>

I take a similar position myself. And as you probably already know, it's not very popular with pro-life people. And most pro-choicers don't much care for it either. It would definitely be a problem for Rice if she were to try to get the nomination.

Translation: she's running.

Not sure why she was coy, because she's not running. She gave a flat "no" to George Stephanpoulos today.

Ace--

You know, this actually could work to Condi's advantage, if she were inclined to run.

-- Certainly it ups here KCQ (Katie Couric Quotient).

-- Being "mildly pro-choice" doesn't preclude her from taking a red-meat position favored in the primary cycle: repeal of Roe v. Wade, and leave it up to states to set their policies legislatively.

After all, if that's the position on gay marriage, it might as well be the position on abortion, right?

I still don't see Condi as anything but Veep material, at best. She's never run a campaign, and she's never had domestic policy experience. Eisenhower can pull something like that off, but Rice can't (and, as much as I like her, shouldn't).

Unless there's a late term "Condi for Cheney" swap for Dubya to anoint her as The Heir, I don't see her posture strengthening that much.

Where I'm at a loss is, who? Who the hell runs, and wins the Republican nod?

I'm still thinking that we're going to see some real dark horses emerge in *both* parties. No Senators can win, so I expect a lot of the second-tier Governors to do a lot better than people would expect (Romney, Allen, etc.).

Man, if only Cheney were ten years younger. . . he'd slice like an effin' hammer, alright.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Last night on SNL they made a joke about Condi's "mildy pro-choice" position.

They interpreted it to mean she was for abortion except when the the woman is pregnant.

Illustrative, IMO.

I thought she wanted to be the NFL Commissioner.

Just to be difficult.I don't think Codi will run unless GWB helps out,but this OBSESSION with abortion is not overly healthy for a enlightened democracy or for its political parties.NO other democracy(or society for that matter) obsesses on this issue.NONE.
There are MANY,MANY,MANY more important issues for the next President to address.
Structural Economic Issues.
Security Issues.
Immigration Issues.
Health care Issues
Supreme Court Issues
Etc,etc,etc.

All I know is that some normally-sane people over on RedState are making asses out of themselves over this. The thread's gotten to 113 posts and cripes it looks for all the world like a slightly more intelligently-written DKos thread.

Actually, I respectfully disagree with your comment dougf.

Just because "no other democracy obsesses" about abortion, doesn't make it a fault that, in American politics, we do. Your premise is like saying "no one in France bathes or uses deodorant, therfore we shouldn't be so gung ho about doing it either".

I think the Abortion issue is actually beneficial, in that it is one of the few issues that helps keep our parties readily discernable to the average voter. I don't want to live in a country where there aren't fundamental differences between the political parties. I like (and respect) parties that stake out clear and diametrical positions on issues and try to win the battle on the merits of their stands.

Are there other issues that are worthy of attention? Sure. But in a "marketplace of ideas" those issues have to spark a coalition for and against them to displace other concerns. Until they do the "abortion issue" (which contains numerous subtexts such as the rule of law vs the rule of judges and the morality of allowing/disallowing the practice, for example) has the "juice".

Further, one could even argue that many of the issues you raised (immigration issues, structural economic issues, Supreme Court issues) are all directly tied into the "abortion issue". Part of Western Europe's economic and demographic problems can be attributed, for example, to ever decreasing birth rates. If anything, the European democracies ought to be asking themselves if, by taking abortion of the table, they haven't brought on a slew of unanticpated problems.

Whew...that was too much thinking for a Sunday. Can I go back to talking about Beatallica now? :)

As an ardently anti-abortion Christian Republican, I really don't give a shit what Condi's (or any other GOP presidential candidate) position on abortion is (unless there's some evidence she intends to use the bully pulpit to drum up business for Planned Parenthood). So long as she promises to appoint judges who will repeal Roe and return the issue to the state legislatures where it belongs, I'm fine.

Not sure why she was coy, because she's not running. She gave a flat "no" to George Stephanpoulos today.

Oh, they ALL say no, multiple times.

The No's aren't interesting. They're pro-forma.

It's the "maybe's" and the "I've considered it" that are telling.

Take Ace's analysis to the bank. I doubt there is anyone here who is more of an authority on women saying "No."

Lots to agree--and disagree--with in this thread. To start with, I'm with Ace and one or two other people on abortion: mildly pro-choice, and by all means let's overturn Roe v. Wade.

Most Americans regard abortion as a very difficult, troubling issue that just doesn't have any perfect answers. Somebody once said that Americans want abortion in a brown paper bag--available, but not common, and not really respectable.

So I hardly think Condi's remarks cripple her as a candidate. It's nothing like watching Kerry contort himself to explain how voting to fund partial-birth abortions was an expression of his deeply-held Catholic beliefs; Condi just gave an honest opinion that doesn't give much comfort to red-meat absolutists on either side of the issue. Reading the threads at Redstate and elsewhere frothing over this is uncomfortably like lurking at Kos or DU (Jeff's totally right on this point), and doesn't sound much like the kind of attitude that wins elections.

And yeah, Ace, she's running. The only person so far who's actually pulled a Sherman is Cheney; everybody else is just going through the necessary motions. It's completely stylized and ritualistic, like Kabuki drama and slasher films.

Ace:

Here's the link--
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0503/S00211.htm

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don't know how many ways to say no, so let me just say it. I don't have any desire to run for President. I don't intend to. I won't do it. I think that --

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You will not run for President?

SECRETARY RICE: I won't. How's that? Is that categorical enough?

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: That's about as clear as you can get. Jeb Bush said the same thing last fall. You said it there. That is an absolute statement. A lot of dreams are going to die today, Secretary Rice.

Thank you very much for joining us.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you, George. Great to be with you.
...
Now it's true that candidates weasel around about it, but Rice isn't really a politician, so I think she'd be less likely to try that. Moreover, there is really no evidence that she has the slightest interest. Other people are touting her, but nothing about her suggests it's something she wants.

If I wanted a pro-choice candidate, I'd register as a Democrat. The abortion issue is one of the few major differences between the parties. Her nomination would be a disaster for the GOP. Cut out 5%-15% of your base in a tight race by putting up a candidate that is only slightly different from the opposition on one of the biggest issues in the country. Even Karl Rove couldn't help sell that candidate.

For some reason many people believe that Christians, especially evangelical Christians, are automatically in the GOP pocket. In reality, the evangelicals are really only aligned with the GOP because they most closely identify with their own beliefs. For true Christians, it's not about political power, but serving their God by obeying his word. That can be done with no polital party involved. Christians don't need politics to be Christians, but Republicans need their votes to stay in power. I know that's a big shock to the libertarian crowd, but that's the way I see it.

George Herbert Walker Hezekiah Smee Boutros-Boutros Hasenpfeffer Boutros Bush saw the light before he ran and became pro-life.

Anyway, I'd rather have a nominally pro-choice president dedicated to promoting conservative justices committed to overturning Roe v. Wade than a nominally pro-life president who doesn't really give a crap about the issue.

I wonder how many of us moderately pro-life Republicans there are out there....usually the position gets flamed to hell in the usual conservative positions. But it's the one I take as I agree with there being more important issues, and I get tired of the big litmus test. What I do care about is appointing conservative judges who will abide by the letter of the Constitution. For those pro-lifers, do you think lodging a protest vote against a "mild pro-choice Republican" does any good? Does the Dems winning really help any?

With that being said, I expect Condi to be VP on one of the Governors tickets.

johnny: I think you missed my point. For many pro-lifers, including myself, being a good Republican isn't the main focus in our lives, it's not even the second or third focus. I vote Republican, and have for nearly 20 years, but it's because they offer the exact opposite of the Democrats. If Republicans becomes Democrat Lite, they're going to lose millions of voters. How do you stir up your base when you offer them the same as the other guy, just a little bit less?

A protest non-vote or even the threat of a protest non-vote is a reminder that the GOP used to be the minority and can be again if they continue to fail their own history. The GOP shifts further left every year, it's just not easy to notice because they're nowhere near the Democrats on that scale. If we keep abandoning our core values, the planks in our platform, Republicans are going to lose a lot of future elections. We've already given up small government, if abortion goes, what seperates us from the Dems besides military support. That's not enough. The Dems winning would be a tragedy, but it's one that could be avoided by picking a candidate that has a good chance to win instead of one that fails the first test of a large minority of the party. Unfortunately, I don't see anybody out there right now for '08, but that's still a long time away.

The fact that there's such a stir over Rice's comment indicates how big a deal the abortion issue really has become. Many of the Rice fans ignore the fact that she has no experience running in an election, nothing is known about her personal life (I don't care, but it's going to be an issue), and her public support for abortion, which many Republicans consider a line in the sand that can not be crossed.

I understand what you're saying, it's just that I see a protest vote or a third-party vote as ultimately hurting your position. Someone like HRC appointing Supreme Court justices would do a lot more harm to pro-life goals than a "mildly pro-choice" president like Rice who would be much more likely to appoint more conservative judges. I think a good goal for the pro-life crowd is the overturning of Roe, and leaving it to the states, and I think a protest vote that hands the election to the DNC would set that goal back an untold number of years.

I respect voting on principle but I also think you have to look at the totality of the decision.

I appreciate your understanding my position. I'm not happy about the possibility of being put into that position. At this point I don't think Rice will run anyway, but if she does, she's going to have to make some strong pro-life statements on the record to win over the doubters. Otherwise the GOP lose the White House. It's likely to be tight vote and we're going to need a solid candidate to light up the base.

Mike