Replies

George H.W. Bush was pro-abort before being selected by President Reagan to be his vice president. He "saw the light" to get the vice presidential nomination. He never wavered after that, but his was a political conversion of convenience.

That's OK with me. I don't ask WHY politicians do what they do, as long as they stick to their promises. On the other side, plenty of Democrats were pro-life before they ran for president, and they too changed their positions for political convenience. It's not attractive, but at least the Democrat voters could be satisfied that they stuck with their new pledges.

In point of fact, I have several times said recently that I would be willing to vote for Condi if she changed her position on abortion. I said that she is a woman of her word, and if she changed her position, she would probably keep her word.

That's why this latest statement is so VERY disappointing. her earlier statements were vague, and they were not made in the context of running for president. This statement is another matter entirely. Among other things, it also tells me that Karl Rove is still stupid, stupid, stupid on the issue of abortion, because Condi would not have granted this interview without administration approval.

The problem becomes when some of the advocacy groups morph a candidate into something they clearly aren't. A good example is evangelicals were told the President was staunch pro life. Yet other than his signing of parital birht aboriton bill, his agenda had been almost void of pro life actions and agenda points. He has made statements the country is divided and not ready to debate this issue. So where's leadership and the bully pulpit? I'm not advocating that he be foolish in using those tools. But it's what his campaign team sold to the evangelicals during the election so they would not go third party or stay home.

Matter of fact, I don't believe it's really a function of his office. I really believe that manny of these moral issues need resolved in the church first and then as the membership embraces them (not just in words but in actions) the culture will begin to change. Until the church really cleans up the morass in their own pews, the culture will not advance toward a more faithful and pro life stance. I agree, the change must be in hearts and minds, and not always legislated. Howerver, the President can be more favorable in admonishing people of faith to clean up their acts through the bully pulpit. But like to many ministers today, we don't want to insult the flock.