Posted on 03/13/2005 6:05:44 AM PST by kevin fortuna
'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page A05
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described herself Friday as "mildly pro-choice" and "kind of libertarian" on abortion, and left the door open for a presidential race in 2008.
Rice, who took office Jan. 26 after four years as President Bush's national security adviser, said she "can't imagine" running to succeed her boss and that she is "not trying to be elected." But she said she knows people are talking about the possibility, and did not rule it out when pressed repeatedly. She spoke in an interview with reporters and editors from the Washington Times, and the State Department released a transcript yesterday.
The Republican platform is strongly antiabortion, and abortion opponents play a big role in many primaries. Rice explicated her views when a questioner from the newspaper told her that the written record was murky.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sure. I thought I heard her clearly tell Russet "Not running" too.
I agree with you completely, which is why I have come to advocate a more cultural approcah rather than a legislative one.
Change people's minds about abortion and the number of abortions will diminish.
If our side can't change minds, we don't deserve to win on the issue.
Condi= pro-choice(Christians stay home)
Rudi=Liberal with serious personal problems in his past history (conservative and Christian base stay home)
McCain=Loon and liberal(conservatives and Christians whom he bashed in his run against Bush stay home)
Jeb is probably you best bet, but way to many Bushes have been president recently (the middle stays away)
You have to put up people the base trusts first and gets them excited before others will become excited
If you're pro abortion and claim to be a Christian, you'd better take a closer look at the Bible. It's not just an old book with a lot of good "stories". It's guide that God has given us.
Jesus himself said it would be better to tie a mill stone to your neck and be cast into the ocean than to harm a child.
Mildly Pro Choice?
Catholic Way ^ | 3/13/05 | Keith A. Fournier
Posted on 03/13/2005 12:11:42 PM PST by tcg
Such hyperbolic hysteria is unnecessary.
If the First Lady were to describe her position on abortion as "mildly pro-choice" and "kind of libertarian," she'd have created quite a firestorm of animous herself.
There are generally three positions to take with regards to abortion:
1) Pro-Abortion on demand
2) Pro-Choice (aka, not my business what happens to the life and death of the fetus/unborn)
3) Pro-Life (permitting abortion in the rarest cases.
Then the solution's simple - if you want the G.O.P. to retain the Oval office then do not vote for any pro-choice, ("mildly" or otherwise) Republican in the primaries.
I would say that it's the Condiphiles, not the pro-lifers, who risk getting Hillary elected.
She needs some experience in an elected office, in my opinion. She's ideal for the VP slot. I still hold firm to the belief that Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina is the most promising candidate.
Regards, Ivan
| Condi "Mildly Pro-Choice" |
||||||
| Posted by streetpreacher to Texas Songwriter On News/Activism 03/11/2005 10:50:46 PM PST · 1,054 of 1,482 I agree. Is it wrong to be a SINGLE issue voter on abortion? I submit that once the lines of demarcation are blurred on this one issue, it will be "Katie bar the door" on all of the others. |
||||||
Meaning the three exceptions?
That's funny, Condi...Since when??
The "federal government" is the entity that ruled abortion IS legal by virtue of nine black robed ayatollahs and Roe vs. Wade, and of whom have been getting increasingly in the people's face WITHOUT said PEOPLE'S consent on any number of social engineering issues.
Two words: non sequitur. When the tsunmi hit, did you conclude that God was not concerned about all those people?
-A8
The only thing your neat little political equation leaves out is all of those innocent human lives.
This is not an issue about "sides". This issue is all about their right to life as granted by their Creator and written into the Constitution.
It's not about "our side" winning; it's about truth and justice winning out and the poor, innocent slaughtered human beings winning.
Are you saying that the innocent only deserve to live if we can make a convincing argument for them?
Winning hearts and minds? Somebody should've tried that with the Nazis.
Let me know when you get to euthanasia age because at the rate this culture of death is sliding, we'll see how you like being reduced to a catch phrase in a game of political football.
It is only ridiculous if all issues are equally important. This issue is more important than most, if not all other issues.
-A8
How would saving the lives of over 1 million children a year be a "disaster"?
-A8
I'm not saying that they deserve to die. I am saying that if, given the good points you made, can't change people's minds, then we have failed the pro life cause as well as the unborn children who die.
Since we are right on the issue, moving minds shouldn't be a problem. It may be a challenge, and it may take a generation or two, but given the terrible track record of the legislative course of action, it's the wisest course of action at this point.
Comparing women who get abortions to Nazis isn't helpful. The pro life movement needs to grow beyond the 'lets make the other side feel bad' strategy (hint: it hasn't worked well at all) and start bringing change.
Ultimately, what's more important - feeling good about yourself or impacting change? For me, it's certainly not either/or, but I do value moving the status quo to a better place over any selfish sense I have of 'sleeping well at night.'
The political fabric has never mandated 100% agreement with our representatives. Sole issue voters of all flavors have a basic immaturity that makes them unable to cope with that.
The pro life leadership over the last 30 years has had a role in those 40 million abortions - they were ineffective in making change, and continue to be. That's a record many folks don't have the clarity to see.
As for her interview in the Wash Times, I was very unimpressed. IMO she's trying to do a "John Dingell"(pro-choice outside of partial birth, tries to sound pro-life) or "David Bonior"(wind in the air) or even "Granholm"(talks almost pro-life but is hardline pro-abort) and try and have it both ways on the issue. I can respect and disagree with "I'm pro-choice in the first trimester" or "Pro-choice outside of partial birth abortion". She needs to stop the vagueness.
I'd like to know what makes Condi Rice qualified to be president. I'd like to know her stances on domestic issues. DEFECIT SPENDING, Taxes, 2nd Amendment(I've heard good there, although 2ndhand), jobs, life, trade, the UN, judges, border security, and the size of government.
She does a good job at state department. It's where I think she needs to stay.
Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, George Allen...I'd vote for them.
No law will ever stop one single abortion. Anyone who wants one will just go where they are available. Only by persuading young women will they not choose abortion. I personally don't think anyone knows when the soul enters the body thus becoming a sentient human being.
When did God put Jesus in Mary's womb. i know no one who would argue it was after conception. Imagine someone saying, "Jesus wasn't really in Mary's womb until she was pregnant for three months".
In the scripture it is a given, and it should be for us as well. "She wasn't with child until after the first trimester" or, "we saw the blue line on the pregnancy test and we knew we had a little soul with us as early as the past two weeks".
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.