Posted on 03/12/2005 4:43:56 PM PST by MadIvan
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.