Condi Rice on CNN: ..."I don't need Harry Belafonte to tell me what it means to be black."

CNN ^ | 10/20/02 | Pyro7480

[section9]

Hey, where are people coming up with bumper stickers all of a sudden. Nice use of the Cowboys logo, btw.

Giuliani would not go down well with the base at all. If you think people on the far right of the party oppose Condi, just wait until they got a load of Giuliani. Not only does Giuliani completely buy into everything Roe vs. Wade was all about, but he is a gun grabber, big time.

Senator from New York, sure. I'd love to see Rudy give Chuckie Schumer a chance to make a pile in the private sector. Not VP, not President.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[MrB]

heard that she is supposedly "pro-choice,"

You may be right about that. I believe she is not a radical "abortion on demand" kind of person and would allow the arena of ideas that would bring down the numbers. As it is, women cannot make an informed choice because the voices of dissent and alternative information are stifled.

If she's pro-choice on self defense, education, and most of all, private property - I'm willing to let informed choice save babies instead of the government ineffectively trying to do so.

In case you're wondering what my viewpoint is - abortion is killing a human being who has his own DNA pattern. The SC decision on RvW was worse than Dred Scott.

[section9]

You may be right about that. I believe she is not a radical "abortion on demand" kind of person and would allow the arena of ideas that would bring down the numbers. As it is, women cannot make an informed choice because the voices of dissent and alternative information are stifled.

Significantly, she already believes in restrictions on abortion rights. She does not believe in abortion without parental consent, and like everyone else in the Bush Administration, she is opposed to partial birth (which basically is understood as a form of infanticide). I strongly suspect that she is a Federalist on this subject, leaving it up to the states.

This is the condition that existed prior to RVW in 1973, and I suspect she subscribes to it.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Gracey]

So why make such a big issue regarding abortion, when our way of life, our country is at stake. I want someone like Condi, who is savvy on foreign affairs and has no problem dropping a nuke when necessary. Geez, you people think the abortion issue comes before saving our country from annihilation.

[BunnySlippers]

Thanks for the ping. Bump.

[Artist]

I see you've dusted off that crystal ball again, Chris. While some folks here seem impressed by your "channeling" of Condi's inner thoughts, I am not. Only her words and statements count.

Please provide sourced quotes (preferably linked) to support your following claims:

"Significantly, she already believes in restrictions on abortion rights."

"She does not believe in abortion without parental consent...."

"....like everyone else in the Bush Administration, she is opposed to partial birth (which basically is understood as a form of infanticide)."

[GraniteStateConservative]

She has described herself as "mildly pro-choice" (not even "moderately", but "mildly") and liberal on "probably nothing". Certainly, abortion would be something she'd have considered as a "something" and thus not a "nothing." That means she's not liberal on abortion. That means she supports restrictions of some kind.

She has said she's got some libertarian beliefs and most libertarians who aren't pro-life believe at the minimum that it is a state's rights issue and not a right found in the Constitution explicitly (meaning she wouldn't appoint justices who thought there was indeed a right found there).

The likely meaning of that is that she'd support about the same 75% of the agenda of the NRLC as fellow Republican Californian woman Rep. Mary Bono, even if she'd merely support it as a state legislative agenda and not a federal one. The most common belief among moderates on the issue is not supporting partial-birth abortions and supporting parental notification.

She is on record as defending the Reagan/Bush/Bush Mexico City gag order policy, as well.

[GraniteStateConservative]

info here

[Artist]

I've read basically the same thing from you on practically every Condi thread I've been on. Frankly, I'm not interested in what people *think* she means. It's all supposition. If you can back up any of your claims about her with sourced material, please let me know.

One more thing....Even if you were exactly right about her views, she would never be acceptable to the majority of pro-life Republicans. Just being against infanticide (PBA), and for parental notification (prior to the death of a grandchild), isn't nearly enough.

[A_perfect_lady]

If she ran for President, she would have MY vote.

I second that emotion!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I HONESTLY HOPE after President Bush's tenure, that Dr. Rice runs for President. NOT VP.. but President!!

I'd sleep quite well with her at the helm. She just oozes common sense and intelligence.

How refreshing!!

[section9]

Excuse me, dammit, but you fail to recall that I've adressed this issue to you before!

I have told you, and others, that Rice stated the parental consent position in an interview with Oprah Winfrey for her magazine. It is there, it is sourced. If you're too lazy to go dig it up yourself, that's not my problem. "O" Magazine, February 2002 issue.

I am not going to do your damn legwork for you. Now get cracking and go look it up yourself, and don't demand that I do your work for you.

I cannot source the partial birth thing, as I don't recall where I read it, so I shouldn't have claimed it as fact like I did. However, I strongly suspect that she is against PBA as well. After all, why would one be for abortion restrictions and in favor of pba at the same time? It doesn't make sense; and there's no intellectual consistency in that kind of thinking.

Anyway, I'm done with dealing with the bullet-issue crowd.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[section9]

One more thing....Even if you were exactly right about her views, she would never be acceptable to the majority of pro-life Republicans. Just being against infanticide (PBA), and for parental notification (prior to the death of a grandchild), isn't nearly enough.

And one last thing.

You think you can win elections with this issue alone. You cannot. You are part of an activist minority of pro life people. You are opposed by a minority of activist pro-choice voters. Very few Americans, as a percentage of those who actually vote, give a rat's ass about what either side cares deeply about. Half the voters are pro-life, but don't think about it everyday. Half the voters are pro-choice, and they don't think about it every day, either.

All they care about, all they care about, is the price of hogs in St. Louis on election day. Period. If your candidate makes people feel more confident about the future, he or she will win. If you think, by some mad obsession, that the mass of voters care about abortion, then you've got something else coming. It's not something that most people have to deal with in their daily lives.

Get a clue; the object of the exercise is to win elections. That's what political parties are all about. If you can't bring yourself to support a Republican who believes in abortion restrictions, for God's sake, then you'll be no use in a general election. You might as well write in Buchanan in the general, or go join the Bob Smith Cargo Cult for all the good you are to the Republican Party.

You are not the only people who make up the base vote of the Republican party, so quit acting like you're some damn gatekeeper. You don't represent me, and you probably don't represent a majority of Republican Primary voters. You're one voter. Just like me. Start acting like it, and don't presume to speak for others.

Because I'm going to hit you with a big surprise. I bet you that most pro-life Republican voters would run to the polls to vote for a ticket either headed by or with Condi Rice. That is because Life is not the only issue that the activist Republican base is concerned about.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[GraniteStateConservative]

What exactly do I need to source for you? I didn't make any controversial statements. What assertion did I make that you disagree with? Do you not see a difference between being pro-choice, mildly pro-choice and absolutely pro-choice?

I'm done with this argument, though.

[BibChr]

Incoming message.

You can be as pushy and abusive with Artist as you like, it won't change some irreducibles:

1. Abortion on demand cannot be intellectually defended.

2. Anyone who hasn't figured #1 out yet hasn't the moral judgment to be trusted as a leader.

3. Voters who haven't figured out #2 yet shouldn't squeal at those who have.

Be seeing you at God's judgment seat,
Dan

[GraniteStateConservative]

One more thing....Even if you were exactly right about her views, she would never be acceptable to the majority of pro-life Republicans.

The problem is that even if you're right (which I know you aren't), she'd be acceptable to a supermajority of voters-- so she'd win anyway. Telling pro-lifers that she'd work to send Roe v. Wade back to the states where it belongs, that she'd appoint justices who believe that way, that she'd support some federal control on abortion in the meantime (including in our foreign policy), and that she'd urge women not to have abortions would be acceptable to many pro-lifers.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Dan,
You seem to be upset that everything that is morally wrong isn't also illegal. We live in a republic, not a theocracy. God will not judge you or me because of the words our Founder's chose to put in the Constitution. The 10th amendment allows for state control of abortion. The Founder's knew that they were writing us a blank check. All of our amendments can be used to create moral dilemmas. God will judge you by your relationship with Him. You're free to vote for Dr. Rice. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Pyro7480]

I second that!

[BibChr]

Already answered that here and here. (And you know better, pyro!)

The notion that moral judgment is irrelevant for leading a nation should have died under Clinton. To find it still alive is disheartening.

I'll make it simple: anyone who can't figure out that baby-killing is not a right to be protected by law is unfit to lead.

Dan

[Pyro7480]

Why are you saying that I know better? Am I missing something?