Posted on 03/20/2005 4:39:15 AM PST by billorites
Condeleezza Rice says she is “mildly pro-choice,” a position that dooms her candidacy for president in the Republican Party. No matter how high her spike heels, it’s too big a reach for her to get the Republican nomination without being strongly pro-life anymore than somebody who is not pro-choice getting the Democratic nod.
It’s a litmus test for both parties. Rice can flirt with running, but unless she’s prepared to do what the senior George Bush did and become a pro-life convert, she’s flirting with ghosts.
edit...
Bush is likely to move the court’s most conservative jurist, Antonin Scalia, to the top spot. Scalia is openly contemptuous of Roe v. Wade, and the pro-abortion ruling would be put in the cross hairs. Even if Bush loses a Senate vote to elevate Scalia, he would still be on the court, and Bush would have waged the fight that social conservatives demand.
The worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party is for Roe v. Wade to be overturned. It would drive wide open the divisions in the GOP. Most pro-choice Republicans are content to let the issue lie with the hope that the party might someday evolve to a different place. A Scalia court could shock them out of their complacency.
When Rice was interviewed by The Washington Times last week, her press aide nudged one of the participants to ask her about the presidency. Although Rice has said that she doesn’t plan to run, the aide wouldn’t have done that if she wasn’t interested in keeping alive the speculation that she might enter the ’08 race. It adds to her stature. This is a historic moment in American politics, but that’s all it is. Without backing from social conservatives, Rice’s candidacy is over before it can begin.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I'm sure the GOP will call a special meeting to discuss your suggestions Eleanor. Jeez.
Otherwise she is an outstanding nomination choice for the Republicans.
If Condi did get the nomination for the Republican Party, I think she would sweep in the National Election, because her mildly pro abortion stance would really appeal to the liberals.
While I disagree with Condi's stance on abortion, I simply don't see her as someone who changes a heartfelt conviction solely for the sake of political advantage. You know the kind of politician I'm talking about: someone so cynical to the core, so coldly calculating, so completely without scruples that she could 're-position' herself without hesitation or qualm to accommodate the latest poll or trend.
Eleanor Clift 'misunderestimates' yet again the Secretary of State and the party to which she belongs.
Even though she is a fine Secretary of State, I oppose nominating Condoleezza Rice for President due to a number of reasons, first of which is her being "pro-choice" ("mildly" or otherwise). Nonetheless, if Rice were to now change her position, it would seem insincere and manipulative, which would probably hurt her chances even more. Republican voters have an aversion to "flip-floppers", Eleanor Clift obviously does not.
It's precisely because Clift is part of a party where prominent D's (clinton, Gore, Jesse Jackson, etc.) have done 180's on this matter, that she is concerned.
Would a "mildly pro-choice" Republican draw the unanimous support of the entire party? We have all seen the unrelenting vigor with which the left is trying to wrestle back power; my feeling is it will take a concerted and almost unanimous effort (like the one put forth last November) to retain the White House in '08.
Of course, my worst fear is a pro-life splinter candidate that would hand power back to the Dems, a "worst-of-all-possible-worlds" scenario to me.
I know it may sound harsh to consider a pro-life candidate a worst-case scenario, but I think I would be willing to make compromises to keep left-wing wackos and Hollywood out of power. I guess my fear and loathing of the left trumps my fear and loathing of abortion; but that's between me and God.
1) Roe v. Wade is overturned as unconstitutional, because it does not raise a federal question.
2) The question of legality is referred back to the individual states.
3) Some states quickly ban abortion, while other states (the Blue states, or at least NY, CA, Massachusetts, IL at a minimum) pass laws permitting abortion.
4) Even in those aforementioned Blue states, the decision is made legislatively, not judicially, and is thereby subject to review and the political process.
As a conservative, I would accept this outcome. Does that make me "somewhat" pro-choice? I don't think so, and I think Scalia would agree with me that what I've described is a desirable outcome..
"The worst thing that could happen to the Republican Party is for Roe v. Wade to be overturned"
I totally agree. Forcing this into the criminal justice system will bring a huge backlash against the single issue people, and probably enable the dems to get back in power.
I, along with many others, don't think abortion is murder. When the soul comes into the body fully is a subject for debate.
Ideologues' lack of interest in the soul always amazes me.
Not that I think it will do any good but in the first chapter of Jeremiah God speaks to him and tells him, "before you were formed in the womb I knew you."
This is the verse that those who believe in reincarnation use to say that the soul preexists conception. (Something I believe in). There is no way that millions and millions of sentient souls are swimming in the sewers and cesspools of the world.
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.