Here’s why there’s ZERO chance of this happening.
-Rice is “mildly pro-choice”. Is that like being “a little pregnant”? Do you really think Mitt wants to reopen the discussion about his views on abortion?
~ DrewM. responding to the rumor that former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has emerged as the frontrunner for Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential pick, Ace of Spades, July 12
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Condi would be a great choice in some respects. Her being “mildly pro-choice” may be due to her particular life circumstances. She has never married or had a child. She is also somewhat attractive. This group of women is likely to favor legal abortion for fairly obvious reasons.
Of course, there are attractive single women who have lived their entire lives celibate or solidly lesbian. Nellie Gray of March for Life is elderly and has never married or had children. However, I think most single women have heterosexual relations at one point or another.
Rice’s pro-choice position means, I believe, that she will not be Romney’s running mate. That’s unfortunate because she is awesome – and I say that as a Democrat. Today’s GOP is beholden to the extreme right wing for whom abortion is THE litmus test for candidates.
Wikipedia currently says this:
Rice said, “If you go back to 2000 when I helped the president in the campaign. 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.” She would not want the federal government “forcing its views on one side or the other.”
Rice said she believes President Bush “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.” However, she added that she has been “concerned about a government role” but has “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” the procedure.
from Allahpundit on Hotair at 8:56 pm on July 12:
Problem two [of three]: Last I checked, Condi’s pro-choice. Admittedly, as you’ll see below, her position comes with lots of caveats, but so what? That won’t spare Romney a headache with social conservatives that he could have avoided by picking a veep from the 98 percent or so of prominent Republican officials who are pro-life. Besides, as John McCormack noted a few days ago, Romney’s already pledged not to choose a pro-choicer. Even if Condi’s had a Romney-esque “awakening” on this issue in later life and has now become pro-life, that only means that instead of having one candidate on the ticket whose reversal on abortion seems mighty opportunistic, we’ll have two.
This might be the right time for Condi to go for the criminalize abortion position: she’s probably post-menopausal.
However, the Pres of V-P can’t immediately negate Roe v. Wade (poor decision that it was). I think Condi would very much help get Romney elected. That would be a boon to the outlaw abortion side so Condi would be a good choice.
Actually, I have no problem with Condi being a candidate. I believe she is sincere and intellectually honest, and simply hasn’t really been presented a solid case for life in a way for her that touches both her heart and mind.
I’d love to see Dr. Wilke or Robert George have a solid conversation with her on this issue if she is under consideration and thinking of running.
On the other-hand, if she really wasn’t willing to have a sincere, full conversation then I might think otherwise.
Today’s Democratic Party is beholden to the extreme left wing for whom abortion is THE litmus test for candidates.
CC, asking a candidate if they think it’s OK to tear a human being limb from limb is a great litmus test, just like Penn State’s new litmus test is “will you abuse children coach?” Children are human beings worthy of value, not instruments to be abused of or disposed of if inconvenient to your way of life. Yes, I did just equate killing a young human being with rape. Both violate their bodily integrity.
It’s not just abortion. DrewM.’s post also points out the Bush connection for Condi. Can we say “TOXIC”?
And the fact that her expertise focuses more on foreign policy, not economics.
She may be a very articulate, pleasant person, but for VP? When we’ve GOT to send the President packing yesterday? Weak choice.
Jindal, baby, Jindal.
Chris says:
July 13, 2012 at 9:05 am
CC, asking a candidate if they think it’s OK to tear a human being limb from limb is a great litmus test, just like Penn State’s new litmus test is “will you abuse children coach?” Children are human beings worthy of value, not instruments to be abused of or disposed of if inconvenient to your way of life. Yes, I did just equate killing a young human being with rape. Both violate their bodily integrity.
(Denise) Chris, it seems to me that women who are happy to find out they are pregnant are unlikely to seek abortions (or to commit suicide if abortion is unavailable). Instead, they are apt to eagerly await the birth and take good care of themselves during the pregnancy (which makes it likely a baby will be born healthy).
What can we do to ensure that the women who become pregnant are the women who want to have babies?
Not going to happen:
https://twitter.com/robertcostaNRO/statuses/223575945188098048
With the news out about Romney’s profiting from abortion business, a bet a pro choice VP pick would be a welcome distraction to his campaign.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/romney-invested-in-a-fetus-disposal-company.html
He still supported legal abortion back then (and everyone knows that he used to support legal abortion). I don’t see what the big deal is…
I think the “big deal” Navi is that he lied about being gone from Bane, yet documents show he was still CEO, and making $100,000 per year, and millions from investments, from the Fetus Disposal industry. It’s one thing to “support legal abortion,” and quite another to profit from it. Unless I’m missing something. Personally, I care not. But, I thought some on this site might want to know if he has had second thoughts about his days at Stericycle.
No, Hal. He HAS to pick a pro-life VP to show that he’s turned a new leaf. Because, even though he might have profited from medical waste disposal at some point (hey, I wonder if he helped take care of YOUR unwanted children, Hal!), he still never campaigned in favor of partial birth abortion. Romney never wrote any letters about how our “right” to suck baby brains out of full-term children was in peril-oh noes! He never voted to allow babies born alive in abortions to die in hospital utility rooms with no care or assistance. He didn’t suspend the Mexico City Policy. He didn’t drop funding for Snowflake Babies. So as far as being the clearly Pro-Life candidate out of the two, I don’t think Romney has much to worry about, considering we have the most pro-abortion president EVER.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/obamas-absence-the-talk-of-naacp-convention
THe ‘obamateur’, Americas first ‘colored’ person elected president, passed on annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of [almost exclusively LIBERAL ] Colored People
,
But b o did not completely disregard the oldest and largest ostensibly civil rights oraganization in the USA. mr. bojangles sent the blackest man in his administration, Joe Biden.
[The late democRAT senator Robert ‘KKK’ Byrd never attended a Klan convention either. What with these racist politicians?]
Mitt Romney was roundly booed by the crowd of tolerant and non-partisan ‘colored people’ who vividly demonstrated their committment to judging a man by his character and not by the color of his fathers skin.
But Romney took it in stride and noted that Condi Rice would not have fared any better with this bunch of short sighted simpeltons.
Romney, never forget that you need pro-life voters to win and pro-choice voters won’t vote for a Republican anyway. There is literally nothing to gain from playing to both sides.
Hi Ken. Another foray into race land?
Why would you say Biden is the “blackest man in his administration?
Why can’t you spell Democrat correctly?
Why do you continue using the “Bojangles” nickname?
Why did you call the NAACP crowd “colored people?
I understand you you are calling the late Senator Byrd a racist, but who else are you calling a racist?
Hal,
Did he profit from it? Was he in charge at that time, or just the money man? Did they dictate what local facilities could and could not contract with? Did any local Stericycle businesses work with abortion clinics back then? I’m sure some Planned Parenthood staff bought office supplies from Staples, can you say from that he profited from abortion clinics in that way too? I don’t know, but then again, neither do you, and I wonder if he really even knows if they did or didn’t. Anything to distract from the fact our President couldn’t run a Staples to save his life and would be happy to force me to sell my school notebook to Planned Parenthood if he thought it would help them rip a child’s arms and legs off.
Hi Chris,
All good questions. I’m not interested enough to look. I wouldn’t vote for Romney regardless. You would vote for him over Obama even if he was previously a Vice President of Abortion Inc. (as long as he says he’s now “pro life.”)
CC: “Today’s GOP is beholden to the extreme right wing for whom abortion is THE litmus test for candidates.”
CC, please answer this: if Barack Obama had selected a pro-life running mate in 2008, would you have supported his candidacy? I genuinely don’t know the answer and am curious.
I’m not interested enough to look.
Oh. So you’re not here for any sort of constructive dialogue. You don’t want to actually talk about anything and try to change our attitudes or possibly adjust yours. You’re just trolling and trying to draw some ire. At least you’re admitting it now!
If anyone cares to know how the Romney speech to the NAACP went, check this out.
http://catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=46940
And it is misleading to say he was “roundly booed” without telling the full story.
By the way – damn straight, X! great post at 12:13
xalisae, I learned a few years ago that very little changing attitudes takes place around here. That’s not really a criticism, but simply an observation. I don’t think people who are solidly pro life are going to vote for President Obama, if it’s an important issue for them (like it is for most of the people who visit this site). Nor should they, Obama doesn’t agree with them on one of their most important issues. I’m okay with that. I do try to pop in now and then to urge that we (you) not demonize the President for simply holding different opinions (shared by a significant percentage of the rest of us)
I also like to point out when Ken tries to derail a topic. Like this one. If you notice, no one mentioned race in any context, even though Secretary Rice is African-American. (as is the President). Their race didn’t seem relevant to anyone here except our buddy Ken, who can’t seem to resist such comments whenever a black person is discussed in any context.
But, generally, you’re right. I don’t know if I’d call it trolling. But I am trying to help you all remember that you’re mostly talking amongst yourselves here and there is a sizable number of Americans who don’t share your views.
But it’s so easy to do so when those “different opinions” are that it’s okay to have your children killed in utero, or that it should be legal for children to be neglected to death after being born alive in an induced abortion! How can I resist!?!!?!!
There’s no word I can use to describe such “different opinions” and the actions of those with those “opinions” than EVIL.
PURE. EVIL.
1. Why would you say Biden is the “blackest man in his administration?
2. Why can’t you spell Democrat correctly?
3. Why do you continue using the “Bojangles” nickname?
4. Why did you call the NAACP crowd “colored people?
5. I understand you you are calling the late Senator Byrd a racist, but who else are you calling a racist?
HAL,
will try to be brief:
1. If there had been anyone ‘blacker’, b o would NOT have dispatched Joe. [‘clue’ the common denominator at the NAACP is not pigmentation, it is ‘liberal’. But they still cling to ethnic identity.]
2. Your premise is flawed. Not can’t, won’t:
x- I would argue that my chosen spelling is more correct than yours.
y- your premise implies that I am unable to spell ‘democrat’. I choose to spell it the way I do becasue it more accurately describes todays democRATs.
z- Here are a couple of quotes from the a king of the democRATs:
“As for the “liberal LBJ,” keep in mind that Johnson, when he was first elected senator, observed, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.””
“So why would Johnson make a big deal out of the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for these “uppity Negroes” (beside the fact that the Republican majority in Congress passed it into law)? Johnson, ever the consummate politician, saw this as a political plum. It would change black voting patterns for the foreseeable future and he knew it. Proof? Flying on Air Force One, President Johnson said to two governors, “I’ll have those niggers voting DemocrRATic for the next 200 years” (Ronald Kessler: “Inside The White House,” 1995, Simon & Schuster).”
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/are-blacks-hypocrites-or-stupid-part-1/
by Ben Kinchlow [Google> Images> Ben Kinchlow]
3. Because it annoys ‘artificial flowers’ whose indignation is accutely and chronically selective. Bill ‘bojangles’ Robinson was a gifted entertainer who demonstrated excellence at the crafts he practiced, unike ‘mr. bo-jangles’ who has yet to discover a single task that is NOT above his pay grade.
4. Pay close attention:
Nationa Association for the Advancement of
C O L O R E D
People
The members of the NAA[L]CP could change the name, but evidently they do not view it as anarchronistic and continue to embrace it as culturally relevant, at least to them.
5. Most of the assembled delegate at the annual convention of the NAA[liberal]CP.
If it was the annual convention of the Nation Association of Caucasian People, would you even be asking this question?
[I do admire your gift for brevity.]
3. I have seen ‘mr. bo-jangles’ dance and he can bust a move or two. If b o can’t live up to his oath of office, then the least he could do is entertain us as we slide into the oblivion of his ‘hope and change’.
I suggest something to the the tune of the ‘la o’bamba’. It might have spanish speaking people voting democRAT for the next 200 years. Then I will have to come up with some way to associate “La Cucaracha” with democRAT politicians.
hiCCup says:
“That’s unfortunate because she is awesome – and I say that as a democRAT. Today’s GOP is beholden to the extreme right wing for whom abortion is THE litmus test for candidates.”
No surprize that our most Clueless Commenter is enchanted by Condi RiCe.
This is yet another example of the ‘dead babies r us’ babble.
ChoColate gives us an example of a republican who is a member of the ‘dead babies r us’ mob and then tells us that the GOP is beholden to the extreme right wing who requires a litmus test for candidates. Never mind all the other GOP Congresspersons and Senators who also members of the ‘dead babies r us’ mob.
But what CroChet can’t do is name a single democRAT Congressperson or Senator who is NOT a member of the ‘dead babies r us’ possee.
CoCoa, Please tell us again who has a litmus test for more dead babies.
“Never mind all the other GOP Congresspersons and Senators who also members of the ‘dead babies r us’ mob.”
In the Senate, there are no senators who are 100% pro-choice. While some, such as Susan Collins and Mark Kirk, might vote choice on some legislation, they are not reliable. So please feel free, Ken (I could do cute things with your initials but that’s so lame), to name the dead babies R us US Senators.
As far as pro-life House Democrats. Here they are:
Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre, Daniel Lipinski, Colin Peterson, Henry Cuellar, Tim Holden and Nick Rahall. Marcy Kaptur rates a 30% NARAL rating so she’s more a reliable pro-life vote.
So I can’t name a single democRAT (oh, so clever) who is pro-lie (whoops, pro-life). Wrong again pal.
And FYI – Either Ken or somebody plagiarizing Ken’s comment on this thread posted on News Hounds as “Sod Buster.” Suffice to say, his vile and sexist commentary was deal with adroitly by the News Hounds folks. But he is, as he frequently reminds us, quite clever. He was also part of the anti-choice terrorist brigade back in the 90’s. Hopefully, law enforcement is keeping track of him.
Disregard Hal’s lying mouth. CNN has irrefutable proof that Romney left Bain when he said he did:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Thanks for the link, John.
CC, Never heard of the anti-choice terrorist brigade of the 90s. Can you fill us in on how terrifying they were?
But I am trying to help you all remember that you’re mostly talking amongst yourselves here and there is a sizable number of Americans who don’t share your views.
I appreciate that you’re being honest about this, but do you realize how ridiculous that goal is? The pro-life movement wouldn’t need to exist if there wasn’t a lot of opposition to it. We could, for the most part, pack up and go home and have a party for a while before the next big human rights violation came along (and it would). People don’t stand on the sidewalks in front of abortion clinics, or discuss strategies for winning key elections, or fund raise, or raise awareness, or any of it if they are running around thinking that everybody really agrees with them.
John Lewandowski says:
July 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Disregard Hal’s lying mouth. CNN has irrefutable proof that Romney left Bain when he said he did:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Well, if you’ll kill your own child, lying is DEFINITELY not beneath you.
If he left Bain when he said he did, he has even more explaining to do. Three years of forms saying he was in control of Bain, and earning over $100,000peer year for doing nothing?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/romneys-got-nothing.html
Hal’s graduated from linking The New Yorker nonsense to linking Andrew Sullivan, a man who spent years trying to prove that Sarah Palin’s youngest son is actually her grandson. Andrew Sullivan, a man who votes based on which candidate will make him feel the best about sodomizing his boyfriend. Oh, but Hal’s doing it because he just wants us to be informed about important issues. ROFL
oCCluded,
I am not quite as ‘liberal’ as you in identifying Congresspersons and Senators as ‘pro-life’, particularly, democRATs.
As I recall when obamascare was up for a vote, with it’s multiple provisions that no ‘reliable’ pro-lifer could support, the supposedly ‘pro-life democRATs’ [an oxymoron of devolutionary proportions] made noises like they were repulsed by the bill, but voted for it any way.
democRATs are the unabashed party of ‘choice’ for more dead babies. Only a fool and/or a liar would attempt to argue otherwise.
Third trimester, sex selection and forced abortions are just fine with this mob. Their lyin lips may claim otherwise but their actions demonstrate their hearts.
To claim to be pro-life and affiliate with the democRAT party would be like an abolitionist joining the klan in order to get elected.
You know like the dearly departed Robert KKK Byrd, except Byrd was never an abolitionist and he really sympahtized with the klans segregationist and racist views.
Any one with a lick of sense doesn’t place much confidence in what politicians say, we take note of what they do and how they vote.
I only have one murder in which I was complicit and I have acknowledged my culpability.
What is your body count?
oCCultist,
http://www.newshounds.us/20120614_greg_gutfeld_s_newest_abortion_joke_isn_t_very_funny
Sod Buster commented 28 days ago · Flag
“I guess when you’ve got nothing to say, the old slut shaming is the best you can do.”
[Cilla is pulling the ‘shaming wand’ illusion out of her worn hand bag of tricks.]
“I guess in Greg’s book, not all women are created equal, especially those who value their bodily autonomy.”
[Unlike feministas and feminazias, real women recognize we are all ‘created equal’. Women who ‘value’ their virtue make prudent decisions and a wise woman is not likely to dis-regard the equality of her pre-natal child.]
=============================================================
ColleCtivist,
My response to Cilias criticism of Greg Gutfeld’s ‘abortion jokes’ are in brackets.
Cilias ‘adroit’ reaction to my critque of her post are in italics.
Please point out the ms ogynism in my comments. My criticism was not directed toward all females/women, but only those gals who are intolerant of other women and men who do not share feminazis’ and feministas’ bigoted view of womanhood and who seem to calculatingly refuse to acknowledge the inherent differences between men and women.
Most of these feministas/feminazis are almost exclusively liberal/progressive/democRATs who have adopted an air of superiority to women who do not share their strident, doctrinaire and dogmatic idiotology.
EX-RINO dubbed me ‘Ken the birther’ and I proudly accept the doble entendre.
Sod Buster is my ‘screen name’ on Facebook. A site I visit only occasionally, but for convenience sake use to log on to other sites to offer commentary.
If any of the branches of government ever take an interest in me, they will have not any difficulty in determining my identity and how to contact me.
But if you are irresistably compelled to ‘rat me out’ please take note it is a felony to lie to a federal agent.
Choose your words carefully to avoid running afoul of the ‘law’ you purport to respect and obey.
TAke the survey, find out who would win in a contest between Ron Paul and Barrack Obama, and also see how Mitt Romney is affecting the solidarity of the Christian and Pro-life Vote!
goto:
CityOfAngelsNativeMission.TV
Stay classy John. And, Btw, Sullivan has a husband, not a boyfriend.
Condi Rice is quite willing to have certain restrictions such as banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notifications for minors seeking abortions. These restrictions would chip away at the complete legality of abortion. They would open the door to more restrictions.
Many European nations end legal abortion at the end of the 1st trimester or close to it.
Keep on telling lies, Hal. It’s all you’re good at. And Sullivan has a boyfriend who he pretends is his husband, even if that is totally absurd.
Today’s GOP is beholden to the extreme right wing for whom abortion is THE litmus test for candidates.
Have you ever seen a Democrat presidential hopeful ever choose an openly pro-life running mate? No? Didn’t think so. Not that’s just a coincidence. I guess abortion isn’t only a litmus test for the “extreme right”, as you put it.
I guess abortion isn’t only a litmus test for the “extreme right”, as you put it.
Agreed. While there are a few pro-life Democrats, they are getting aborted – either by the GOP candidate or by the more pro-choice Democrat who represents Democrats, the majority of whom are pro-choice. It is (certainly for me) a litmus test. But the fact remains that Rice’s moderate position on abortion will disqualify her from the position as Romney is playing to the GOP electorate which is, mainly, anti-choice.
I’m glad I don’t live in the second Congressional district in my state as the choice will probably be between a pro-life Democrat (if he wins the primary against an unpopular pro-choice member of congress) and a pro-life
Republican. I suspect I would “hold my nose” to vote Democratic in order to add to the D totals and hopefully get the house back. If that happens this guy will have very little power on choice issues.
“anti-choice”*
*only if that choice is to kill children in utero.
CC, (I normally don’t read your posts, but whatever I’m in a good mood today), so you’re admitting that abortion is just as much a litmus test for the extreme left as for the extreme right. Unless, of course you’re willing to do the mental gymnastics necessary in order to claim our position is extreme right but your isn’t extreme left.
Come to think of it, isn’t the Democratic side even more into litmus tests than the Republican side? I mean, correct me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t some recent Democratic presidential candidates actually said abortion is an absolute litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, whereas Republican candidates generally say “no litmus tests” and then add something vague about appointing people who will follow the Constitution? So really, who’s extreme on this issue?
ColoniC says,
“I suspect I would “hold my nose” to vote Democratic in order to add to the D totals and hopefully get the house back.”
There is no ‘suspecting’ to it. Its a sure thing.
You would vote for a dead rat if she had ’D‘ beside his name.
And you can drop the pretense of holding your nose.
The stench of the stinking rat has long ago rendered your olfactroy receptors totally worthless.
You’ve been doublin down on dumb luck and losin money on the instant replay for quite a while.
Or as that democrat put it so succinctly when asked if he would be supporting Mondull in his run aganist incumbent Ronald Reagan, “They’re aint no education in gettin kicked twice by the same mule.” [or getting bit twice by the same rat.]
Condi might help Mitt get elected — he believes in outlawing abortion.
As Vice-President, she has little to do with the matter.
If by some chance she became President, she is someone open to at least some major restrictions on abortion.
You could be shooting your cause in the foot by opposing her.