Posted on 05/29/2005 2:33:50 PM PDT by strategofr
No but he is worth quite a bit. He doesn't take a salary, if that is any indication. He doesn't need it, however, he is also anti gun, pro gay even though he says otherwise.
Since so many states allow crossover voting in primaries it may be possible for a pro-abortion candidateto win the nomination, but I doubt Rice could win the general election. No doubt she would pick up many black and pro-abortion moderate votes that a white pro-lifer would lose. But once her pro-abort stance becomes widely known I don't believe there would be enough of those to offset the millions of votes she would lose among conservative evangelicals and devout Catholics.
I for one will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate for any local, state, or county office no matter how much we may agree on other issues or how awful the opposition candidate may be. Anyone who believes it's OK to kill innocent human beings in the womb for any reason other than to save the mother's life doesn't have the moral integrity to govern a county, state, a nation.
That doesn't necessarily mean I would vote for the opposition, it just means I would leave that part of my ballot blank.
The same strategy Shirley Chisholm used to win the Presidency!
yea but the point is that she wouldnt, as she was stated that she has the inherent position that a woman has an inherent right to choose - there is no room to wiggle out of that one.
It'll be a complex primary because the moderates(guiliani,mccain etc) would have a better chance in the general, but then its a matter of what are we winning if the moderate is in power. however, if we take control of this and guide a strong conservative, we are toast if the dems nominate someone other than hillary(Bayh,Richardson etc)
She isn't stupid. If she even tried to run then she would find a way to appeal to moderates and the base. She self styles herself to be a libertarian and federalism is pretty libertarian because it allows each section of the US to be more self deterministic.
The results of the last election pretty much bear that out Rove's strategy; the dims bought their workers, the republicans were almost an entirely volunteer effort, all with passion. Karl Rove may be smart, but he can't take the place of 3 million volunteers that wouldn't turn up to lick an envelope for Dr. Rice.
I disagree.
Welcome to FR.
Maggie Thatcher was a good one, Golda Meir did fine. I am fascinated by Condi--she has a certain cool, analytic style which would serve her well in a crisis. And her personal life reflects an emotional detachment which could only help when ordering troops into harm's way. Plus, to be an accomplished concert pianist requires an element of inner discipline rare among the run-o-the-mill politicians we usually get to choose from.
They did alright, BUT they were not the leaders of the Free World. Sorry, I just do not want a women as head of this country.
LOL! I remember her. She had the highest IQ in the House! Shirley had three problems though--she was a leftwing crackpot, she never DID anything, and she was born 40 years too soon.
I DK either but his father Goerge, before he became a pol, was CEO of American Motors back when AMC made money. No doubt Mitt is quite comfortably endowed.
You support her position on taxes, social security reform, border control, medicaid reform, funding for the NEA, tort reform and expansion of government?
Absent knowing what her position on those and another three dozen issues I think I'll hold back, thanks.
This is in fact the only rational position for a president to adopt, given that it is the only alternate position that has a ghost of a chance of replacing Roe. EO's about abortion in the military, foreign aid, etc, are good, but mainly serve as moral statements. They probably save few lives.
Encouraging courts to throw the issue back to the States, where it belongs, is the best thing a President realistically can do for Life.
I wish GW had taken this position and held to it from the start. His argument about changing hearts is a long term recipe for healing, but it doesn't move the ball at all. The federalist option as you call it, is principled, politically viable, and based on a sound understanding of the founders' intentions.
"My gosh, the MSM has already crowned Mrs. Bubba, and she is a senator...but hasn't been even a mayor, let alone governor!!!"
Let alone any sort of distinguishable Human Life Form. ;)
If the Republican party is stupid enough to nominate a candidate for President who cannot even deliver his own state, then they deserve the total disintegration that will follow such a move.
Fine by me. George Allen was my pick before all this filibuster stuff hit the fan. Bright, young, looks good
in a suit and is conservative. Everything we thought we'd get when we voted for Bush.....
"My gosh, the MSM has already crowned Mrs. Bubba, and she is a senator...but hasn't been even a mayor, let alone governor!!!"
Valid points. But Mrs. Bubba is rather ahem, persuasive...in a unique way, really. Course, Ron Brown never let himself get intimidated.
"(hint: elections are exactly 104 years apart)"
I love it, but could you ple-e-a-se give us "lazy &/or uneducated" ones the answer?
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.