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.
So far it has mattered, sing another tune, we have heard this one to many times before.
They might very well stay home, but it isn't wise to assume the numbers to offset would automatically flow to Condi.
Pro-Lifers/Christians are the base and necessary to win. The Dems pulled out everything they had in their arsenal this year, and will do it again if not more in '08. Everyone needs to be onboard. If people cannot accept the her current views as outlined, it would make it all that much harder to win if possible at all.
However, I differ with some in that I don't find her position -yet- to be at odds with the goals of pro-Life believers. And I would ask those that do find it at odds with our goals, to articulate how.
-doesn't believe in partial birth
-doesn't want government in the business of endorsing or funding abortion
-doesn't believe it should be encouraged
-possibly state rights advocate.
If the last is true, Would someone please move beyond the emotional to explain how this position damages the cause of pro-Life coalitions? Otherwise it's my summation that some are of opinion that constitutionalists are at odds with pro-life advocates. Patently untrue. IF proven to be an advocate of state rights, I don't find her unqualified as a candidate.
I'm not stating I'd vote for her. I will not pledge myself to that opinion without observing her in a primary process as well as her challengers and the environment of the country at the time. But I would not rule out a candidate that I could be assured was strongly in favor of state rights.
I think I'm as solidly anti-abortion as anyone, and I could be persuaded to vote for a President Rice. I don't know if her beliefs are necessarily at odds with mine or not... but then again, I'm not an evangelical Christian. My vote isn't the one I'm worried about if she gets the nod.
But I honestly believe that any pro-choice label, be it "mildly" or otherwise, automatically eliminates a huge number of consertives from the playing field in a national election. And I don't think that's a hole she can dig herself out of.
What don't people understand?
"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.”
Condi is no moonbat.. Hillary is a veritable vampire..
If the republicans could field Any electable man that had even just ONE BALL, I would go that way.. they cannot.. Looks like its Condi.. -or- the final morphing of this republic into a primitive democracy, like Canada.. That is if Condi can develop some FANGS.. cause the Hildebeast is indeed a beast.. and will fight behind the scenes with ALL the help the MSM and MSP and Academia can muster.. and Oh!,, the Fags, Hollywood, Oprah, Dr. Phil, the talk shows, all the wrestling fans.. and the Jerry Springer audience.. and any other ditzy WOMEN not mentioned yet..
Condi will NEED Ann Coulter on her campaign team.. and Laura Ingraham too..
I think you would be correct in a gut check first response. I've witnessed the other threads concerning the issue.
But would that be the case IF she is a strong advocate for state rights? IF a national dialogue was begun on the issue? I think too many assume if someone isn't pro-life entirely, they cannot be on the same side in law where it'll matter. That would be up to Condi to articulate, though, if she's interested in running. If she is interested, it'll be a good test to run her through to assess her abilities as a Leader.
Infact, I encourage her to do so. Every conceivable candidate should be put on the hot seat. It'll reveal how they operate under fire. Their character, their persuasiveness, leadership skills and their consistency.
I would put forth one undeiable fact. She described herself as "mildly pro-Choice" years ago. She cannot back pedal on that position or the Dems would use it against her.
Precisely.
I don't think it's possible she can even get the nomination now.
Yeah, and Ross Perot wasn't going to run in '92. Only those damn volunteers forced him. He was dragged kicking and screaming.
"Yeah, and Ross Perot wasn't going to run in '92.
Only those damn volunteers forced him. He was dragged kicking and screaming."
Perot just wanted the free publicity.
Rice has nothing to gain.
The real question is why Ashcroft wasted
4 years and never indicted klintoon or hitlery.
Or reno.
And reno them ran against Jeb Bush.
Now Ashcroft is gone and klintoon is golf buddies with Bush Sr.
PC gone mad!
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, "give me Hillary or give me Darth"---is not a decision I can afford to avoid.
"Yeah, you're going to make a lot of headway calling the overwhelming majority of the Republican party extremists."
You guys need some reading skills and/or a thicker skin.
When I used the phrase "pro-life extremists" you could infer either that:
A) all people who are "pro-life" are "extreme"
B) there are *some* people in the set of "pro-life" people who are "extreme", and I'm referring to that proper subset.
The very fact that you jump to inference A) is exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. In fact, I don't think it's even reasonable, in the context of a Republican oriented site, to do anything other than infer B).
I have *seen* the kind of people I'm talking about here before-- possibly I'm talking about you two, in fact-- people who say "if he's not pro-life, then I don't care if he is Republican-- he has to go". THAT is the problem.
"You" guys-- the ones willing to fracture the Republican party over ideological purity-- are the people I'm talking about.
In case there's still any confusion, I am NOT saying that to be "pro-life" is to be "extreme". For God's sake, peeps. I am saying that you don't influence policy by losing elections-- you don't serve "our" best interest by fracturing the *majority* over *one issue*. I am saying that if "rare but legal" is not good enough for you, then it damn well should be, or you're not helping reduce the number of abortions if Condi is willing to run. OK?
Those who worry about condi's lack of political experience might consider that she is a world class political scientist. Where do you think these revolutionary new foreign policy ideas are coming from, anyway?
Bayh is no moderate. He filibusters the judges right along with them, and he was one of the very few who voted against confirmation of Dr. Rice to S.O.S.
LOL. "I'm with the volunteers, Larry."
"mildly pro-choice” (in favour of a woman’s right to choose) " ...
Spelling errors aside, this is blather wrapped up in blather.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
If Condi wants the nomination she'd better get staunchly prolife and fast.
Ingraham won't work for a pro-abort. I doubt Coulter would either.
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.