Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid
wash post ^ | March 13, 2005 | Mike Allen

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush; condi; president; rice; rice2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: pittsburgh gop guy
Why did the pro-lifers vote for Bush? He believes in exceptions for rape and incest or protecting the life of the mother.

He's a murderer.

21 posted on 03/13/2005 6:39:17 AM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: zarf
"Why did the pro-lifers vote for Bush? He believes in exceptions for rape and incest or protecting the life of the mother."

What most don't realize is that Bush did not win because Americans voted for him, Bush won because Americans voted against Kerry. If the Dem candidate had been Pro-Military Bush would have lost.

22 posted on 03/13/2005 6:47:39 AM PST by JustAnAmerican (Being Independent means never having to say you're Partisan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy; MrLee
It just galls me when our "conservative" leaders don't take a hard FAST stand on things like this. It's "wishy washy". In a similar vein, I'd like to hear GWB identify Islam as the demonic, hate driven, murderous "religion" that it is.

Sheesh...and just last night I was talking to my 14 year old about issues that have no middle ground.

Mildly pro-choice. What sort of crap is that?! I hope she knows what a mistake she made with that statement....because it was a BIG one and won't be soon forgotten.
23 posted on 03/13/2005 6:54:08 AM PST by hiredhand (Pudge the Indestructible Kitty lives at http://www.justonemorefarm.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: zarf
Saving the [biological] life of the mother is not murder, even if it results in the death of the child.

Just because a child results from rape or incest, does not make it ethical to murder the child, whether the child is in or outside of the womb, without or without the parents' permission. If President Bush thinks otherwise, then he is, unfortunately, philosophically inconsistent. Politicians tend to make exceptions for such cases mostly for political, not ethical, reasons.

-A8

24 posted on 03/13/2005 6:54:14 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kevin fortuna; yarddog

"mildly pro-choice" could mean: Tepidly in favor of retaining the legal availability of heavily restricted forms of early-term abortion, requiring parental consent, the man's consent, not allowing "at-whim" mid-term abortions and outright banning late-term abortions, etc... while at the same time finding RvW to be a grotesque usurpation of power by the SCOTUS which should be overturned, returning the matter to where it belongs: the legislatures of the several states.


25 posted on 03/13/2005 6:56:11 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: verity
Should the principles by which a country is governed be determined by what is interesting, or what is true, good, and just?

-A8

26 posted on 03/13/2005 6:56:28 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hiredhand

see #25


27 posted on 03/13/2005 6:57:00 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

What if the only viable choice is between the greater evil and the lesser evil?


28 posted on 03/13/2005 7:01:10 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media and the ACLU are America's Enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kevin fortuna

If she cannot find a way to come out and say clearly that she will work to overturn Roe v. Wade, then it is clear that she doesn't respect the Constitution, at least not sufficiently to gain my support.

If she does ultimately clarify that she believes that Roe is not valid constitutional jurisprudence, and should go, then I will support her, should she get the nomination.

If she wishes to then add that once Roe is overturned, she hopes that the individual states will still permit, in law, some legal abortions, even though that is not my own view, I would still support her.

But at a minimum, she must support the eventual dismantling or overturning of Roe.


29 posted on 03/13/2005 7:01:55 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
If you see those who won't vote for a "mildy pro-choice" candidate as "single issue" and heading "over the cliff", you'd better call your reps and let them know: Hillary will probably be President.

I WILL NOT vote for anyone of any party who condones the murder of unborn children. You, however, are more than welcome to do so if other domestic/foreign policy issues are more important to you than the life of a large percentage of the next generation.

As for your question of who would be more likely to stuff the judiciary with activist judges . . . we might soon find out.

The Republican party is my current party because it most closely aligns itself with my political beliefs. This can change.

30 posted on 03/13/2005 7:04:24 AM PST by DesertSapper (God, Family, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: verity

If the choice is between a greater evil and a lesser evil I will have to choose neither. I don't play situational ethics. My moral compass won't allow me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under any circumstance. She might end up in the oval office, but it won't be with my vote.


31 posted on 03/13/2005 7:06:09 AM PST by digitalbrownshirt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8

actually, the principles by which this country is governed are stipulated by a document called the US Constitution.

That document defines all of our government as republican, relying on legislatures and executives elected by the people as representatives, with the task of creating and administering Law.

are you willing to abide by Law so enacted, or no?


32 posted on 03/13/2005 7:07:46 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

agreed.


33 posted on 03/13/2005 7:09:00 AM PST by King Prout (Remember John Adam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: digitalbrownshirt

The absence of your vote could place the greater evil in office.


34 posted on 03/13/2005 7:10:46 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media and the ACLU are America's Enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: verity
If indeed those are our only two options, then "lesser", of course. Those conservatives, however, who dismiss "one-issue" thinking as boring do not seem to understand that ethical issues, and the politics consequent upon them, are not in the least determined by their degree of interest, but by principle. The sanctity of human life is of such great worth, and our duty to uphold and defend the lives of unborn children so great, that most other issues pale in comparison. "Boring" is thus a red herring.

-A8

36 posted on 03/13/2005 7:13:16 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: digitalbrownshirt
If the choice is between a greater evil and a lesser evil I will have to choose neither. I don't play situational ethics. My moral compass won't allow me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate under any circumstance. She might end up in the oval office, but it won't be with my vote.

I, I, My, me, my.

Presedential voting is always a choice of the lesser of two evils--on both sides.

Should voting be an affirmation of your own personal "moral compass"? Hope not, because NO human could stand up to that.

YOU cannot stand up to it either (although you try your best, and ask for forgiveness when you come up short). Every candidate has flaws.

You just go with the one that most closely adheres to what you think is best for the country.

Or, you hold your nose and vote AGAINST the one you know is a danger.
37 posted on 03/13/2005 7:20:15 AM PST by motzman (to the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: adiaireton8
You are far too sensitive.

One note refers to any single issue that sways the decision of a voter and neglects the bigger picture.

38 posted on 03/13/2005 7:22:03 AM PST by verity (The Liberal Media and the ACLU are America's Enemies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Positive law and natural law are not identical. Natural law cannot be reduced to positive law. The natural law principles inscribed in our nation's official documents do not have their origin in those documents. The principles of justice, for example, do not have their origin in the US Constitution.

Each participant in any government must govern according to the principles of natural law, not according to what is interesting or boring.

-A8

39 posted on 03/13/2005 7:23:45 AM PST by adiaireton8 ("There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse." - Plato, Phaedo 89d)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kevin fortuna

Single-issue voters are fools. Period. To the American people, abortion is way too personal an issue for the government or anybody to tell an individual what to do. And you better think hard: if Hillary wins and Bill becomes UN secretary, you can kiss the sovereignty of the US goodbye. What will the nation be like then?


40 posted on 03/13/2005 7:24:33 AM PST by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson