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 ...
Condi is absolutely right. The government would be a disaster with laws banning abortion. Just wouldn't work if single issue people would think it through with big picture thinking. Would probably result in more abortions, not fewer.
She says one fairly good thing and one very bad thing in this article.
The fairly good: "I am a strong proponent of parental choice -- of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion." She also favors a culture of life, and promoting adoption over abortion, so that abortion is truly rare.
The very bad: "This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, 'Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or a sibling go through something like that?'"
That her thinking goes first to the woman who puts a contract on her child, and not the child who is poisoned, dismembered, otherwise brutally murdered, points to a fundamental cluelessness about this major issue. It's like saying, "Child abuse should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, 'Who wants to abuse a three-year-old? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or a sibling go through something like that?'"
Dan
shall I take that as "no"?
Is what I say true or false? My degree of sensitivivity is irrelevant, and referring to it is an ad hominem and a red herring.
You said that one-note melodies are boring. The question is whether "boring" is relevant to whether the abortion issue should or should not be the most important criterion we use in selecting political leaders. The answer is: no. Whether or not the abortion issue should or should not be the most important criterion in selecting political leaders has nothing to do with whether people who think this issue trumps all other issues are "boring". Hence, "boring" is a red herring.
-A8
Excellent analogy.
Let's try these similars:
Condi is absolutely right. The government would be a disaster with laws banning child abuse. Just wouldn't work if single issue people would think it through with big picture thinking. Would probably result in more abused children, not fewer.
Condi is absolutely right. The government would be a disaster with laws banning rape. Just wouldn't work if single issue people would think it through with big picture thinking. Would probably result in more raped women, not fewer.
Condi is absolutely right. The government would be a disaster with laws banning murder. Just wouldn't work if single issue people would think it through with big picture thinking. Would probably result in more murdered people, not fewer.
It sounds as if you have some blinders on this issue.
And if Hillary wins in `08 because those pro-lifers (of which, by the way, I am a member) who are single issue slaves stay home, you and I both know who will be among the loudest of those wailing and gnashing teeth when Hillary packs the judiciary with abortion rights fanatics - the very pro-lifers who atyed home in November `08 out of a slavish devotion to their single issue.
No thank you. I have a wife and two kids to worry about (in addition to protecting the rights of the unborn). Hillary can do so much more damage in the White House in so many ways that I see no reason to not do everything reasonable and within my power to protect those have been born and are here from the ravages of that socialist nightmare.
Giving Hillary the White House in `08 by staying home in protest of a potential GOP nominee who is not 100% pro-life is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Why can't people see that?
I believe you are misunderstanding her.
I believe she makes a case for promoting a culture of reverence for the unborn to the point that most citizens would find aborting a pregnancy to kill a fetus to be too abhorrent to contemplate.
This is your previous acknowledgement. There is nothing further to discuss.
I'm not a single issue voter, I'm a single issue non-voter. If you can vote for somebody that wants child killing to be legal, go for it. My moral code is more important than any political agenda. I answer to God first, myself second.
I think one's speech about this is revealing; her thoughts go to the woman who has this horrid thing done to a child. But you could talk similarly, if it were your view, about cosmetic surgery vs. women being happy with the way they are.
Abortion is in a different category. Abortion is a murderous act of violence on an innocent and helpless child, whose only "crime" is being inconvenient, imperfect, or having a bad father. We should abhor that, in this rich and wealthy society that can so easily both know and do better, this is tolerated, ever, anywhere.
Her remarks sound very much to me as if she just doesn't get that.
What I am willing to abide by has nothing to do with the truth-value of my claim that the principles by which a country should be governed should be determined not by what is interesting, but by what is true, good and just.
When a government, not matter how legitimate, demands acts of injustice on the part of its citizens, these citizens are morally obligated to refuse. E.g. German soldiers commanded to shoot innocent Jews in concentration camps were morally obligated to refuse.
-A8
This is your previous acknowledgement. There is nothing further to discuss.
Not so fast. The primaries have not yet occurred. We still have the opportunity to choose whether or not we will be put in a position of having to choose only between evils.
-A8
Condi: "I won't run" Has no intention or desire to run for President
well, she just said, categorically, that she will not run on Meet the Press
"Not so fast. The primaries have not yet occurred. We still have the opportunity to choose whether or not we will be put in a position of having to choose only between evils."
You are really trying to distance yourself from your original reply which only addressed a hypothetical. Do you wish to change your answer?
Wow...a voice of sanity in the land of RINO Condi worshippers....and from an old adversary.
I salute you!
There's no reason not to vote. I know I'm only addressing this to you, but I mean the others who threaten to stay home.
Staying home doesn't do a danged thing. There is an alternative, vote for the Constitution Party candidate. They are Pro-Life, and much like the Republicans, and if Rice does get the nomination I will vote for them. I believe we are obligated to vote. If Hillary does win, at least the Republicans will know why if they see a percentage go to the CP that would have enabled them to win.
But for the time being, you, as well as I, can work now, pray now, and campaign come primary season to make sure the Republican party is still the party of life. If our efforts are unsuccessfull, I can't vote for a pro-death candidate, its a mortal sin in my religion, so I have to vote CP.
"mildly pro-choice"
Notice Condi did not say she was mildly pro-abortion. There is a difference.
Bush III / Allen in '08
gpapa
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.