Condi for President!!!

[Bruzilla]

"yeah, girl, I respect Condoleezza and all and what she's done for herself, but I don't agree with how she does stuff...."

Here's your response: "Don't you realize that Bush doesn't know squat and if it weren't for Condi's help and advice the economy would be wrecked, seniors would be eating dog food like they did in the Clinton years, and terrorists would be blowing stuff up left and right! Condi doesn't do things because Bush tells her to, Bush does stuff that Condi tells him to do!"

Once all of the ideas are painted as coming from a strong black woman instead of a "weak" white man, you'll probably see her starting to find Republican positions much more palatable.

 

[rraley]

She's anti-gun control, anti-abortion, pro-religion... all the things that a good Republican should be.

First of all, Condi Rice for President is a tough question. I would like a Notre Dame graduate to be president, but I would prefer a Democrat....

Anyway, I need to question some of these assertions about Rice's positions on these issues; she isn't always all "things that a good Republican should be..."

On abortion...

On that vexing topic of abortion, Rice has reportedly described herself as "mildly pro-choice" on one occasion and "reluctantly pro-choice" on another.

Source

On Affirmative Action...

the highest-ranking African-American on the White House staff said she believes it is "appropriate" to consider race in college admissions

Source

Not entirely in line with the party.

 

[Bruzilla]

You see RR, you've fallen victim to the Democrat media machine.

On abortion, yes, there are some on the right that a vehemently anti abortion, while there are many Republicans who are pro-abortion (I'm one of them.) I thing that someone who is reluctantly in favor of abortion, and who can provide credible reasons why and more importantly, solutions to these issues, would do well with most Republicans.

As for affirmative action, I think that ranks about 40 out of 40 with most Republicans as a reason to vote for or against a President. Most Republicans have gotten where they are either by affirmative action, or despite affirmative action. In either case, we've arrived and don't look at it as a very big issue. The folks who do look at it as a big issue are usually Democrats who want it to stay around, and this would be another reason to vote Condi in 2008.

 

[Lenny]

But Gates was like a freak accident -- how often does someone do that well on those kinds of odds?

Jobs, Wozniak, Dell. . . . It all depends on the industry.

 

[rraley]

You see RR, you've fallen victim to the Democrat media machine.

On abortion, yes, there are some on the right that a vehemently anti abortion, while there are many Republicans who are pro-abortion (I'm one of them.) I thing that someone who is reluctantly in favor of abortion, and who can provide credible reasons why and more importantly, solutions to these issues, would do well with most Republicans.

As for affirmative action, I think that ranks about 40 out of 40 with most Republicans as a reason to vote for or against a President. Most Republicans have gotten where they are either by affirmative action, or despite affirmative action. In either case, we've arrived and don't look at it as a very big issue. The folks who do look at it as a big issue are usually Democrats who want it to stay around, and this would be another reason to vote Condi in 2008.

I like how holding these opinions of the Republican electorate and what it tends to support makes me one who has fallen for the Democratic media machine. I think that the GOP will not nominate a pro-choicer in the coming years and that the Democratic Party will not nominate a pro-lifer in the coming years...the religious right is far too strong in the GOP and the NARAL types are far too strong in the Democratic Party; that's fact...after all the Dems have never nominated a pro-lifer and the Republicans have never nominated a pro-choicer.

As for Rice's chances..she only gets 2% in the most recent Gallup poll among Republican primary voters...not the greatest launching pad especially since she has been in the national spotlight for four years.

 

[vraiblonde]

Condi doesn't do things because Bush tells her to, Bush does stuff that Condi tells him to do!"

And that's exactly correct. I don't think people truly understand what exactly a National Security Advisor or Secretary of State really does. This is NOT a toady position.

 

[rraley]

And that's exactly correct. I don't think people truly understand what exactly a National Security Advisor or Secretary of State really does. This is NOT a toady position.

I agree that the NSA is a VERY important advisor to the president, but the role of the Secretary of State has steadily declined to fall behind the Department of Defense since the end of the Cold War.

 

[Bruzilla]

I like how holding these opinions of the Republican electorate and what it tends to support makes me one who has fallen for the Democratic media machine. I think that the GOP will not nominate a pro-choicer in the coming years and that the Democratic Party will not nominate a pro-lifer in the coming years...the religious right is far too strong in the GOP and the NARAL types are far too strong in the Democratic Party; that's fact...after all the Dems have never nominated a pro-lifer and the Republicans have never nominated a pro-choicer.

As for Rice's chances..she only gets 2% in the most recent Gallup poll among Republican primary voters...not the greatest launching pad especially since she has been in the national spotlight for four years.

If that were the case, Bush would have never been nominated or elected! Bush has never come out and said he's anit-abortion to the best of my knowledge... a fact that drives Ann Coulter crazy! I think that there is a huge difference in abortion views between Republicans and Dems. On a national scale, and across the board, I don't think that you can point to the Republicans and see any real concensus on abortion. Many are pro-choice, many are pro-life, and many are like Vrai and I and are pro-abortion.

The Democrats on the other hand are fervently pro-abortion in any of its forms. I would much rather see a child aborted than brought into a home where it won't be loved, and I would much rather invest $500 of my tax dollars to abort the child than spend $100,000 keeping it in prison after a robbery its committing goes bad. But even I don't think that partial birth abortions should be legal. At that point the child should be born and offered up for adoption. I hear many Republicans who are moderates on abortion, but very few Democrats.

As for the all-powerful Religious Right, forgetaboutit. They're about as critical as the ultra-left of the Democrats. If the Religious Right had any real power, no Republican would ever get elected unless they were 100% anti-abortion and pro-church. They are vocal, but not many, and the Democrats like to make them out to be a bigger presence than they are to threaten non-religious people.

As for Rice only currently polling at 2%, that's because no one's really looking at candidates beyond Rudi and John at the moment. The conventional wisdom is that one of those two boneheads will get the nod, but trust me... that'll change once the campaigns start getting fired up and Republicans realize that neither of these guys is a good fit (and that's also assuming Rudi doesn't clean Hillary's clock in 2006.)

 

[rraley]

So President Bush has not come out and said that he's anti-abortion??? Where have you been the past five years?

Here's a refresher...

Bush has said he is opposed to abortion and would support a constitutional amendment making the procedure illegal - except in cases of rape, incest and when the woman’s life is jeopardy.

Source: Associated Press (as quoted on On the Issues)

Yeah it sounds like his positon on abortion is up in the air...Bush is solidly pro-life and you can see it throughout his record; don't give me anything about how he's a moderate on this issue.

As for the power of the religious right in the GOP...remember 2000. Remember how John McCain was gaining momentum and then he took on Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell...the "twin pillars" of the movement. We all recall how that ploy worked for McCain; losses in all but a couple New England primaries.

 

[Bruzilla]

So President Bush has not come out and said that he's anti-abortion??? Where have you been the past five years?

Here's a refresher...

Bush also has said that he would support a renewal of the AWB if it came to him, that doesn't make him anti-gun. With a Republican House, Senate, and White House, Bush could at least try to push a ban on abortion, but he's not, which is what is ticking off the anti-abortion crowd. If Bush was so anti-abortion, we would be talking abortion right now instead of social security... to the best of my knowledge, abortion isn't even on anyone's radar screens right now except for the case where the clinic messed up an embryo and the parents are suing. If Bush were truly anti-abortion, we would know it.

As for McCain, he didn't lose it because he took on the Religious right. He lost it because he showed himself to be a RINO. I know, I voted for him in the Maryland primaries and regretted it shortly thereafter. While the Religious right is a small segment of the Republican Party, it is a segment, and what McCain did was show a complete lack of respect for them. Then he turned his ire to gun owners and started blasting us, and talking about wanting more gun control, and that was it for me. Then he started talking about possible tax increases, while Forbes and Bush were making tax cuts the Republican priority, and he was finished. McCain shot himself in the foot on a lot more issues than the Religious right.

 

[vraiblonde]

McCain shot himself in the foot on a lot more issues than the Religious right.

I looked no further than McCain-Feingold to cross him off the list. I'd get incensed every time I saw that pinko on TV talking about it - "YOU CAN'T EFFING DO THAT!!!!", I'd shout. The whole concept of "campaign finance reform", the way McCain interpreted it, is just chilling to me.

 

[rraley]

I love how some Republicans think of John McCain as some "liberal." I think that that shows how rightward the party has turned (I don't think that either major party is truly home to moderation anymore). McCain has a lifetime Americans for Democratic Action (liberal special interest) rating in the 20s and he was given a 78% rating by the American Conservative Union in 2002. How is a record like that akin to being "liberal?"

 

[Larry Gude]

Good question...

ADA: 20%
ACU: 78%

A conservative would score something like...0% and 100%.

And that is the thing; McCain is a Republican, not a conservative. I'm glad he's in our party but he is a liberal Republican.

His greatest travesty is McCain/Feingold; blatantly limiting free speech.

Remember all the idiots who said we must have this legislation to get the money out of politics? Or at least reduce it?

Result: By far, BY FAR, the most money ever in a Presidential election. Can you imagine if we had a clown like George Soro's on our side?

Your side would be screaimg bloody murder that the election was bought.

The money is still there. Soro's is still there. What of the cries of too much money?

SILENCE.

Does that bother you?

 

[Bruzilla]

And now today the news is that McCane is wanting to force local broadcasters into devoting more news time to covering local elections! He's saying that local candidates with little money for advertising need to be given airtime by broadcasters to make up for the short fall. Aye carumba! From what I've seen, there's little time given to local elections because most people have a good handle on what the local issues are and they just want to know where the candidates stand on them. That doesn't consume a lot of airtime, nor does it need to. Second, why should weak candidates who no one is supporting get a freebee for being a loser?

And RR, you also forgot one of the biggest reasons why a lot of Republicans don't like/trust McCane. Remember back in 2003/2004 when he was having his little "affairs" with Democrats and the buzz was that he might get picked as a VP for a democratic candidate? He was going to meetings with the Dem decision makers even as he was handing out weak denials to the press. We don't need another Jim Jeffords, and we damn sure don't need one in the White House.

 

[Toxick]

I love how some Republicans think of John McCain as some "liberal."

It's no different than how democrats paint Fox News as conservative.



Story time:

I remember one time I was at an amusement park - I'm thinking it was King's Dominion, because for some reason I'm associating this particular attraction with Yogi Bear.

Anyway...

This attraction at this amusement park was a gussied up bear cave and the marks are wondering about looking at cave drawings, and hiding in various cave-nooks, and exploring their way through.

Kind of like a fun-house at any carnival, but with a bear-cave theme.



So you get close to the end of the tour, and to get back outside you go through this 40-50 foot long hallway with a wooden floor that is rolled along its Y axis at about a 40 degree angle toward the port side. (Visual: Put your right arm straight out with the palm of your right hand facing the floor - rotate your wrist 40 degrees counterclockwise... that's the floor).

So you walk along this hallway, and you exit onto flat level earth.

And the entire world feels like it just banked to the starboard side - BIG time.




I hope that analogy makes sense. The moral of the story is
Liberals consider moderates and independants to be conservative.
Conservatives consider moderates and independants to be liberal.

That's why you get conservatives calling McCain a 'liberal'.
That's why you liberals calling Fox News a bunch of 'neocons'



For another interesting comparison:
Witness how liberals consider Bill Clinton to be a "moderate".

 

[vraiblonde]

I hope that analogy makes sense.

Makes perfect sense. Bernie Goldberg's new(er) book, Arrogance, picks up on this where Bias left off. Liberals don't think they're liberal - they think that abortion rights, for example, are like saying the grass is green. Completely obvious and no need to debate it or consider a different POV. Everyone they know thinks the exact same way, so they think that means everyone in the country does, too, except for the crazy people.

Conservatives don't have that problem - they can rely on facts and statistics rather than just surrounding themselves with like-minded individuals. And before you libs start going off, it's not a coincidence that Free Republic welcomes all viewpoints and the DU bans those who step out of the "progressive" mold.

 

[Bruzilla]

It really bothers me how quickly, and without much thought, people accept the fact that Fox News is conservative, or dominated by conservatives, or too far to the right; and how others accept this as a point of fact without really looking at the channel.

Fox News Channel is, and has been, the only balanced news channel on TV. If you look at their staff at any given time since it's been on the air, it's balanced nearly equally between Liberals and Conservatives. When you contrast this to say CNN, where you have a preponderance of Liberals and one or two tokein conservatives, it makes FNC appear to be more conservative than it is. For many liberals, balanced means six or seven Liberals off-setting one Conservative, or in the case of PBS, six Liberals and no Conservatives.

I wish people would counter people who say Fox is too Conservative rather than just say "Well CNN is too Liberal."

 

[ylexot]

For many liberals, balanced means six or seven Liberals off-setting one Conservative, or in the case of PBS, six Liberals and no Conservatives.

Maybe 6 or 7:1 is even

 

[vraiblonde]

It really bothers me how quickly, and without much thought, people accept the fact that Fox News is conservative, or dominated by conservatives, or too far to the right; and how others accept this as a point of fact without really looking at the channel.

People do not do this - wacky liberals do this. Shoot, over at the DU they think Katie Couric and Chris Matthews are Bushbots spouting right-wing propaganda - they have whole threads about this.

But that's okay. Because as soon as someone starts going off on Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I know I can safely disregard anything they have to say and I don't waste my time on them anymore.

 

[SamSpade]

It really bothers me how quickly, and without much thought, people accept the fact that Fox News is conservative, or dominated by conservatives, or too far to the right; and how others accept this as a point of fact without really looking at the channel.

I'm a big fan of FOX News, but it only takes me five minutes of watching "Fox and Friends" on an average weekday, watch any of their Sunday shows, or watch their regular hosts handle liberal guests to know which way the wind blows. True, they do give airtime to the likes of Terry McAuliffe, Susan Estrich, Al Sharpton and Geraldine Ferraro - but they ain't as cozy to them as they are to say, Newt Gingrich. You'll see Brian Kilmeade rip Janeane Garofalo a new one, but he ain't doin' the same to Ann Coulter (and I *like* Ann).

I like the network - but it IS conservative. My answer to that is - so what?

To their *credit* - they will balance guests and points of view and get opposing points from creditable sources - unlike other networks who'll have the "conservative" point of view represented by some nut job. To their *credit* - people like Chris Wallace WILL ABSOLUTELY take conservative guests to task as easily as a liberal one (partly, I suppose, because he's no conservative).

Yes, there's more balance on their network - but Neil Cavuto and Oliver North have their own shows, and they aren't liberals. It's owned by a man famous for conservative media outlets. It IS a conservative network.