Skip to comments.No to Condoleezza Rice For Veep
Posted on 07/19/2012 1:36:38 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Condoleezza Rice has, in my estimation, served this country with distinction.
First, as a member of the National Security Council during the presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush. Then, as Secretary of State, during the presidency of George Walker Bush.
A FOX News poll released yesterday said that Rice is the top choice of the Republican faithful to be the ticketmate of Mitt Romney, the partys presumptive presidential nominee.
But she is not the top choice of this social conservative; this long-time Republican.
Thats because Condi supports abortion rights. And, frankly, because the 58-year-old has never been married; never had children.
I believe that, after Barack Obamas jobless recovery and his government takeover of the nations health care system, the biggest issues in the upcoming presidential campaign will be marriage and abortion.
Romney, the GOP standardbearer, can proclaim himself as the candidate who stands with the majority of Americans who believe in the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.
On the other side is Democrat Obama, who stands with the abortionists; who stands with the homosexuals who defile the institution of marriage, which was created by God Almighty.
I believe Romney loses both the abortion and marriage issues with Condi on ticket.
For while she says that she opposes late term abortion and she favors parental notification when an under-girl seeks an abortion, the fact remains that, if her views became policy, there would continue to be more than one million unborn babies killed each year.
I do not know Condis views on marriage. Whether she agrees that it is the backbone of society; that it should be reserved exclusively to one man and one woman; that same-sex marriage is an abomination in the eyes of God.
If she agrees with all that, her views coincide with those of social conservatives and Christian evangelicals, who make up a third of the Republican Party base.
Nevertheless, it would be hard for Condi to make a strong, convincing case for traditional marriage when shes never been a bride herself. When shes never been a mom.
Im not condemning Condi for never being married. And by absolutely no means am I criticizing her for being childless.
Im simply saying that that a never-been-married, childless woman or man for that matter is not the ideal spokesperson for family values.
Thats not to say that there is no place in a Romney administration for an individual boasting the distinguished resume of Condoleezza Rice.
Maybe U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Or Secretary of Homeland Security.
Just not a heartbeat away from the presidency.
So by your reckoning, Jesus, an unmarried man, would likewise be a bad spokesperson for “family values?”
I’m not on the Condi bandwagon, but your rationale — the woman being single — is crazy.
I should state that I agree with you about her pro-choice stance making her a non-starter as a Repub. candidate, but I think focusing on her single status seriously detracts from the validity of your argument.
I also say “no” to Condoleeza Rice for VP. But, in full disclosure, as a social conservative I don’t have a dog in this Presidential race. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have left social conservatives behind. For the first time in my life, I am concentrating more on local elections than on national ones.
I saw Rice intervied once (I think it was Nightline), in 2004.
She gave a terrible interview.
For that reason alone, I hesitate to support her as VP.
Add to that her lack of ever having held elective office, and some of the negative infor from Cheney’s book...and I say no.
Nevertheless, it would be hard for Condi to make a strong, convincing case for traditional marriage when she’s never been a bride herself. When she’s never been a mom.
You are wayyyy off the reservation here. Next, you'll be telling me it would be hard for me to make a strong, convincing case against abortion since I'm a man and can't have one.
So, let’s see. Using your logic, Jesus Christ, the apostle Paul, Mother Theresa, and Elizabeth I were less than ideal role models? Color me amused.
I didn’t say Condi would be a bad spokesperson. I said she wouldn’t be ideal.
I believe that, like a few others he is suggesting that Condi’s sexual proclivities may not be as straight as he might like them.
There are probably a few celibate women in the world who take a pass on sex, and Condi may be one of those.I don’t know and I don’t think anyone else does, she has done a great job of keeping her sex life quiet—if she has one.
Now you can accuse me of saying Jesus was a Homosexual because he didn’t have a sex life. Well go ahead it makes as much sense as your last post.
The man stated his point and people bring up Jesus, Mother Theresa, and the Apostle Paul in their spin.They have nothing to do with his statement, it’s straw man arguments.
A couple of people here love to use them.
Do you disagree that the words of a pro-life conservative woman married with children - like a Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann - would resonate more with family values voters than never-been-married, childless Condi?
Whether I agree or disagree is not the point. But for giggles, lets say I agree.
But using your faulty reasoning, I’m not qualified for having ANY opinion since since I’m not a woman.
So, stop trying to argue with me and the other FReepers on this thread and take to heart the constructive criticism we’re offering.
We really are on your side here. We want to agree with you here. But you added in a great deal of weak and baseless arguments. I’d say you could edit 50 percent of your post and have a far better - more clear and concise - argument.
If that was his thrust, he should have just come out and declared it. I didn't read it that way.
The man stated his point and people bring up Jesus, Mother Theresa, and the Apostle Paul in their spin.They have nothing to do with his statement, its straw man arguments.
Quite the contrary, if his point was that Rice is less than ideal to model family values simply because she is unmarried (as I read it) then the above are fantastic examples to refute the notion, no matter how sarcastically. If his point is that she's a closet lesbian as you assert, then yes, it would be a poor argument.
“Social” being the keyword. One can be a socialist or a conservative. The two conflict with each other so that the author should STHU.
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.