Posted on 03/12/2005 4:43:56 PM PST by MadIvan
WASHINGTON is suddenly agog at the prospect of President Condi. A flurry of speculation about the political ambitions of Condoleezza Rice was ignited yesterday when the US secretary of state took a first step towards wooing conservative Republican voters.
Asked in a newspaper interview to comment on widespread speculation that she might stand as the Republican candidate for the White House in 2008, Rice not only declined to rule out a run; she went on to discuss an unusual subject for a secretary of state — the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Rice was careful to avoid any suggestion that she is actively planning a campaign. But Washington pundits seized on her unexpectedly ambivalent responses as evidence that a dream contest is materialising for 2008: Rice v Hillary Clinton, an all-woman battle for the most powerful job in the world.
When the subject was first broached by the Washington Times reporter, Rice replied with a brush-off. “I never wanted to run for anything,” she said. “I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It’s really hard for me to imagine myself in that role.”
She was pressed on whether she was prepared to repeat the famous denial of General William T Sherman, who said in 1884: “If nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.”
Rice replied with a chuckle: “That’s not fair . . . I really can’t imagine it.”
Had she stopped there, many in Washington might not have paid too much attention. But even though President George W Bush has barely begun his second term, Republicans are painfully aware that he has no obvious successor.
The race has begun for various senators and governors who are already nosing around New Hampshire — the scene of early voting — in the hope of staking a claim to Bush’s majority. The first thing they must do to impress conservative voters is establish their views on abortion.
In a striking departure from her preoccupations with the Middle East and Iran, Rice talked about how she approaches an “extremely difficult moral issue” as “a deeply religious person”.
Rice admitted to being “mildly pro-choice” (in favour of a woman’s right to choose) — a position that for some right-wing voters will disqualify her immediately. But she emphasised that abortion should be “as rare a circumstance as possible”. She also argued that the government should not pay for abortions “because I believe those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it”.
Rice insisted that her remarks should not be misinterpreted: “I’m not trying to be elected.” But they are certain to be seized on by an army of admirers who have established websites seeking a Rice candidacy in 2008. “Our lady’s got the buzz,” proclaimed the weblog CondiPundit.
Washington analysts have long been divided over Rice’s chances. Some Republicans argue that she should first return to California and challenge a Democratic senator to gain campaign experience. She had a chance to run for governor two years ago, but yielded to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Her supporters see her as an American Margaret Thatcher, ready to confound convention and become America’s first woman president. Dick Morris, the former Bill Clinton aide who has become an outspoken critic of Hillary Clinton, recently argued that Rice had become a “Republican rock star . . . her every movement covered by an adoring media”.
Rice took Europe by storm on her recent tour. If she pulls off a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, Morris argued, a Rice candidacy could destroy the Democratic party’s electoral chances.
Harder-nosed analysts suggest that her political inexperience is too big a drawback, especially when pitted against the masterful manoeuvring of the Clintons.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Centre for Politics, said that the two women were in different leagues. Compared with the Clinton steamroller, the Rice candidacy was “cotton candy fluff”, he said.
Yet Rice has one card up her sleeve. She is a close friend of the president, whose endorsement could prove decisive. Bush recently joked that “if I catch her thinking that way (about becoming president), I’m going to remind her that I picked her to be secretary of state”. If she does well he may need to promote her.
It's one thing to say (as both Bush's have), "I'm pro life," quite another to take active steps to ban abortion. As you well know, Condi Rice is also opposed to late term abortions (including, obviously, the partial birth procedure).
You harsh critics of Condi are simply talking up your sleeves. You all should be called "RISOs" -- Republicans in spirit only, as opposed to those of us living in the real world.
Says you.
I agree with you. I never understood people who say "Government shouldn't be involved in the abortion issue, except for outlawing partial-birth. And letting the parents know. And this. And that." Either they want the government involved, to varying degrees, or they don't.
By the way, do these folks believe the Supreme Court is part of the government? Because giving official sanction to any abortion for any reason certainly sounds like government involvement to me. What they really mean when they say government shouldn't be involved is it should render a class of human beings unprotectable.
Incidentally, I see the same inconsistency when gays say they don't want the government involved in their business, then turn right around and demand official sanction for their "marriages."
This Jewish voter would also be turned off by someone who allows abortions. Either innocent life should be protected, or it shouldn't. That about sums it up.
The vast majority of these single issue folks posting here and all those they claim to represent will turn out in droves to vote for whomever the Republicans nominate for 08. Mark it down.
If Condi is the Republican nominee, she wins the general election by 10% over any Demodog nominee, including the Hildabeast. The Demodogs may not even run a serious candidate against her, and focus instead on their Senate chances.
Wrong. Seventy percent (at least) of Republican voters are pro-life; the GOP loses far too many of these voters by nominating Condoleezza Rice who is "pro-choice". Twenty percent of all Americans will not vote for a woman, and that is about 35-40% of those who voted for George W. Bush. Rice would get defeated badly. But it doesn't matter, she cannot win the nomination in the GOP primaries.
Condi's stated position on abortion, the judiciary, and related issues appears to me identical to President Bush's. He has won - twice - without the natural draw Condi has for three or four major constituencies, and he is quite clearly acceptable (if not the dream candidate) for the majority of true Christians and other religious folks.
I stand by my position, but there are several years before we have any real knowledge of these issues, and there are many other viable Republican and pro-life candidates who might emerge.
President Bush never called himself "pro-choice". He said he is pro-life and opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Rice says she's "pro-choice" and doesn't believe abortion should be against the law. Condoleezza Rice won't run (if you believe what she says), but if she does, she'll be defeated in the GOP primaries.
March 10 Quinnipiac poll (biased to the left) says that 40% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. Unlike President Bush, Condoleezza Rice does not believe abortion should be illegal at all. That is not "quite palatable for most conservatives", it will drive away the GOP base. Condoleezza Rice is the only potential candidate that Hillary can beat, which is why the MSM is desperately trying to get her the GOP nomination.
Agreed: it would be difficult for Ms.Rice to get the Republican nomination.
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.