← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17290 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2005-03-13
2005-03-13 14:25 | User Profile
'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid By Mike Allen [URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30282-2005Mar12.html?sub=AR]Washington Post [/URL] 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.
"If you go back to 2000 when I helped the president in the campaign," she said, "I said that I was, in effect, kind of libertarian on this issue. And meaning by that, that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I am a strong proponent of parental choice -- of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice."
Rice, 50, has been quoted as using the "mildly pro-choice" formulation as long ago as August 1999, in a National Review profile.
Many Republicans have expressed curiosity about her views on social issues as her time in the limelight has expanded and as it became increasingly clear that the early field for 2008 has no obvious Bush successor.
Rice's image-conscious staff has refined the way she is portrayed on television, compared with her predecessor, Colin L. Powell. Instead of taking questions with foreign dignitaries in front of the State Department's glass doors, she appears in the monumental Benjamin Franklin State Dining room, with Corinthian columns and crystal chandeliers. She meets photographers in front of a fireplace that evokes the Oval Office, and has given many more interviews to U.S. and international reporters on overseas trips.
Rice, a former Stanford provost, told the Times that she believes the president "has been in exactly the right place" on abortion, "which is we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible."
"There are a lot of things that we can unite around and that's where I would tend to be," she said. "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?' "
Some political operatives relish the idea of Rice taking on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2008. One of the Times questioners said, "You could save us from Hillary."
"Oh, jeez," Rice said when the question was raised. "I'm going to try to be a really good secretary of state. I'm going to work really hard at it. I have enormous respect for people who do run for office. It's really hard for me to imagine myself in that role."
Asked if she would "do a Sherman," or give an unconditional denial, Rice replied, "Oh, that's not fair."
2005-03-13 14:38 | User Profile
Is 'mildly pro-choice' like 'kind of pregant' or 'mostly dead'?
2005-03-13 15:28 | User Profile
She's mildly in favor of not stopping ilegal immigration and mildly in favor of Affirmative Action and mildly in favor of gay marriage.
I understand there was an article this week in The Harvard Crimson (by a Harvard law student-- Jew??) championing the idea of Rice for the GOP Presidential candidate. I mentioned a couple weeks back that TWS's Bill Kristol first mentioned how great it would be for Rice to be the GOP's choice for President. Now alot of mainstream conservatives are pushing the idea. I couldn't be happier about this. If only it gives me a chance to say "I told you so" to a bunch of pro-life GOPers who scoffed at me and called me a liberal for recently leaving the Republican Party and my assailing of mainstream conservatism.
2005-03-13 15:40 | User Profile
Rice is also the favorite of the crowd that votes on the polls on the [I]Weekly Standard[/I] website by a big margin. (a little over 33%)
Walter,
She just told Tim Russert that she wouldn't run despite all of this so-called "grassroot" support for her. This is being orchestrated by the same people who gave us Bush. I sometimes hear idiots on the radio call up and say she would make a good president. I think they do that because she is black, female and a Republican. I doubt if any of them can name [B]genuine[/B] five accomplishments she has since being a part of the Bush Administration. Lying doesn't count.
2005-03-13 16:15 | User Profile
Never happen. Strike one- she's black Strike two- she's female Stike three-she has an accomplishment?
2005-03-13 16:16 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1522892,00.html]Rice fuels rumours that itââ¬â¢s Condi v Hillary in 2008[/URL] Tony Allen-Mills, Washington
WASHINGTON is suddenly agog at the prospect of President Condi. A flurry of speculation about the political ambitions of Condoleezza Rice was ignited yesterday when the US secretary of state took a first step towards wooing conservative Republican voters. Asked in a newspaper interview to comment on widespread speculation that she might stand as the Republican candidate for the White House in 2008, Rice not only declined to rule out a run; she went on to discuss an unusual subject for a secretary of state ââ¬â the rights and wrongs of abortion.
Rice was careful to avoid any suggestion that she is actively planning a campaign. But Washington pundits seized on her unexpectedly ambivalent responses as evidence that a dream contest is materialising for 2008: Rice v Hillary Clinton, an all-woman battle for the most powerful job in the world.
When the subject was first broached by the Washington Times reporter, Rice replied with a brush-off. ââ¬ÅI never wanted to run for anything,ââ¬Â she said. ââ¬ÅI have enormous respect for people who do run for office. Itââ¬â¢s really hard for me to imagine myself in that role.ââ¬Â
She was pressed on whether she was prepared to repeat the famous denial of General William T Sherman, who said in 1884: ââ¬ÅIf nominated, I will not run; if elected I will not serve.ââ¬Â
Rice replied with a chuckle: ââ¬ÅThatââ¬â¢s not fair . . . I really canââ¬â¢t imagine it.ââ¬Â
Had she stopped there, many in Washington might not have paid too much attention. But even though President George W Bush has barely begun his second term, Republicans are painfully aware that he has no obvious successor.
The race has begun for various senators and governors who are already nosing around New Hampshire ââ¬â the scene of early voting ââ¬â in the hope of staking a claim to Bushââ¬â¢s majority. The first thing they must do to impress conservative voters is establish their views on abortion.
In a striking departure from her preoccupations with the Middle East and Iran, Rice talked about how she approaches an ââ¬Åextremely difficult moral issueââ¬Â as ââ¬Åa deeply religious personââ¬Â.
Rice admitted to being ââ¬Åmildly pro-choiceââ¬Â (in favour of a womanââ¬â¢s right to choose) ââ¬â a position that for some right-wing voters will disqualify her immediately. But she emphasised that abortion should be ââ¬Åas rare a circumstance as possibleââ¬Â. She also argued that the government should not pay for abortions ââ¬Åbecause I believe those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund itââ¬Â.
Rice insisted that her remarks should not be misinterpreted: ââ¬ÅIââ¬â¢m not trying to be elected.ââ¬Â But they are certain to be seized on by an army of admirers who have established websites seeking a Rice candidacy in 2008. ââ¬ÅOur ladyââ¬â¢s got the buzz,ââ¬Â proclaimed the weblog CondiPundit.
Washington analysts have long been divided over Riceââ¬â¢s chances. Some Republicans argue that she should first return to California and challenge a Democratic senator to gain campaign experience. She had a chance to run for governor two years ago, but yielded to Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Her supporters see her as an American Margaret Thatcher, ready to confound convention and become Americaââ¬â¢s first woman president. Dick Morris, the former Bill Clinton aide who has become an outspoken critic of Hillary Clinton, recently argued that Rice had become a ââ¬ÅRepublican rock star . . . her every movement covered by an adoring mediaââ¬Â.
Rice took Europe by storm on her recent tour. If she pulls off a breakthrough in the Middle East peace process, Morris argued, a Rice candidacy could destroy the Democratic partyââ¬â¢s electoral chances.
Harder-nosed analysts suggest that her political inexperience is too big a drawback, especially when pitted against the masterful manoeuvring of the Clintons.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginiaââ¬â¢s Centre for Politics, said that the two women were in different leagues. Compared with the Clinton steamroller, the Rice candidacy was ââ¬Åcotton candy fluffââ¬Â, he said.
Yet Rice has one card up her sleeve. She is a close friend of the president, whose endorsement could prove decisive. Bush recently joked that ââ¬Åif I catch her thinking that way (about becoming president), Iââ¬â¢m going to remind her that I picked her to be secretary of stateââ¬Â. If she does well he may need to promote her.
2005-03-13 16:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Jack Cassidy]She's mildly in favor of not stopping ilegal immigration and mildly in favor of Affirmative Action and mildly in favor of gay marriage..[/QUOTE]
Q, Sert, Jack. Refugee, great points.
Let's engage in idle speculation (our specialty!) and imagine what would happen if Condi went up against Hilly in 2008.
What would it do to the GOP (would the white male base prefer Hilly)?
What would it do to the Rats (would Negroes jump ship and vote for one of their own over the Rats' heiress apparent)?
Would a third party have any chance of emerging in the ensuing chaos?
I have no idea.
But it just goes to prove once again that the two parties stand for nothing other than the continued power of its leaders.
I guess that's just the way it works.
What do you think?
2005-03-13 18:14 | User Profile
Walter,
Gladly.
I believe the Neocons would love Rice, based on her lackadaisic preformance so far. They probably think they can intimidate her. If the story about her telling Feith if they want the Israeli view they'll call the ambassador is true this may not be the case. The only thing I've seen her do well is lie with a straignt face.
When it comes to the White male base I only see two types voting for her. Those who will vote for anyone with an "R" after their names and those who allow themselves to be scared in the same manner they did with the idea of a Gore presidency. We could witness enough males who say to hell with it to the point that there is a loss on male votes. Bush did well among white men. I don't think Rice would do as well.
I don't believe it would affect the black vote. There are too many cases where blacks have run as Republicans against whites and lost the black vote. Keyes comes to mind here in his senate race in Maryland. The "R" is the kiss of death as far as black voters are concerned. Too many of them regard that as a sign of being an uncle tom or aunt jemima.
LewRockwell.com
The Politics Of War
by William S. Lind
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are already lost. Nothing the United States can do can yield an American victory in either place.
In all probability, both wars were lost before the first bomb was dropped or the first shot fired. They were lost because, in an era when the state is in decline, our wars on the Afghan and Iraqi states were doomed to be too successful. We fought to destroy two regimes, but what we ended up doing was destroying two states. Neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq are we able to recreate the state, which means that Fourth Generation, non-state forces will come to dominate both places. And neither we nor any other state knows how to defeat Fourth Generation enemies.
To the degree America had a chance of real victory in either war, we lost that chance through early mistakes. In Afghanistan, we failed to bring the Pashtun into the new government, which means we remain allied with the Uzbeks and Tajiks against the Pashtun. Unfortunately, in the end the Pashtun always win Afghan wars.
In Iraq, the two fatal early errors were outlawing the Baath Party and disbanding the Iraqi army. Outlawing the Baath deprived the Sunni community of its only political vehicle, which meant it had no choice but to fight us. Disbanding the Iraqi army left us with no native force that could maintain order, and also provided the resistance with a large pool of armed and trained fighters. Washington is now making noises about reversing both of those early decisions, but it is simply too late. As von Moltke said, a mistake in initial dispositions can seldom be put right.
What is interesting is that the most powerful man in Washington, Karl Rove, who is President George W. Bushââ¬â¢s political advisor, has apparently figured out that the Iraq war is lost (Afghanistan is not on his political radar screen). Further, he has discerned that if Mr. Bush goes into the 2004 election with the war in Iraq still going on, and still going badly, Mr. Bush is toast. The result was the recent decision to turn the government back to the Iraqiââ¬â¢s sometime next summer.
Will it work? Probably not. Mr. Rove still faces two big fights, and neither will be easy. The first will be a nasty political brawl with the so-called neo-cons, more accurately neo-Jacobins, who gave us the Iraq War in the first place. Their political future is at stake in Iraq, and if we are defeated, they go straight into historyââ¬â¢s wastebasket. They are determined to fight down to the last American paratrooper, and once they figure out that Mr. Rove wants out, they will go after him with everything they have.
The other fight will be in Iraq itself, where we will see a race between American efforts to create at least the fig leaf of a functioning Iraqi state so we can get out with some tail feathers intact and a resistance movement that is rapidly gaining strength. My bet is that, unfortunately, we will lose. Again, the root problem is that in a Fourth Generation world, once you have destroyed a state recreating it is very difficult. More, as is typical of a power facing defeat, our moves are too little and too late. By next summer, when we hope to transfer sovereignty to a new Iraqi government, it is likely to represent a frustration of the Shiitesââ¬â¢ hope to use their majority status to create a Shiite Islamic Republic. That may deprive us, and the new Iraqi government, of the one prop we still have, a relatively quiescent Shiite population.
The upshot of all of this is that despite Mr. Roveââ¬â¢s belated wakening to political reality, Mr. Bush will go into the 2004 election with one of two albatrosses around his neck: a continuing, losing guerilla war, with ever-increasing American casualties, or an out-and-out American defeat, where we have left Iraq very much the way the Soviets left Afghanistan. Which is, by the way, the way we will also leave Afghanistan itself.
The neo-consââ¬â¢ parting gift to real American conservatives will be President Hillary Clinton. Thanks a lot, guys.
November 26, 2003
William Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation.
Copyright é 2003 William S. Lind
William Lind Archives
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind1.html[/url]
2005-03-13 18:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=LA Refugee] Stike three-she has an accomplishment?[/QUOTE]
She bodyblocked Yeltsin in the White House one day.
In one famous incident, Rice physically blocked the door to the Oval Office to prevent Russian leader Boris Yeltsin from meeting with the President.
NEWS FROM ISRAEL - February 12, 2005 by Charles E. Quigley (featuring "BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS -A SHIP ON OILY WATERS" A letter from Ruth Matar, Women in Green, Jerusalem, February 10, 2005)
2005-03-13 19:18 | User Profile
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
The most nauseating thing about today's "new GOP" is not that their views are liberal on so many issues, but that on any number of issues they try to present themselves as not only leftists, but "kinder, gentler" leftists. Thus, Condi Rice is "mildly pro-choice." Colin Powell was "a moderate supporter of affirmative action." I suppose we're supposed to think that Bush's version of guestworker status is a "milder" form of amnesty.
I had mentioned in an earlier post that the best way for a single ideology to rule is not through one party but through two, whereby the two parties agree on all but the most trivial points. This is how the Democrats and the GOP play off one another - they agree on almost every controversial issue, but "agree to different degrees" so to speak. And the masses think that this disagreement over one or two degrees in either direction (or rhetorical differences) is a real choice for voters.
Don't be surprised if it's Condi 2008. And look forward to a top cabinet post for Kristol and Kagan while you're at it.
2005-03-13 19:27 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Let's engage in idle speculation (our specialty!) and imagine what would happen if Condi went up against Hilly in 2008. Idle speculation? Count me in!
The white, male base of the GOP (ill-used and emasculated as they may be) will not vote for a black woman for President. In fact, I don't even think many Republican women would vote for a woman for President. Except for the most leftist among them, I think most women will admit (if asked point blank) that they prefer a man's finger 'on the button'.
As Sert pointed out, the blacks would still vote Democratic if it were Marcus Garvey on the GOP ticket. Blacks see black Republicans as race traitors, period.
This would mean that GOP voters would have to either hold their nose and vote for Hillary! or entertain the notion of blaspheming truth, justice, and the American way by voting for a third party. If this were to happen, I think there would be a real chance of a skillful (and slightly demagogic) third party candidate pulling a Perot-sized share of the electorate, say 18-25%. That would be huge.
2005-03-13 19:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]This is how the Democrats and the GOP play off one another - they agree on almost every controversial issue, but "agree to different degrees" so to speak. And the masses think that this disagreement over one or two degrees in either direction (or rhetorical differences) is a real choice for voters.[/QUOTE] Pardon the vulgarity, but the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is like a prison rapist asking you if you want it fast or slow.
2005-03-13 20:25 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID5339|CHID14|CIID1975726,00.html]Catholic Way[/URL]
[QUOTE]Mildly Pro-Choice?
Being "mildly pro-choice" is like being "a little pregnant"
Mildly Pro Choice? By: Keith A. Fournier é Third Millennium, LLC
On March 12, 2005 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was interviewed by the Washington Times. The interview has fueled the growing speculation that she may be entertaining a bid for the Presidency in 2008. Not because she acknowledged such an intention but simply because she refused to ââ¬Årule it outââ¬Â. The speculation has been fueled by a torrent of articles and is the continual banter of talk radio and blogs. It was begun by Dick Morris, the seemingly ever present political speculator.
The Washington D.C. chatter culture is spinning over a possible woman to woman match in 2008 for the Presidency of the United States.
In the blue corner is Senator Hillary Clinton who has been making all the moves that clearly signify her intention to run. She has also begun a bizarre effort to make herself sound as if she somehow sympathizes with the pro-life position while her rhetoric and record are unapologetically in favor of abortion on demand.
In the red corner is Secretary Rice who has captured the attention of many in both parties through her presence, her political savvy and her excellent communication skills. Otherwise clearly pro-life members of her own party seem willing to give her a pass on this issue for reasons I simply do not understand.
Oh, I know, we are repeatedly told that it is too early to speculate about the 2008 race. But is it? The horses are already lining up at the gate. The money is beginning to flow. The fact is that the race is already underway. That is why it is so vital that engaged pro-life people begin to work now to assure that the momentum toward building a culture of life continues. For millions of Americans this issue is not a ââ¬Åsingle issueââ¬Â but rather the lens through which the entirety of policy and politics is viewed. The dignity of every human person, at every age and stage, from the first home of the whole human race, a motherââ¬â¢s womb, through and including the sanctuary of the death bed, is the polestar of every economic and public policy issue.
While it is true that there are an array of vitally important issues that must also be considered, there is also a hierarchy of values to be applied in the political and policy arena. How one views our obligations to the ones who Mother Theresa rightly called the ââ¬Åpoorest of the poorââ¬Â, children in the womb who have no voice, speaks loudly of how one views the dignity of life itself. The race reveals a serious dearth of concern, in both major parties, for the right to life and the freedom to be born.
Much has been made about the fact that Secretary Rice was the daughter of a preacher, a Presbyterian minister. Yet, in this interview while explaining love for fashion, she made an interesting admission. She said that while her father was preparing for his sermons, she and her mother would shop. One wishes now that she had considered the content of the both the Bible and the unbroken Christian tradition concerning the inviolable dignity of every human person, more than the latest styles.
In the interview she, like Senator Clinton has on several occasions done recently, spoke of her "deep religious faith." Persons of faith must live a unity of life. Religious faith is not ââ¬Åprivateââ¬Â in the sense of keeping its influence outside of our daily life. The truths of faith should inform everything that we do. When directly asked about abortion, Secretary Rice sounded very similar to the Senator from new York, saying that abortion should be ââ¬Åas rare a circumstance as possible," and adding "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the otherââ¬Â¦.So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it."
It gets murkier. She spoke of pro-lifers as "the other side" and tried to carve herself a niche as being "in effect kind of libertarian on this issue." Then she used the phrase that I have chosen as the title of this article. She spoke of herself as a "mildly pro-choice" Republican. Let me be clear, she also said that she is ââ¬Åââ¬Â¦.a strong proponent of parental notification.ââ¬Â That is good. She referred to herself as ââ¬Åââ¬Â¦.a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortionââ¬Â, the procedure more akin to infanticide wherein a child is partially delivered so that just the head is accessible only to have his or her brains sucked out. That is simply not enough.
Abortion is the intentional execution of an innocent human person in the first home of the whole human race. Innocent human life must always be defended against this kind of aggression! The claim of being ââ¬Åmildlyââ¬Â pro-choice is like the claim of being a ââ¬Ålittle bit pregnantââ¬Â. Every procured abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human person. For example, why do we say that a woman ââ¬Ålost her baby when she miscarries? Yet, in the case of a procured abortion, we call it ââ¬Åa choiceââ¬Â and a ââ¬Åright.ââ¬Â Or worse, why do we allow politicians to continually refer to it as a ââ¬Ådifficult moral issueââ¬Â as the Secretary did in this interview. Leaders need to lead. This issue is not difficult. It is absolutely clear. This issue is also not simply ââ¬Åreligiousââ¬Â in the sense that only religious people feel a certain way about it. Rather, it concerns a fundamental human right.
The child in the womb is a human person. Medical science has confirmed what our consciences have long known ââ¬â what is affirmed by the Natural Law written on every human heart - abortion is killing the innocent.
Like most Americans, I would love to see a talented woman become our President. Perhaps it would finally put behind us a history of discrimination against women. In the case of Secretary Rice, her holding the position would also put another sad fact of our past behind us, discrimination against people of color. However, just as during the last election cycle, when John Kerry tried to run as ââ¬Åa Catholicââ¬Â, I will make my decision on who to support based upon their positions on the fundamental issues of our age. Choosing someone who claimed to be a Catholic, while he opposed the infallible teaching of his own Church concerning this issue, was not an option for me. Similarly, supporting a woman who is wrong on this issue, simply because she is a woman, is wrong.
There are several dangers emerging in this political plot. Let me discuss just a few.
Secretary Rice has referred to herself as being ââ¬Ålibertarianââ¬Â on this issue. By that she means that she is not pro-life. One cannot believe it is ever right to give someone a choice to do what is always and everywhere wrong. This is one of the areas where the role of Government, to protect innocent human beings against unjust aggression, is eminently clear. Though I believe, as a Catholic Christian, that libertarianism is antithetical to the Christian vision of the human person, the family and the human community, I must point out that even some ââ¬Ålibertariansââ¬Â, such as ââ¬Ålibertarians for lifeââ¬Â, oppose abortion. The growing ââ¬Ålibertarianââ¬Â impulse in Republican politics may mark a decided turn in the party that will make it increasingly difficult to support, even though between the two parties, it at least has a pro-life platform.
Then there is the tired label, ââ¬Åconservative.ââ¬Â Many faithful Christians, Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox, who have stood faithful to the clear and unbroken tradition of Christianity that procured abortion is always wrong and can never be justified, have been painted into a corner by letting themselves be ââ¬Ålabeledââ¬Â as conservatives. The arguments are already being made that a ââ¬Åconservativeââ¬Â should want issues decided by the States and not favor a big Federal Government. Based on the Christian ordering principle of subsidiarity, I share the desire to keep good governance at the lowest practical level. However, my opposition to abortion is rooted in my opposition to murder. It is a legitimate role of government to protect its citizens from unjust aggression. Abortion is unjust aggression against an innocent victim who is incapable of defending himself or herself. Sending it ââ¬Åback to the Satesââ¬Â is no solution. Just as slavery was wrong and rightly required a National policy to oppose it and to undo its harm, abortion is wrong and requires the same approach at every level of government.
Here come the ââ¬Åpro-choiceââ¬Â Republicans. Like the ââ¬Åpro-choiceââ¬Â Democrats, they are beginning to spout the platitudes of people who simply have no courage. It is in how we respond to this issue that the soul and future of our Nation will be revealed. The very nature of freedom lies at the heart of the entire discussion. In his monumental encyclical letter entitled the ââ¬ÅGospel of Lifeââ¬Â, Pope John Paul II warned of a ââ¬Åcounterfeit notion of freedomââ¬Â as a raw power over others who are weaker. He also wrote about the possible the ââ¬Ådeath of true freedomââ¬Â resulting from unmooring our freedom to choose from reference to unchanging truths such as the right to life.
This interview with Secretary Rice should rouse every champion of true freedom to begin to act for the 2008 race now. We need candidates, be they Democrat or Republican, whose position on the right to life is absolutely clear. Not people who claim to be ââ¬Åmildly pro-choice.ââ¬Â
Keith A. Fournier is a human rights lawyer and public policy advocate.[/QUOTE]
2005-03-14 01:19 | User Profile
If the nutty Republicans run Rice in 2008, it will be the ultimate act of suicide by political correctness. Hello, Hillary! Who cares? Republicans, Democrats, all the same establishment nonsense.
2005-03-14 01:41 | User Profile
CornCod,
Hell I would vote for Mrs. Clinton if this happens!
2005-03-14 02:10 | User Profile
That the GOP is positioning Rice for a 2008 presidential bid is obvious. There's no speculation. It's already happening. Welcome to the New & Improved GOP.
The Neocons and Respectable Conservatives are wetting their panties at the idea because 1) Rice would be a strong challenger to a Hillary candidacy, and 2) they believe it would render the GOP immune to accusations of "racism" from the Left. Plus, Rice is very sound on Israel.
But a Rice candidacy faces challenges, not least of which is the Republican white power base. (Why whites still vote Republican is a question best left to another thread). The GOP clearly owes its success to whites. And, as Quantrill has pointed out, these voters are unlikely to vote for a Negro president. Whites practically drool over Negro sports stars, rappers, and assorted minstrels, but I'm not entirely certain they are prepared to vote for one as President.
2005-03-14 04:00 | User Profile
Neither Hillary nor Congo will win their primaries.
2005-03-14 04:06 | User Profile
Is her name derived from country's name?
2005-03-14 04:08 | User Profile
What the Congo or the Sleeze part?
2005-03-14 06:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis][URL=http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID5339|CHID14|CIID1975726,00.html]Catholic Way[/URL][/QUOTE]
Thanks for the Fournier article
2005-03-14 10:05 | User Profile
Condoleeza Rice reminds me of a black version of the blonde robot/mech thingie that the Martians used to infiltrate the White House in "Mars Attacks". Same haircut and everything. Every time I see her on TV I expect to see her face pop open on a hinge to reveal some ugly little alien/demon inside working the controls.
2005-03-14 12:52 | User Profile
This whole topic is really further demonstration of the manipulation that lurks behind the two-party system. If the elites decide that we simply must have a female President, then both parties can simply run a female candidate, like Hillary! vs Condi in 2008. Or if they decide we simply must have a black President, then it could be Barack Obama vs Condi. Up to this point, the candidates have been virtually indistinguishable ideologically, but different at least externally. In a two party system, what do the masses do when they are offered two truly identical candidates, eg. two liberal blacks, or two liberal women, or two liberal black women?
2005-03-14 13:09 | User Profile
In a two party system, what do the masses do when they are offered two truly identical candidates,...
They still have to win the primaries against white candidates.
2005-03-14 14:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]They still have to win the primaries against white candidates.[/QUOTE] True, but as the destruction of Howard Dean by the party elites showed, that can be orchestrated.
2005-03-14 14:17 | User Profile
Yes, it can be orchestrated. But normally I think the way this stuff works is the system runs candidates all of which it wouldn't mind seeing elected, and if one steps out of line, like Dean, then that one gets crucified. It is easier to crucify one than a whole field for the benefit of two.
2005-03-14 15:06 | User Profile
Well, 2008 is too soon to run another Bush, so Jeb will have to wait until either 2012 or 2016. I think the Republicans will run either Condi or Bill Frist, and the Dems will run Hillary! while grooming Obama for the next go-around. Of course, anything could happen between now and then.
2005-03-14 15:26 | User Profile
Like I say Q, it will depend on the primaries. They may very well run Condi and Hillary but there will be ten or so others running as well, and it is going to depend on who gets the popular vote.