or withold from) a significant other. Gay activity is considered heroic, even daring (in light of the AIDS epidemic). Right is wrong, wrong is now right. The world has been turned nearly upside down...
Getting rid of a federal law allowing abortion will NOT change society. It'll force it back to the state courts, and they will have to decide. The states that decide to abolish abortion, will cause a black market- as with drugs, where there is a demand, there WILL be a supply...
So, what would changing Roe v. Wade accomplish??? NOTHING.
The change, as JoeMamma aptly enunciated, is necessary at a societal level. Until this happens, and we have true change in attitudes about premarital sex, abortion and move back towards "old school" attitudes... The Roe v. Wade decision will continue to be a straw man, useful to divide the conservatives, and useless in reality...
FReegards,
Nothing here or elsewhere gives me enough insight into her abortion views. I will not vote for a GOP ticket if any of its members are less pro-life than either our current President or Vice President.
Roe v. Wade was not the product of a consensus among the American people -- instead, it was the product of a very liberal court that created a so-called right out of thin air. If Bush Sr. hadn't gaffed with Souter, we'd be one justice away from eliminating that anomaly of a decision. As it stands, my hunch is that two of the libs would need to be replaced.
I for one don't buy this notion that conservatives here are selling -- i.e., that there would have to be a "major opinion shift" in this country to outlaw abortion. I believe it's actually a closer call among the population than 30 years of baby killing has led far too many "defeatists" to believe.
Talk, talk, talk, blather, blather, blather, if you ever choose to post a fact, please ping me.
Sounds like the Republican party really has some problems.
OK, want name recognition? Tom Selleck? Mel Gibson? Younger than the 65-75 yo crowd, and how could the soccer moms vote against them? They are better looking than El Rapist, and being decent actors, I bet they could even learn to bite their lower lip...
I'll tell you what won the election for GeoW, and it wasn't pro-life or pro-abortion (although it might have helped). That election was too close. The only thing that made me, and tens of thousands of other potential third-party voters, punch the hole next to Bush's name, was the strong support and campaign by the NRA. They frightened me but good over what might happen with Gore, and they kept telling me that Bush was from Texas, where the second amendment is sacred.
I can't say I've seen anything done to remove the 20,000+ infringements, but Ashcroft has resisted (so far) adding more.
If Dubya's running mate is not a STRONG, unquestionable supporter of RKBA, I'll have to look at that Republican Platform long and hard before I vote for dismantling the BOR, no matter how high the polls show his approval rating. And I don't care what colour, sex, or religion that running mate is, as long is it is not named Dole, McCain, or Pataki (or Ridge or a bunch of other wishy-washy anti-RKBA types)
Your mistake, Kryp, is in thinking that anyone making the argument you cite is a conservative. They are disrupters, pure and simple.
Likewise for Buchanan.
As I stated, these are the only choices for VP that would make me consider voting for GW.
GW would not consider anyone who would take the 9th and 10th amendments seriously.
Rummy is a staunch conservative. When he was a Congressman from Illinois, he had one of the highest conservative voting records of the entire delegation. His house seat is now held by the ultra right wing Phil Cranee.
ABC news described his legislative record like this:
"The dynamic, hard-charging “Rummy” has moved from being a young-turk legislator in the 1960s to a key official in three Republican administrations and finally a corporate executive who turned around two major firms....Now a senior member of the Republican leadership, Rumsfeld was once a 29-year-old congressman from suburban Chicago’s North Shore. He was a dynamic leader of an earlier attempted Republican revolution, leading a group known as “Rumsfeld’s Raiders” and trying to push a reform bill through Congress that would have reduced patronage and pork. Legislatively he was very conservative, supporting a strong defense against the Soviet Union and opposing legislation to curb urban poverty — but supporting civil rights bills...His aggressive, ambitious demeanor won him a friend in Richard Nixon, but enemies in Congress. Various jobs in the Nixon administration led to his being appointed Ford’s White House chief of staff. By all accounts, he ran a tight ship...Rumsfeld has never been far from the presidency. He publicly sought the vice-presidential nomination in 1980 and briefly ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988 against the elder George Bush, before dropping out... Rumsfeld was called back into service in 1999 to head the nine-member Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, a byproduct of wrangling between congressional Republicans and the Clinton administration over a missile defense system. His report supported the Republicans’ contention that a missile defense was needed, and he blasted CIA director George Tenet for increasing secrecy within the agency to such an extent that it was damaging the quality of intelligence provided to Congress. Rumsfeld lives in Chicago, where he was born. He and his wife Joyce have been married 46 years. They have three children and five grandchildren."
Of couse, since he left congress 4 yeras before Roe v. Wade (1969), it looks like Rumsfeld didn't have much of voting record on that matter. But given his persona on other issues, I'd say it's extremely unlikely that he would be pro-choice.
Rummy would make an excellent president-- but I doubt Bush will pick him as veep. The guy is pushing 70. That's not very helpful for a job that he can't run for until 2008.
The fact is that abortion will NEVER be solved in the political or legislative arena, at least not in the short run. Period. It will only be solved when pro-lifers get up and move people to their viewpoints. After that, then move it to the legislative and political arena.
The pro-life cause was set back when pro-lifers set up camp in the GOP. That was the first sure way to make sure that your support gets taken for granted. I would suggest that pro-lifers not become the "core" (read as 'reliable') voters of the Republican party, but instead become a swing voter.
On the abortion issue, it doesn't matter whether I vote for Alan Keyes or Hillary Clinton, abortion law will be the same no matter who wins. What does matter is if I get out and move people to my pro-life views, because abortion law will only change when the PUBLIC at large wants it to change. If the pro-life cause is bigger than a mere political party (and it is), we should not restrict the cause to rely on the election of Republican politicians for it's success.
Preisdent Bush is a good and decent man. But he also knows that no matter how bad he offends the pro-life cause, he can rely on pro-life voters to vote for him. You may say I'm wrong, but the election results don't lie. Pro-life voters voted overwhelmingly for Bush and did not split between Bush and a more staunchly pro-life Pat Buchanan. Pro-life voters don't put their vote where their mouth is, and that's why the pro-life cause nevers gets addresseed. Republican candidates don't have to compete for pro-life votes. They go to the GOP candidate by default.
Pro-life voters should not prostitute themselves as mere subjects of the GOP brass. The minute that pro-life voters stop voting as a block for Republican candidates is the minute that politicians will start seriously addressing the pro-life cause.
Don't tie the pro-life cause to a single political party. That's the first way to dispatch your cause to irrelevancy.
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.