Posted on 03/11/2005 6:32:41 PM PST by Sola Veritas
He's not being serious, he's just trying to mock me. I have no idea what post #1120 said, but his original response to my post #231 (see post #895) was just a an attempt at sarcastically exaggerating my position.
The government does force it's view on abortion, every day. It forces it's view on approximately 1 million babies per year. The indirect victims are also the mothers who have scarred themselves for life in the name of "chocie."
"Has Condi ever been married?"
Not that I know of. However, cast against the beast, I don't think that would be such an insurmountable problem in this day and age given her capabilities. Nor do I think her lack of elected office is certain barrier either - against the beast an honest garbage collector is preferable. The real issue, as this wildfire and lunatic thread attests, is that Dr. Rice is pro-choice. I used to have the link (can be found somewhere here about in a search) to a speech she made where she confirmed her personal views. She is, until she says differently, a pro-choice Republican and that lands her firmly in the 'not-interested' list for pro-life voters who will vote exclusively on their values.
I gave up reading all the invective, insults and tripe at the beginning of this thread because the divisions and emotion are far more instructive than anything either camp is hurling at each other. The fact is stark - a Rice nomination will divide the party and enable a victory for the beast. The Republicans, once again, will ask the ones that brought them to the dance to sacrifice their values and agenda for the sake of togetherness and further victory and, clearly, more compromise.
The clear solution, as this firmly conservative anti-abortion activist sees it, is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people. In this way, she will inject integrity and guts into the tired and hackneyed phrase of the Leftist slimebags that always, all-ways and ALWAYS trot out the lying line: "Personally, I'm against abortion, but I won't force my views on others or government policy." Hillary wouldn't stand a chance on 'values' after such a stance.
In my view, a Rice candidacy that follows the above script would retain party unity and defeat the beast. The upshot of another four years would juggernaut the rest of the rubble remaining from a permanently vanquished krinton dynasty in the RAT empire. Some of the fence sitters would take an honest woman with pro-choice sympathies but with enough integrity to serve her party's wishes. The contrast would further deliniate the evil one's hypocrisy and force the RAT's to the wall on this issue alone since race, gender and achievement will be moot points in 2008 with a Rice foreign policy in place, and possibly, two years in the VP seat.
In sum, it will be Dr. Rice that must change. That would be the noble, just and fair thing to do. In extremis, if she doesn't recant and the beast retakes the throne, then four more years of accelerated Leftist crime will only sharpen the point of the primacy of pro-choice politics in conservative circles. In 2012, after four more krinton years, you can be sure that Republican leadership would not forget the drubbing they will suffer if they continue to ask for unrequited service from their most effective foot soldiers again.
why incest? For adult siblings? If it is father daughter, wouldn't that be rape?
Dear WorkingClassFilth,
This bears repeating:
"The clear solution, as this firmly conservative anti-abortion activist sees it, is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people."
She can then say that it will then revert to being a state issue, and that her own preference is for individual states to permit abortion at least in this or that set of cases, but that ultimately, the citizens of each state can make their own decisions.
Then, the question will be returned to the political field, and delivered from the self-appointed judicial maggots eating away at the national flesh.
sitetest
Right, pray for her enlightnment
But the main issue about abortion is federal judges. What is her view there?
Insteresting advice. George Bush Sr. did it; Condi should consider his example.
Thanks for the kind words, but I doubt all the screamers will take the time to read or understand. However, as you wish:
"The clear solution is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party, the unborn and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people."
"The clear solution is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party, the unborn and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people."
"The clear solution is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party, the unborn and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people."
"The clear solution is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party, the unborn and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people."
"The clear solution is for Dr. Rice to sacrifice HER values and pledge - clearly - to serve the party platform and its commitment to repeal Roe v. Wade. In this way, she shows service and leadership by submerging her ideas for the good of the party, the unborn and the nation. In this way she will win the unalloyed support of pro-life people."
That should do it. Let's see if the party leadership reads it and acts accordingly...
The issue is to not hurt more people. That includes the child of a rapist.
I don't know. If she is a good Republican, she'll look for justices that will naturally fall on the side of the constructionists and states right side of the equation. Abortion will lose at bench if truly American principles are enforced.
...then I am strongly anti-Condi...
The more I think about Rice seeking the presidency, the more convince I am that she will poll less than 40 percent of the vote were she to be nominated.
This is an opinion written as a fact. I do not believe this prediction will ever marginally materialize.
-------------------------------------
If you think that Iraq was a diversion (necessary or not) then you don't understand or haven't studied the administration's strategy. Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11, or WMD, or GW1, or GHWB.
I'm sorry. I meant to imply you discriminate against abortion proponents.
Dear Theodore R.,
She won't get the nomination.
To be nominated, usually one must spend some time building up one's loyalist base in the party. Getting elected to significant office is an important part of this task. Being a US Senator, or even a US Representative is a good way of building up a loyal cadre of donors, workers, and supporters. Being a state governor is even better, as then one has the capacity to appoint a significantly-critical number of folks to political office.
The folks who come to the candidate's side during this process are the folks who will carry him through the tough times of any fight for the presidency. They've invested a lot in the candidate, and will fight desperately to the last drop of blood to win. Think: Karl Rove.
That isn't to say that the "celebrity" candidate can never get the nomination, Gen. Eisenhower being the last example of someone successful at this approach. But my own view is that celebrity candidates, having no long-term loyalists of their own, need to be acceptable to all the major factions of their party to be nominated.
They don't have the wherewithal to really slug it out during the nomination battle. If a major faction in the party opposes them, the threat of a divided party will cause other supporters to melt away, and when the going gets tough, everyone will have got gone. Contrast this to the candidate with the long-term loyalist base, such as Sen. Kerry, who in his darkest days in late-2003 and early-2004, still had a significant core of support, and a significant core of heavy-hitter party players who still supported him.
A pro-abort in the Republican Party only has a real chance if he's done the work over the years to build up his own loyalist base. A "celebrity" pro-abort has no chance in the Republican Party, as the pro-life wing will walk away in disgust, and there will be no long-term loyalists to sustain the candidate through the rough patch.
Ms. Rice can get the nomination, and she doesn't have to go all the way to the pro-life position. We pro-lifers are used to half a loaf or less, and have thrown our support to candidates who were dodgy on the issue.
But without coming out for the overturning or otherwise gutting of Roe v. Wade, she has no chance.
sitetest
That's news to me. There was no talk of invading Iraq until after the Trade Towers were taken out.
You're kidding, aren't you? Hillary would shrink when she got the Condi death stare. To equate Condi's speaking skills with Lazio is just ..... weird.
I don't know if that's true. Barbara Bush is pro-choice, certainly, but Bush Sr, whatever his private views may have been, stuck by the precedents set by Ronald Reagan. He was never loved by the pro-life movement, but he was intelligent enough not to actually DO anything that would offend them. He said very little on the issue and he did nothing to reverse Reagan's policies.
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.